Capitalism has failed, let's consider other options

a reply to: payta

Either way, thing is we DON'T have to follow nature's law,

Maybe it depend on how you look at nature though. Maybe man always fall within the remit on nature..

thank you for your reply..

purp..

a reply to: Honcho

I'd have to disagree. If you look at nature, organisms have to fight for territory,

That is not correct. I have spent several years studying ecosystems. There are far more beneficial mechanism and symbiosis than there is competition.

Look at the fungi kingdom for example over 90% of the plant kingdom really on them for mutuality.. There share signals with plants, nutrients and allow plants to send communication to each other through the fungi network.

We could learn a lot if we had the eyes to look.


purp..

originally posted by: purplemer
That is not correct. I have spent several years studying ecosystems. There are far more beneficial mechanism and symbiosis than there is competition.

Look at the fungi kingdom for example over 90% of the plant kingdom really on them for mutuality.. There share signals with plants, nutrients and allow plants to send communication to each other through the fungi network.

We could learn a lot if we had the eyes to look.

Ah, so you want to remove all social security frameworks...nice to know.

I say this because...what else to fungi do? Ah yes, kill and consume any biological life that is not strong enough to survive their 'symbiotic' tendencies.

Fungi operate in nature the same way as everything else in nature...one rule...survive, or not.

I sincerely hope you don't want a 'nature based' economic systems, because we already have the literature for it...Pure Capitalism. No hold's barred. Survive, or not.

a reply to: peck420

I suggest you spend a little more time in nature.

Einstein once asked what a i thought to be pertinent question. Is the universe friendly..

think about it..

purp..

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Theories to the right of humanity, physics-chemistry-biology-humans-... Are based soley on human existens. Logically they would not exist if humans did not exist. So what does that tell us, well that the result on the theory is based on what the majority think about it. For example if 60% of the world thinks that capitalism is the best way of going about things, becouse if capitalismen would not be used in that case 60% of the world would dissaprove of whatever economic system what is place. This is ofcourse based on the idea that those 60% also strongly dissaprove of all other theories.
I know that what i wrote might sound sketchy at first, but play with the idea. Theories in the social spectrum are almost always soley based on not only human existens but also human thought, so wheter the idea is percived good or bad is subjective and in these cases a majority of subjective opinions one way or the other form a form of objectivness.

Fungi? OMG. You cannot compare passive plants to animal life.

You really are making a stretch here.

originally posted by: 35Foxtrot
Fungi? OMG. You cannot compare passive plants to animal life.

You really are making a stretch here.

mushrooms are not plants. they have their own kingdom and are more closely related to animals. nor are plants passive if you choose to look. would you consider ecosystems passive too. we as humans are part of them and would not exist without them.

I just had an aneurysm reading this...how many perks will it be to have it clipped?

Seriously though

I am all for controlling the outright destruction of classes. I am all for giving a TRULY equal opportunity start to anyone and everyone. It is my opinion that if 10 people are on a pedestal (imagination time) and that pedestal is at an equal distance from a goal that each desire and each person has not a single obstruction in their path; then I don't feel a darn bit sorry for a person who walked 5 feet, sat down, said I am tired, then yelled "HOW COME I DIDN'T GET THAT?!"

bull...

Problem is humans are so very...well varied!

People have legitimate disability. People have legitimate illness. I feel those who try or wish to try but are incapable due to disability need our assistance. So long as we are not trying to stop a certain race, sex, orientation, class (whatever) from starting on equal ground then I am aces with the whole system. But that isn't who we are. Lobbies...powers...they will do all they can to lower or distance the platforms.

But...OP's solution has three massive problems

1. The solution is STILL capitalist. OP, I love that you are putting thought where many don't. I promise you these following words are not of anger. But here is my issue. If you think that a barter/perk system cannot put a person in debt, I'm afraid you are flat wrong. PS4 time

My neighbor wants a PS4 and I have one and realize...eh I don't want it anymore. Neighbor says "hey I'll take it...what's the price?" I say "clean my house."

Ok...fair play. He cleans my house and I deliver PS4...good

Now here is where the problem kicks in big time. Let's say he wants to borrow said PS4 because my asking "price" is too high? He wants a PS4 and I (being greedy as humans do) request a house clean, massage, chop multiple cords of wood, etc and he determines..yeah no. What if he really wants that PS4? What if I am the only owner of one who is in the disposition to sell/loan? I CAN still take a loan on him. My terms...

"Neighbor, you can borrow this PS4 until you pay it off. My original asking price was to clean my house. The terms are you will clean my house...AND now chop my wood once per month (interest). Should you fail to chop my wood by the 5th of each month, you will then have to chop my wood AND do my son's English homework. You will do one page of homework for each day you are late on the wood chopping. Since you were late, I will now say you also owe an extra cord of wood per month. Even IF however you make you deadline of ONE house clean and one wood chopping session per month, you will continue to chop until I feel the value of said PS4 (including my interest terms) are paid."

See the issue? That leads me right to problem 2

2. You're "perks" are nothing more than a symbolic money. Like it or not, those "perks" have and create value. I work 40 hours per week. I get (i dunno) 10 "perks" in my current position. Ok good. Suddenly my coworker leaves his job and I am qualified. If I work harder or move to his position I get 20 "perks." Now I have found increased value for increased labor. Capitalism.

3. If however you have decided to cap me, you create a huge problem. The problem is, people are not only greedy, they are lazy. Sure the inventor of the Polio vacc may have given it away for free but how often does it happen? I adore Lou Malnatti's pizza. Would they have had the ability to withstand the debt if they'd just given away their pizza? How long do they last?

But that isn't the whole issue. The issue is this. Let's say you make the cap 1000 "perks" per week for the biggest most "valuable" job and I get that job. BAM! Perks everywhere...Kyo is a hard worker! He wants more perks. But wait...I could add another 10 hours to my work life...but no more perks? What's my reason now for working harder? I am at the plateau. period.

These systems, while divine on paper fail to realize that people are lazy and greedy. Take away competition and you lose innovation or the desire to innovate. Why should I try to improve my smartphone concept? Not going to get me anymore perks. I am maxed out...what's the point...

And that is typically the biggest problem...

But again...I love your spirit and your continued pursuit of a better life. I just don't see it here friend

Well, I believe that capitalism has been deliberately sabotaged. Things "fail" on their own. Sabotage is a different animal.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

How do you suspect it was sabotaged?

Capitalism was a failure from the get go. It failed...or was "sabotaged" as you say, because humans are what they are. You give them a system which requires one to climb a ladder and kick everyone's teeth in on the way up to survive, and you get the reality we all live in now.

If it was sabotaged, it was done so in its natural evolution.

How on earth do you see capitalism working a) well and b) ad infinitum?

Things have to evolve beyond capitalism. And to be honest, it isn't that it's capitalism that has ultimately failed. What has failed is monetary economics.

Capitalism, communism, socialism...all the politically ideological ism's, all use money and central banking. This is the fault and the main reason as to why they are all failed ideologies.

Monetary economics inherently divides and stratifies society through those that have and those that have nothing.


We will never see humanity succeed on earth as long as we keep the charade of money calling all the shots.

a reply to: KyoZero

just figured I'd come back in and point out yet again, after perk cap you can keep working to get more time off either at the caps level of living or even more time off at the lower standard of living. Also you are not stuck at the job you are in, you can work to get other jobs with higher caps, ect. There's plenty of motivation to work harder and longer, it means time not working with a higher standard of living.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

That's what I was trying to do, get rid of money while still providing motivation to work harder and still rewarding harder jobs that benefit humanity more.

Personally another problem I have with capitalism is it rewards less important things more than those that are actually important to the survival of humanity.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
a reply to: BrianFlanders

How do you suspect it was sabotaged?

Are you kidding?

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
a reply to: BrianFlanders

How do you suspect it was sabotaged?

Are you kidding?

Are you? Do you always leave minimalist replies? Jeezus Christopher. Elaborate!

If money is baseless and our debt is off the charts, why not raise everyone's wage, raise unemployment pay and what not, and tell the banks to eff off? What actually prevents this from happening?

I have a feeling it's us...

originally posted by: SKurtle
If money is baseless and our debt is off the charts, why not raise everyone's wage, raise unemployment pay and what not, and tell the banks to eff off? What actually prevents this from happening?

I have a feeling it's us...

Yes, in a way, IF, you are talking about revolting against the "Owners of Capital".

Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level.

Why?

Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a reason they don’t want people dropping out of high school and then at the same time, encourage those same high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and finally a Masters degree or PhD. Government strong-arms this because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone looking for, able, qualified for and willing to work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort. Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their cohort.

Basically the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for full-time, career type, employment for 6-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!!!

This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for work and typically found it, that’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Not to the specific detriment of society, but to continue to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy as the increased minimum education levels for employment, with the real goal of decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market at the same time, but at the same time, not decreasing the supply. This cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners/SSI and the disabled on government assistance. If everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY, as many “capitalists” and "entrepreneurs" suggest these days, we would ALL be making 0.25 cents a day.

The “owners of capital” have already decided, FOR US REGULAR PEOPLE, that there are going to be LESS jobs available in the NEAR future, due to increased automation and modern, corporate, labor cost-cutting measures. These measures will affect and include ALL contract work, ALL self-employment opportunities and ALL small businesses, NOT JUST payroll laborers.

Its easier to “pay less” or “nothing at all” to contracted or indentured “labor” when there is another willing laborer/slave waiting in the wings to do the work for less or nothing at all. In the past when there wasn’t enough money to go around to pay both wages & PROFITS, the “owners of capital” simply brought in more indentured servant immigrants (Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc) or used flat out slave labor (Blacks, Native Americans, domestic prisoners, POW’s, etc). The only difference between now and then is that “owners of capital” can’t LEGALLY have slaves or indentured servants. The mechanisms today that replaces slaves and indentured servants are the following: longer than needed formal education for basic employment, off-shoring of labor, forced retirement, prisoners and welfare.

The largest “recorded” wage increase to happen in history, for non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency, was after the black death pandemic, in the 14th century, especially in post-pandemic England.

How is that possible?

Because “the owners of capital”, post the black-death-pandemic, still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people. So, in order for ANY work to get done, they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables more money, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at work today, when you take the time to recognize that sizable portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim themselves as disabled or collect long/short term welfare.

Here is some more history to consider from the 14th century, the Peasants Revolt was triggered by the "Statute of Labourers 1351". By 1381, the sustained wage growth for non-land owing, wage-laborers was rising so quickly that the English parliament, a few decades post the Black-Death, under King Edward III, introduced the "Statute of Labourers 1351". It was used by the "Owners of Capital", as an artificial means to drive down the wages of non-land owning peasants. Despite market conditions signalling the need for increased wages.

The Statute of Laborers; 1351 ("Statutes of the Realm," vol. i. p. 307.)

Think about that for a minute, the MARKET signaled that wages should have been higher, due to actual labor shortages caused by the Black Death, but the “owners of capital” still didn't want to pay it, so they wrote a law saying why they didn't have to conform to demands of the market.

Deep reply man, I hear what you are saying, but another solution would be to stop charging people for living costs while jobs are scarce, long story short, robots handle labour while humans chill...


We say we're driving the species forwards, but we're all just sat on a great big rock, spinning around inside a gigantic black bubble. The only place we're driving the species is to extinction.

Houses, food, heating should always be available, the earth has enough resources for it, we know we could be researching things other than weapons, in order to "drive the species forwards", the only reason we pay for things and people are struggling to survive, is because a few people said it should be so and no one argued.

Silly species

a reply to: SKurtle

I agree with that. The truth is, there's no logical reason with todays technology people should need to work their lives away in the first place, nor is there any reason even the lowest of us should be without a home or starving.

Actually here let me put it this way. Those in prison have a higher standard of living than the poor of the world. We're totally f'd up as a species.

Economics is far from exact science, rules are made along the way and lots of uncertanties. With us being the biggest risk of all. We evolved in this ecosystem as all other lifeforms. But somewhere along the line we aquired a unique skill. Both the best and worst thing that could ever happen. And we've been underminig the system that created us with increasing reach ever since.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not concerned about the planet. Most life has come and gone. But we have come such a long way, been through so much stuff. And maybe this is not the proper place for these sentiments, but to me it strikes in the core of these issues we're having.

Life is short, we get to enjoy it for alittle while. And it absolutely breaks my heart to see so many suffering a life that should be and could be so much better. We have gained so much and we are sharing so little. I'm confused where human nature lies. Is it about survival as some suggest? Or is there more?

I feel that if we ever want to have a better system WE first have to become better ourselves.

im guessing most ideas presented could never get off the ground because it involves some sort of movement or action that is blocked by the stalemate the world is at: we see the need for change but struggle to define how it works, who gets what and if its better.

A world debate would be a good thing: to see what was suggested, who was for what. Possibly that might lead to some good ideas and change. we could have parties of shared views, countries v personal wishes. the ideas could be evaluated and possibly implemented.

but as mentioned its a stalemate, no one is coming up with ideas strong enough or action strong enough to break the stalemate.