It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Capitalism has failed, let's consider other options

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: snowen20

Following your logic, rape and murder should be legal, as no one has the right to prevent others from doing harm.

Excessive hording of wealth resulting in a harmful distribution of wealth does excessive harm to others, often resulting in a short life of hardship and suffering resulting in early death for the many over the few.

Excessive wealth is harmful to the masses of humanity, it is a crime against humanity.




posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
A paradigm shift away from personal gain and greed is the only fix to this issue.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




So first you say nothing stops them. Then you blame startup cost and the locals for them not doing it? Oh and you blame laziness of the people involved.



?
Im not sure why you are saying the above
Didnt I already state there was little point to communes.
Life is easier feeding off the states nipple



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Borisbanger

Resource is finite therefore its management is what we are talking.g about. Should resource be funneled into the top percentage an unequivocal no is the answer. But should resource be haphazardly distributed and drained by the masses no again. So how then do we manage and or appropriate resource more appropriately?

I'm saying hippie commune who's with me ketsuko your invited don't feel left out



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

The other thing I don't think you understand is that the extravagantly wealthy don't get and stay that way by hoarding their wealth. You have to invest wealth to get it to make more wealth for you.

The popular image of the Scrooge McDuck money vault isn't really accurate.

Yes, the super-wealthy enjoy the benefits of amassing wealth, but there is far more of it busily working to create more wealth and it does that through commerce and investment in commerce. And commerce is where we find businesses and businesses are where we find jobs for ordinary folks like you and me.

Heck, even the money the super rich spend on their disgusting toys goes into someone else's pockets.

Look at just the yacht or the private jet - someone has to build and sell those. There are whole businesses making money on those items. People getting a paycheck every step of the way.


edit on 1-3-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

We are not talking about rape and murder, we are talking about accumulation of wealth either by means of hoarding ie "to save" OR by greed ie "to get more than one deserves". In this case you are the one using a Reductio ad absurdum as an argument, not me. When you equate gathering of wealth to rape and murder you are committing a logical fallacy.

Nevertheless, I have not yet disagreed with you in whole. I only find flaws in certain aspects of your ideology. Specifically the aspect of forcing others to commit to principles that are not their own.

Please explain to me (non inductively) how all people who have an abundance of wealth are equal in status to those who rape and murder.
By the way, I'm not wealthy, I am a middle class video game artist nothing more.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Thank you for the bread crums now I know why we need our ruling oligarchs.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Capitalism is fine at ita core, we just need beter regulation and rules. Also, less consumption of less needed things. We cant let our petty demands drive our species 6 feet asunder.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: ketsuko

Thank you for the bread crums now I know why we need our ruling oligarchs.


Hey! I'm just pointing out that the rich don't sit on all their money. I wasn't commenting on how right or moral it may or may not be. Only how it works.

As for my own job, I work at a medium size company owned by two brothers. A chunk of their wealth is tied up in the company. Certainly they enjoy the material benefits of owning their own company, but most of the money is tied up in the business and growing the business. And my paycheck is part of that. You want to crack down on them and tell them they make too much and have too much wealth because no one is worth that, and I might lose my paycheck.

My husband is in the same boat only writ a whole lot larger. His company is multi-national and still owned by the founding family. If I am at risk under this system, his job is definitely on the chopping block because I KNOW his employer has more then they're worth.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Sure, I've got an idea to replace capitalism. A society based on a merit system. As simple as that. The more you contribute to society, the wealthier you become. Call it "Philanthropism". So whenever you see someone driving up in a Lamborghini, you know they got it from being a good person and not off the backs of the poor. When you see the likes of Donald Trump, you know they made their money not off real estate, but from contributing to mas employment opportunities (which he does in the form of construction jobs) health, science and leading innovative ideas.

So where's the money in good deeds? Where's the profit you may ask. How does helping people with less opportunity turn a profit and make you rich? It's hard to get a capitalist head around making money from good deeds and that's because based on the current model, you can't. You must change the game plan. So how can "Philanthropism" make a return on investment? Simple. Well maybe not so easy at first but the concept is. Downsize the government and let the people dole out the cash cow.

Instead of sending in our PST to the government, we put it in a separate entity by the people for the people. Every single thing you do is categorized in a merit earning point system. The more points you have, the more money is earned. Clean up a street, earn x-points. Volunteer in a hospital, earn x-points. Design an infrastructure which aides the homeless, environment or creates jobs, even more points. You get the idea. The current system can still work too. You can continue your day job, punch in/ punch out, get your paycheck and carry on with your life like the rest of us slave zombies and do nothing. Or you can participate in the new system and collect a little gravy on top of what you normally make.

My guess is, seeing that world is made of greed, it won't take long for those hungry enough to earn more will go out and try to buy a $300,000 home based off pure x-points. Or go on that vacation earned from points from volunteering 1000 hours of community services. Volunteer work should be rewarded. Not just rewarded emotionally or on your resume, but rewarded on a merit system which can be cashed in. Within 10 years a dramatic change in society would not only be noticeable but would trickle down to the lower class. Self-entitlement would disappear among the youth and people will be biting at the bit to volunteer their time, mind, energy to assist in the merit system to buy that first home, new car or what have you.

The gap divide would change exponentially. The poor will be poor because they don't give a crap. The rich would be rich because they do. Roles would be diametrically reversed and when you see a "poor" person, the stereotype and stigma we use on them now, would be correct in the modern sense of "what we think about them". In reality, poor people are actually more giving than wealthy people as it is now with the current capital system we have. And rich people are tight. This is the unbalanced world we live in. Rich people should be rich because they are good people, not because they're dirty capitalists.

So there you have it. My idea for a new "capitalist" society. Reward volunteers with points they can cash in for homes, cars trips and suddenly you will see a shift in thinking. I can say without a doubt I would not be sitting here on the sofa wasting my time inside if I can earn a vacation or a new home by helping someone out. And downsize that damn government, it's just a black money pit anyway. Waste waste waste.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

"Capitalism is a failed system,"
Really?
As you type those words on technology produced by the capitalist system ? Seriously ?

Capitalism does have issues which need to be continuously addressed.
But at least it gives people the freedom to innovate - absent in your system.

What you describe is a central planning system, like communism, which has true 100 year record of failure and mass murder.

Read history



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes my whole family owns businesses father. Brother. In fact my brother and I used to be partners, but its tough because brothers like us will litterly throw down on the job sight if we disagree and scare our employees off happend at least twice five years ago. We work in the Fire alarm and Intrusion alarm acsess control cctv tech industry. It is true very much over head exists in a small business and if your doing it right you invest in your company and you don't steal from the bottom line. All I'm saying is money=resource resource is finite money not as Much so( we are only limited by how much we can print) so essentially this system can not survive alone by this basic fact. Don't get me started on the homeless and our ideas of shelter an help.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Maybe I'm stupid, but it seems to me this "Perks" system just replaces the pay check I get with "perks." Whatever that is. Who decides these perks and to whom they are distributed and in what manner?
I get it that you're trying to make the system more "moral" but I don't think this is the way.
Under your Perk system, wouldn't those in the positions currently occupied by business owners, CEOs, entrepreneurs, etc still be compensated (and since their jobs make many others possible, compensated with significantly more perks)?
Sounds like capitalism to me.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: snowen20

It results in famine, pestilence, death and desperation for billions of people that's how it equates.

You kill someone you hurt them and their family. You hold 80% of the wealth, while billions starve and are dying from malnutrition with meager or no shelter, you've done much worse.
edit on AMSun, 01 Mar 2015 10:57:09 -060001America/Chicago3092015Sundayf by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: 35Foxtrot
Maybe I'm stupid, but it seems to me this "Perks" system just replaces the pay check I get with "perks." Whatever that is. Who decides these perks and to whom they are distributed and in what manner?
I get it that you're trying to make the system more "moral" but I don't think this is the way.
Under your Perk system, wouldn't those in the positions currently occupied by business owners, CEOs, entrepreneurs, etc still be compensated (and since their jobs make many others possible, compensated with significantly more perks)?
Sounds like capitalism to me.


It is capitalism, with a twist. That's why it's still a win/win. It's a system within a system and in time the evolutionary process of it will eventually make the "old" system obsolete in terms of cash money. We don't even really need money now with debit cards and the digitization of cash. It's already a "points" system except it's rewarding both criminal and entrepreneurial businesses. This concept removes the criminal aspect of Capitalism and replaces it with Philanthropists. Same system but with a higher morality. And yes, someone(s) going to need to monitor perks. Defraud the system once and you go back to 0. Poor and homeless.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

To answer that requires going into the nitty gritty, but no one will own a business, they will manage it, and how much perks they get are directly connected to how well what they manage does. If the "employees" do well, and there's good production, then they do well as well. Is complicated, this is all mostly brainstorming and discussion.

Perks are similar to money, except that unlike money, perks is better regulated. They can't be given away, they can't be reduced below the standard of living they represent, nor can they allow one to go above the standard of living it caps at.

As for the current corporate fat cats, in my opinion most of them are criminals, I'd love to see them tried and convicted for crimes against humanity for which they are responsible.

That being said, this is a thought project, obviously those in power would be the enemy of anything trying to remove them from their throwns.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
So if you choose to bust your ass 80 hours a week 7 days out of the week with maximum efficiency at a job that allows for it, then you can rapidly build up long periods of vacation time, even potentially early retirement if you work for it.



The only problem with that is somewhere between your 40th and 80th hours, your body and mind start to wear down to the point where you cannot be as productive as you were when you started. Unless you do a lot of certain drugs, of course. You cannot put out maximum efficiency in the long term at that rate. It is physically and mentally impossible, thus shooting down the reason you're doing it in the first place.

A brand of socialism that puts the emphasis on what the work does for the community, for the common good, would be a much better alternative than a member of a society simply working for their own gain without regard to the community in which they live. This is what happens with a money-based system. Personal greed sets in, competition for the sake of it takes hold and before you know it, you have people running around like chickens with their heads cut off that, in time, forget why they're working so hard in the first place. The people who see more benefit in everyone working to be their own king are naive to this reality.

Instead of competing with each other, which is what capitalism eventually leads to, people need to be competing with the shortcomings of their communities and beat them with the work they do. What this will lead to used to be obvious in generations past: A stable, productive and content community will lend itself to the work that needs to be done to maintain that lifestyle. It's a positive cycle that feeds itself.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
...There will be people at all levels who will game the system. The more complicated you make it, the easier it will be to game and get advantage out of.


I've thought a lot...too much...about what a better system than capitalism would be. I think ANY system we implement at this time will fall victim to human failings in the apt quote above.

Until we 'fix' the human desire to cheat and get ahead I'm afraid whatever system we use will be ruined by ourselves.

Good thread topic to discuss thou!



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1Providence1
Capitalism is fine at ita core, we just need beter regulation and rules. Also, less consumption of less needed things. We cant let our petty demands drive our species 6 feet asunder.


At this point I see it as the Communist Manifesto is being brought to a door near you. In order to overthrow free people they must morally and financially bankrupt the "target" countries. IF our FBI and SEC would prosecute Wall St bankers for high crimes, Capitalism would be seen by more as being fair and working properly. When the people in charge of filing charges go after the little crimes of the lower and middle classes and then in turn seem to be letting the bigger crimes go unchallenged THAT part of our system has failed. That WILL drag down a capitalist society down and fills the "Manifesto's" plans to a "T".
edit on 1-3-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I agree withholding wealth from others is not a good thing especially if it "equates" to death and famine.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that holding wealth is bad in general. Nor does it equate to crimes against humanity.

Moreover, accepting that holding a sum of wealth does not necessarily mean that one is tolerant of rape and murder or famine.

Aside from that, on a different issue. What amount of wealth is sufficient for you to cap? That is to say, at what point does puppylove say "That's enough wealth for you!"?

Is it a billion dollars, million, one hundred thousand? I ask because I have seen people of all wealth classes cause an abundance of problem with their greed. They do not have to be excessively wealthy to cause turmoil in the world for others less fortunate. Though one should be honest when looking at the amount given to charity by those of the highest levels of wealth as opposed to those in lower classes.

I for one have given probably a total of 57,000 Us dollars to "some form of charity" over my entire adult life, I'm 36 now.
Someone having say 350,000,000 US dollars may have given 350 times as much as I have or ever will. They may also be giving to people around them in large sums unbeknownst to us. This last sentence is an invalid argument on my part though maybe pertinent in a way.
So does their good deed go unheard because of their wealth? Should I be chastised for being unable to give as much to help others as someone who is my financial superior? OR am I innocent because I am living in their shadow, and I am unable to give as much as them because they control my life via currency?
Are they still committing crimes against humanity when they give more money to charities than Ill ever be able to give in my lifetime? Are they committing crimes against humanity when they offer me work in order for me to sustain myself in exchange for something I can offer them? I don't particularly care for "fat cats" but I see them as a necessity in my life one way or the other. Not as mere acceptance, but more as a symbiotic relationship.

One may argue that the choice of charity that wealthy give to only goes back into their own pocket in the end. This may be the case, however can it be reasonably argued that 20 million dollars in charity wasn't used properly to say feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe children, educate them perhaps?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join