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.

 

Capitalists - you really don't see a problem?

page: 17
32
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Nope. Adam Smith and enlightenment era thinkers began working on economics that involved aspects of what would become capitalism. It first came from Hume, Locke, and Roseau. These were ideas that guided men and women as to how to act. Without these philosophical principles the free market most likely wouldn't exist.

The economy does not just happen. It's guided by human action. It is also guided through subversive acts of politics and central banking and economic planners. The less one takes this into account the more corruption and less free the market will be.

Marx as flawed as his concepts are predicted very closely what would happen in capitalist system. This is because once you understand philosophical principles of human action you can predict outcomes. Same way you can say a socialist system will give far too much power to a central government.




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Reality just happens.

Did I describe that correctly?

I mean the description that you have been posting here for years, free markets don't happen the way you describe them.

What you describe never happens at all.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Capitalism is like fire, it can either keep you warm or burn you up. The problem is right now, that we are headed for an economic singularity, where a HUGE amount of money will fall into a very small groups control, and the rest of us will live in misery. Democracy, a return to control of our governments, and the rule of law are the only thing that can stop it.
edit on 8-4-2016 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Tell me how Switzerland, France, Germany, Norway.... Show me their evil dictators and how they are using money to kill in foreign countries, or putting all types of chemicals in their food, water, etc.

I'll wait. Show me something credible proving to me that our quality of life, in the richest nation in the world, is as high as a place like Switzerland.


Switzerland is largely propped up by a banking industry that funds wars, strip mining, payday loan operations in the US and generally anything that will turn a coin. They aren't exactly the altruistic visionaries you think they are. Sorry to burst your bubble.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: openminded2011
Capitalism is like fire, it can either keep you warm or burn you up. The problem is right now, that we are headed for an economic singularity, where a HUGE amount of money will fall into a very small groups control, and the rest of us will live in misery. Democracy, a return to control of our governments, and the rule of law are the only thing that can stop it.


I agree. Completely with this.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You make a good point.. I've never seen true capitalism and a free market and it might be argued no one has, yet the theory is debated to death, without any proof it will ever work and benefit the citizens.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Its easier to have a utopia in a smaller nation period. The United States has close to 400 million people its a false equivalency. Germany has a lesser quality of live the US btw.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: BoxFulder
a reply to: deadlyhope

Its easier to have a utopia in a smaller nation period. The United States has close to 400 million people its a false equivalency. Germany has a lesser quality of live the US btw.


Says who. On what ever index there is for such a thing they are pretty far apart. Germany being 4 US being twelve. Not sure how this is truly proven. Nor is it a relevant comparison as you say. Apples and oranges.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

The honest truth is nobody knows. You do the best you can by studying history and philosophy. It's not as much a science as economists make believe. It's a philosophical principle human being have though deeply about and created in the world. It's very important to read about the revolutions particularly the French Revolution. The enlightenment thinkers and in particular Adam Smith. He pretty much is the godfather of the modern free market philosophy. Wealth of Nations is an important work.

I actually believe in capitalism with oversight. Not the fed per sae or that kind but attention to the social structure being effected over time by the market in a basic way .

To answer your question in the OP. Yes I do see problems. I just don't think socialism or a more centralized system is the answer. I think the goal should be to be as free as possible while protecting against the dangers of ethical problems that arise.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Uhhhhhhhhh . . .

EVERY other economic system has collapsed under a more horrible level, degree, intensity of

A) corruption
B) greed
C) ruthlessness
D) slavery
E) stupidity

Capitalism certainly has its flaws.

I'm a bit torn about folks being extremely wealthy while others suffer. I don't think it's ideal or even right.

Nevertheless, I also don't think it's quite right for government, much less the greedy lazy to forceably take from the very wealthy and give to those who have no interest in being anything but lazy and contrary.

I would like to see a CULTURAL limit on the wealthy not being able to personally direct the use of more than say 35-50 times what the lowest worker earned. I wouldn't like to see it law. I'd rather that folks in the culture just totally shunned such a person until they reformed their ways.

Given that "the heart is deceitfully wicked, who can know it?" KJV . . . NO system this side of Christ's millenial reign will be free of corruption and deadliness.

I also think it's quite reasonable for anyone who has created value for others--whether through songs listened to by 100's of millions . . . or software or hardware used by 100's of millions--for a portion of each purchase price of each song, software or hardware--to go to the person foundationally responsible for that product.

Nevertheless, in MS/Gate's case, that's resulted in wealth now likely used by the oligarchy very destructively toward the masses. That doesn't seem fitting or wise.

Some few companies have caps on the top income the CEO's can earn relative to/pegged to a multiple of what the lowest worker in the company earns. I'd rather see consumers boycott companies that did NOT have reasonable caps similarly.

The indication is that 'every man shall have his own fig tree, his own grape vines.' I don't see any ultimate, terminal end to some form of buying and selling--at least some SUITABLE exchange.

Trashing capitalism while ignoring the far worse results of attempts at communism, socialism etc. are just terminal levels of ignorance, to me.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Switzerland, new zealand, etc can't even militarily defend themselves. America is the entire continental defense of Europe, Australia, and most of the "free" world. Imagine how wonderful these welfare programs would be cut in all of these countries if they actually had to pay to defend themselves.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

capitalism isn't capital anarchy. There are rules to prevent things like monopolies for example. Child labor laws have nothing to do with a free market deciding prices on goods and services. Many socialist and communist economies don't have child labor laws or prevents monopolies. In fact, monopolies are easier to establish in socialist and communist economies because the control of everything is in such a small number of hands, unlike a true free market capitalist system.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: AshleyRobinson

Your right it is easier to do this in socialist countries. But,...what does that have to do with anything I am saying?

Never once advocated socialism.


Perhaps you should read my arguements before coming up with strawmans.

The point is a completely free unregulated market will seek exploitation for lowering consumer prices by any means necessary. There is emperical evidence of this. It also will seek maximum efficiency. The social implications and job market issues that arise from these issues need to be addressed with some consideration.

That is my only arguement. You can not explain economics without considering human behaviour.

I am pro capitalist by the way. That doesn't mean I can't see problems that will need attention. Ot that Austrian economics correctly addresses them.
edit on 9-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Sorry that I haven't read the whole thread. This looks like a good estimated summation. Doing taxes.


Economics, sociology, and politics are inherently connected. They are not in any way at all seperate entities. Only an idealistic dreamer would assume so. No disrespect. But it's the truth.


Politics is archaic. Politics comes from the need to defend a state from violent attack by other states or masses of barbarians.

Politics is a lot like slavery. Someday folks studying history will wonder why we kept it so long.

Sociology, like economics, is the study of how humans associate. Most sociology today is not a study of how humans associate, but a faux science of justifying politics.

Politics pays for all professional sociology.

Economics is the study of the market. The market is one phenomenon of human association. Like sociology, most professional economics is funded by the governmentally maintained entities.

Sociology is like biology, Economics is like Chemistry, and politics is like Alchemy.

Capitalism seeks to use economics to increase wealth and liberty for every one.

Sociology propagandizes for its political pay days instead of studying sociology.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: luthier

Sorry that I haven't read the whole thread. This looks like a good estimated summation. Doing taxes.


Economics, sociology, and politics are inherently connected. They are not in any way at all seperate entities. Only an idealistic dreamer would assume so. No disrespect. But it's the truth.


Politics is archaic. Politics comes from the need to defend a state from violent attack by other states or masses of barbarians.

Politics is a lot like slavery. Someday folks studying history will wonder why we kept it so long.

Sociology, like economics, is the study of how humans associate. Most sociology today is not a study of how humans associate, but a faux science of justifying politics.

Politics pays for all professional sociology.

Economics is the study of the market. The market is one phenomenon of human association. Like sociology, most professional economics is funded by the governmentally maintained entities.

Sociology is like biology, Economics is like Chemistry, and politics is like Alchemy.

Capitalism seeks to use economics to increase wealth and liberty for every one.

Sociology propagandizes for its political pay days instead of studying sociology.



It's become glaringly obvious you aren't very clear on the history of how we got here and why.

You can spout these opinions all day but they are crude.

Economic study, polittical science , and sociology are all equally subjugated by government today.

I am obviously talking about the subject of these concepts not who has the best concept or who is more corrupted by government.

All the fed chairman are economists. They surely are prone to government influence. As are the places they lecture, teach, and influence.

Go back read some history. Study empericicsm read Adam Smith (so you understand where free market philosophy came from) and argue with some sort of understanding of concepts other than purely your own ideas.


Also give me real world examples of anything you are talking about.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Nope. Adam Smith and enlightenment era thinkers began working on economics that involved aspects of what would become capitalism. It first came from Hume, Locke, and Roseau. These were ideas that guided men and women as to how to act. Without these philosophical principles the free market most likely wouldn't exist.


You are confusing the study with the object of the study.

The free market exists any time humans can trade. It has existed since the first voluntary exchange.

The first money was a free market invention, for example.

Economics is the study of the patterns and regularities that develop or occur in the free market.

Philosophy helps man think about and organize the study, but economics does not create the free market.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Again wrong.

Human beings create the market. The philosophy they understand guides their understanding and action which is how the economy gets its direction.

If you are ethical you create space x. If you are not you create North Korea.

The development of ideas is what guide the market and human beings to act.

Adam Smith created a philosophy that guided the market to be free.

Let me guess. You have never read anything from him.

Let me ask you this. Is Austrian Economics an economic philosophy? Is it a guide as to how to act and set up the market? Is Keynesian economics an economic philosophy? Is it a way to act? Are these directional imperatives or are they simply observations?

You seem saying something can not be an observation and a philosophy. Which is sillly.
edit on 9-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Again wrong.

Human beings create the market. The philosophy they understand guides their understanding and action which is how the economy gets its direction.


Human beings do not intentionally create the market or society. Humans do what they want to and the free market and society just happen.



If you are ethical you create space x. If you are not you create North Korea.


If you are ethical, you first learn the normal, default, natural, pattern of human activity before you decree all reality.




The development of ideas is what guide the market and human beings to act.


Developing ideas is not the same as applying ideas.




Adam Smith created a philosophy that guided the market to be free.

Let me guess. You have never read anything from him.


"guided the market"? You are a magical thinker.

The market is one net effect of everything that humans do. The market is not made by philosophy-- philosophy tries to understand and use the market.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Again totally wrong.

Markets are set up by governments. Plain and simple. The laws that govern commerce are set up by government. It does not simply happen.

Those governments use philosophies to set up not only their laws bit the market itself.

There is no market other than the black market that does not adhere to this principle.


Therefor the government uses economic philosophies from economics schools.

Do you not get this? Have you ever actually studied economics?



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Here is a good starting place to begin with some basic economics.
en.m.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join