Originally posted by Pilot
If it makes a profit, it's good. Period, or do you have any sort of limit to what you would support in the name of the almighty $$$?

You make some good points, and this is fundamental flaw with capitalism; Capitalists cannot put limits on gaining capital. The capitalist has himself trapped in a never ending need to create more capital. He cannot remove himself from that constant desire to gain capital, above all else, or he fails. They have to be constantly feeding the market for consumers to consume, and if a market dries up a new one has to replace it. As soon as capitalism fails to grow it dies. So what ends will capitalists go to to maintain their creation of capital? 9-11? War? War has always been used when the capital stops growing...And the US particularly have been relying on war for capital since WWII.

Answer is, there can not be limits to capitalism; and that's the problem.

Originally posted by Mikey84
Luxembourg GDP (PPP) per capita - $81,511

United States GDP (PPP) per capita - $43,444

Remember, we are working on “Per Capita” otherwise it’s fruitless and that’s when the “Somalia” example comes into play.

The vast majority of Somalia's population is in poverty... So, why do you insist on sticking with such a flawed example?

If you want to work on total instead of per capita, then fine, USA comes in first (second if you count the EU), but then if you want to work on totals, lets look at poverty.

You cant have it both ways!

I am not going to continue repeating myself.

USA total people in poverty (2006): 36.5 million

Somalia total people in poverty (2006): 8.5 Million

Somalia's population is just barely 9 million...

Americas poverty rate measured at a percentage is 12.3%, which is as low as it was in 1974. So, it is not as though the nation is getting poorer, or that the nation is poor in general.

So, if you wanted to go on “total” which country is poorer? See it doesn’t work, that’s why again, the financial status of a country goes on Per Capita.

Luxembourg is a "nation" that is the size of some small sized US city's.

Again, a country's financial status is measured in PPP terms (how much a nation is able to buy).

While Americas PPP equals about 25% of the worlds GDP PPP, Luxembourg's PPP doesn't even equal a full percentage in those same regards.

So, want to explain to me how you think $43,444 is higher than $81,511?

Its not, however, if we were to properly make a comparison, a US city, with similar size in population, compared with Luxembourg, it becomes a rather unremarkable "stat."

As for China, its success on the global scale will be short lived.

I agree, China relies to heavily on exports to the EU and US economy's. Its future growth is unsustainable, and will eventually tail off, and in the near future, will suffer from a slower, protracted growth rate not much higher then Americas.

If you approve of the current economic policy and favor competition over cooperation, or even fair play, then how can you say you are a free-market capitalist? The market is rigged, hon. You know that.

As we discuss the consolidation of Media...you state that the danger of monopolies are few and far between???? That is a biggie. I never said I was afraid Wal-Mart was taking over-they have damaged local economies, but even they do not have access to unlimited growth-no one does.

My own company went through the same grow or die scenario and guess who paid the price?? Oh, the shareholders...and the employees. But they are still-a growin'.

All that bothersome government oversight you mention led directly to the fall of ENRON, so, yeah I guess it's bad huh? We should always trust the CEO's and CFO"s to do the right thing, afterall, they are smart guys! And always honest and fair.

Tell me something else.

Originally posted by Pilot
If you approve of the current economic policy and favor competition over cooperation, or even fair play, then how can you say you are a free-market capitalist? The market is rigged, hon. You know that.

What I favor is a lessening of govt regulation, and encouraging as much competition as possible. The fact is that even in oligopolistic industries, consumers come out the winners since margins are usually cut to the bone in order to maintain marketshare. Therefore, the more competition we have, the better. Anti-trust legislation is not effective at addressing this goal, since there are few industries that are absolutely monopolized. When it comes to govt intervention, the best we can hope for is a lowering of regulation. This can decrease the barriers to entry for new firms (albeit not all barriers), and can encourage business development. Trust me, if there's a firm out there that's raking in the profits in an underpopulated industry, other firms will enter.

As we discuss the consolidation of Media...you state that the danger of monopolies are few and far between???? That is a biggie. I never said I was afraid Wal-Mart was taking over-they have damaged local economies, but even they do not have access to unlimited growth-no one does.

The WalMart comment was just hyperbole, not a serious opinion. I would counter-argue though that Wal Mart has done alot to increase the buying power for consumers by virtue of their ultra-low prices, and have made serious contributions to business by developing an amazing logistics and supply chain. They are definately a company worthy of study.

My own company went through the same grow or die scenario and guess who paid the price?? Oh, the shareholders...and the employees. But they are still-a growin'.

Most every company is under that same gun. Increase revenue, increase marketshare, grow grow grow. This type of pressure has lead to some serious mistakes and unhealthy practices (far too many companies try to maximize their leverage position without little to no assurance of their potential solvency). Another unfortunate fact is that with the current push for increasing productivity and efficiency, firms are trying to do more with less (employees). That's a sad fact. When it comes to companies that are in a "lay off 20% of the workforce, or risk collapse", the choice is clear, but difficult: go through with the lay-offs. When they're just doing it to increase their profitability? They're either a painfully inept company (HR moves are pricey, both in terms of cost and reputation), or have become more streamlined.

May I ask what happened with your company? They screwed SH's and the employees to encourage growth, and presumably, investment?

All that bothersome government oversight you mention led directly to the fall of ENRON, so, yeah I guess it's bad huh? We should always trust the CEO's and CFO"s to do the right thing, afterall, they are smart guys! And always honest and fair.

ENRON collapsed because everyone in the top two floors were scum. They were brilliant, but crooked as a dog's leg. The interesting thing is that the accounting methods that they used were approved by GAPP, and the accountants (both in-house and Arthur Andersen) and bankers they were working with OK'd most of their shady methods. Some of their tactics are still in use today, although the practice of off-book debt is nowhere near as prevalent as it used to be. My point is, ENRON was operating largely, but not entirely, in the legal realm with alot of what they were doing. Govt oversight was in place, but it took someone actually working within the company to stand up and speak out.

A caveat: ENRON absolutely broke the law, without a doubt. They did it with structured finance vehicles, which can make exactly where they broke the law a little hard to point out, but they were crooks. I'm not arguing against that fact, merely that they weren't exactly breaking every law they could find in pursuit of dollars.

Not to sound like a prick, but the people that work for powerful Multi-Nationals are cunning and methodical in what they do. The govt doesn't exactly attract the best and brightest, so the chances of them being "caught" by a regulatory committee is not that great.

What kind of oversight are you looking for anyways? Do you believe Sarbanes-Oxley goes far enough?

Tell me something else.

Not all companies, nor people, are honest. Business works only because of a huge measure of trust on either party's behalf. Therefore, I favor culling the herd of all the crooks and ne'er-do-wells. Most of the people who work for companies are decent, good people. They have kids, families, etc. and are just trying to do their thing, and hopefully get ahead.

Cute dog, BTW... is he/she yours?

Wow, Long thread, So many words, yet not much really being said.

It comes down to the flawed idea that if we put a value on something an have someone buy it with capita they earned thru whatever means that its not going to properly regulate the system, that after a prolonged use of this idea certain people would easily acquire more wealth faster then the majority of others.

Plus, You can''t put value on something of which had none to begin with an say you have a working system, its flawed to begin with, If anything Bartering would be more regulatory since its what you do in the 1st place to get the money, just cut the money out, bam you work for what you want. an Since even the disabled can provide us with some form of work, since our minds are alway here unless we are otherwise deemed such or dead.

Cut peoples need to goto a " Work Place " an work from home an more room an resources are spared to build homes for others who didnt have such,

There is a way to reorganize Everything even when you think you have it right, theres always a better way. This is our way of life, we need to be more intelligent about it.

Also for the folks stating the Poor are there becuz they dont work, or like living off the system, Look around you, if you have bad credit, You dont get to enjoy much of what others are fronted for a debt number, You get the Invisible routine, Not to mention when you pay people that do one job that isnt really needed a insane high amount but the mass majority of Basic NEEDED jobs a Low Minimum wage, You kinda run into a problem dont yeah? We live on a flawed system, blaming anyone other then the people who created this system an the others who dont try to fix it is failing human life.

Just becuz you crawled out of the hole or even avoided the hole all together, doesnt mean the hole isnt still there an others arent traped in it.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by Trance Optic]

Let's not argue among ourselves.

Go get a printer, and print money like f##king govts and bankers do.

If we're 5 million people printing money, what can the corrupt do?

Nothing!

So go print money NOW!

Originally posted by nubiaislaamPoverty in the richest country in the World

and how do you get rid of it or stamp it out?

make it illegal to not have enough money... ultra-wisdom!