'Capitalism' IS conspiracy. Make all business non-profit to stop war & starvation & poverty

You do realize that auto manufactures such as BMW have unions at their plants and somehow manage to produce very high quality automobiles. I don't think the unions are the sole cause of GM's quality control or financial problems.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft

---

You say that greed is good as it is a motivator.

I agree that it is a motivator, but a really bad one, where the worst people are best at it. It leads to fraud (directly economical, or indirectly social (like pollution)), destruction and disrespect for others and society in general, lobbying, the law of the jungle, etc.

I would like to suggest that people have an innate motivator much better and purer: Curiosity.

People will create because curiosity is a human instinct. They can't help it. They have to learn, ask, wonder, experiment, and then gloat over what they did.

Abolish patents, copyrights, etc. We should say no to greed, and the profit motive. People are naturally endowed with the curiosity motive.

Public "servants" are not characteristic of this and not a counter example, because they don't and can't do what they want. They sold their freedom to do what they want, their curiosity, for the greater security and stability of a gov job. They castrated themselves.

Finally, a free market vs. central planning is a false dichotomy. Freedom is diff from greed. Leave people free to do whatever they want economically (no central planning) and give out the profits equally to everyone (kill the greed profit motive).

edit:
Just look the free software movement (Linux, etc.), the free documentation movement (wikipedia, etc.) etc. It seems kind of obvious by now. Actually this is one reason for my conspiracy TSHTF: It is becoming obvious that through giving everyone gains more than through greed, so the powers that be must act decisively now: Economic disaster and possibly wars so that people are distracted from the effective killing of the free internet and its transformation to a TV like, restricted, everything-is-approved, no-anonimity abomination.


[edit on 12-10-2008 by waterpie]

reply to post by waterpie

---

Thank you for your open-mindedness! The world needs more people who think like you. Thats the only way anything will ever change. Curiosity did NOT kill the cat, it made it evolve into an intelligent species. In red dwarf it did anyway... That and hair spray. Peace, friend.

reply to post by Little Insanity

---

Which is why I quit paying taxes. When the government decides to actually follow the Constitution, I will begin paying taxes again.

reply to post by counterterrorist

---

Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism.
Ron Paul

I think it would be alot more reasonable to either

#1 ) Put a CAP on how much profit you can make

or

#2 ) Make a law where the Workers get far more % of the "profit" generated by their work

i think 2 may be the best idea, because if the workers made a % of the profit of their work, they would work harder and more effeciently so their pay would increase - now thats true capitalism imo

[edit on 12-10-2008 by muzzleflash]

reply to post by muzzleflash

---

hahaha who would be in charge of "capping" how much someone could make? Profit is what drives the market, you know that right?

I would bet that you don't live in a war torn country, and you are not poor.

Easy for you to say. And chilly.

Also your comment below that the (USA) constitution doesn't provide for the gov helping the poor, doesn't compute. I would expect a half baked, broken AI program making such an argument (no rule for poverty, can't answer) than a human being.

I am not a "constitutional scholar" but does the constitution provide for not being "repulsively inhuman and evil"? And could we classify war as being "repulsively inhuman and evil"? And do you agree that war is the ultimate profit machine?
If yes, then if you don't care about the human pain maybe you can care about "conflict of interest". (Big profit vs war is bad). I suppose that is in the laws somewhere.

PS: You don't actually need war. For example polluting the earth to the point of destruction (for millions of people), in order to boost your short or medium term profits, is "war". I don't expect you to compute that either, you seem too much rule based, but well.

reply to post by waterpie

---

If you want to spend your money trying to help others, by all means, go right ahead.

The Constitution (you know of the document correct?) doesnt provide any power for the government to use PUBLIC (that means taxpayer) money to "fight poverty".

I am against war unless it is in defense of the nation.

I just watched Zeitgeist addendum on google video. It was very mind opening. I wait for the day when the earth is at peace and society is placid. Science and technology and a free resource system is a great answer to the worlds problems. Our new idea should be What are you doing to improve mankind? How are you making the world a better place?

I agree. I also believe that there can be a happy medium to this, and the key may be to become a producing nation once again. We have been consuming for far too long.
Yes there will be an increase in cost initially due to the fact that it costs more right now to produce at home. That will balance out as more people become employed. Resources need to be abundant and this will keep cost down. There also can be a way of encouraging people to strive for excellence, and that is most definitely EDUCATION. The more you know a bout any given thing, the more it becomes like second nature. When people are confident in what they do and take pride, good things can happen. At my job, it's easy as hell to let things slide and slack off. I don't because I know my job inside and out, because I have educated myself at it. I take pride in the details, that a lot of other do miss. I do not get paid all that much, but I take pride none the less because I know i did a good job. That is a personal thing, and believe me, my employer offers no incentive whatsoever to do a good job.

badmedia: How can you blame capitalism for todays problems, when we've been moving away from capitalism for over a century?

counterterrorist: the money-issuing power must be taken away from the banks (which are privately owned and returned to the people (the publicly owned treasury)

badmedia: What we have today is not capitalism.

counterterrorist: Yes, it is.

badmedia: What we have today is corporatism.

counterterrorist: banks are for-profit corporations. make them non-profit corporations and we're better off. HOWEVER, privately held corporations do not issue stock. Therefore, since centralization of wealth in obscene proportions must be controlled and limited, as it destroys the body politic i.e. humanity.

badmedia: It's allowing dishonest practices and then bailing people out at the expense of the people that has to stop.

CT: right. how?

badmedia: If we had a capitalistic system, the fed wouldn't and couldn't exist.

CT:We do have a capitalistic system. ALL THE INVESTMENT BANKERS OWN ALL THE CAPITAL (with a few exceptions), so the investment bankers own 99.999% of ALL the capital.

IT IS THE MONEY-ISSUING CLASS THAT MOST FIRST BE NEUTRALIZED, not the upper, middle (managerial) or working (blue collar) classes.

reply to post by reticledc

---

You ask: If there is no reward or incentive to work, why would people work?

You're making my argument for me: Take the profit out of war, out of slavery, out of drug-running, out of oil monopoly, out of starvation, out of genocide, out of fractional banking -- and it will stop.

reply to post by counterterrorist

---

Amen to that. Money does not motivate me in the slightest way. I know that on my death bed the things that will matter to me will not include my account balance. Money is air. We live in system built on air. Time to come back down to earth.

The history of the U.S. is the history of the fight between a publicly owned central bank vs a privately owned central bank. A publicly owned central bank charges no interest (you've heard of interest?)

The U.S. Revolutionary War was fought to eliminate poverty (you've heard of poverty?) It was fought for financial freedom from the privately owned Bank of England. (you've heard of the Bank of England?) All the major wars have been fought against privately owned Central Banks, because the wars have financed and created by privately owned central banks -- and war is an effort to centralize wealth (you've heard of centralized wealth?)

Many of the founding fathers and our presidents (you've heard of them, right?) intended for us to have a (publicly owned) U.S. Treasury, and indeed we did. Until Rothschild and Warburg (Rothschild agents) interests tried 3 times to establish PRIVATELY OWNED central banks: First Bank of the United States (which lasted a year or two), Second Bank of the United States (which lasted a year or two) and the Federal Reserve Bank, founded in 1913 -- which has generated 11-12 trillion dollars of financial slavery for the American people.

You'd profit from reading Eustace Mullins' 'Secrets of the Federal Reserve' (free online) -- the first expose, done in 1951: www.whale.to... (you want to profit, don't you?)

And also see the charts and presidential quotes at www.my2012.4t.com...







[edit on 13-10-2008 by counterterrorist]

[edit on 13-10-2008 by counterterrorist]

reply to post by waterpie

---

Right on!

Welcome to ATS! We need more people w/compassion and intelligence and wisdom.

You would be. You'd be paid one million dollars to cap everyone's wealth at one million dollars. Want the job?

Profit is another name for financial control, you know that, don't you? Financial control is another name for financial slavery. You know that, don't you?

Have you ever heard of the U.S. Constitution? (this post's literally for you): www.abovetopsecret.com...
then, here's yours: www.abovetopsecret.com...








[edit on 13-10-2008 by counterterrorist]

I find it very, very hard to debate such a statement.

Not because it is strong in logical or moral terms, but because I find it absurd. I simply cant comprehend how someone could think that the world needs to be entirely equal and nothing should be done for profit.

Such a statement (as made by the OP) quite frankly flies in the face of meritocracy and morality.

Maybe the debate should not be whether or not capitalism is moral; but rather what should we do with people who do not believe in any form of meritocracy.

I would propose a solution where territory would have to be allocated to each faction. Let the communists go and live in their lands while capitalists lived in theirs... similar to the USA and USSR in the 20th century.

I have no intention to debate such widespread, intrinsic fallacy. I can only suggest that people with such wishes should be given their own land to eke out whatever dystopian vision of equality they concieve.

reply to post by Kaploink

---

Unions have made it not financially feasible to buy AMERICAN.

BMW is Bavarian, not American. I know damn well they make great autos


AB1