It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Is Capitalism a failure?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 06:05 AM
reply to post by caballero

I earnestly believe that the first thing we have to do is to make a distinction between the "necessities" of life and those that may be considered "benefits".

We all need food, we all need water, we all need shelter, we all need transport and telecoms in our modern world. The task becomes massively difficult and there are no easy answers.

They key is the division of responsibility to control certain markets between Government, supposedly looking after the long-term interests of the people, and the private sector which is primarily concerned with generating wealth.

The Government must define a business environment that urges and promotes private enterprise but at the same time recognise that private enterprise in excess can have a detrimental effect.

You know how you used to walk into a store and you could choose a brand, a real "brand". The brand was substantiated by quality, low-cost or whatever attribute was associated with it. Now, the problem is harder, we go into a store and select "our" brand but in truth they are all made by the same company.

There are probably less than 50 holding companies that supply virtually everything we can buy at a supermarket. Is that really choice?

We talk of the environment yet we buy white goods that last a couple of years at most - engineered obselecence. I recently retired a tumble dryer that had given 20 years service - I don't expect that ever again.

However, the dilemma faced by industry is that without the prospect of turnover in new products, there is no flow of cash to invest in the future, to make a profit on.

However, isn't this a signature of timescales? Why are our financial cycles compressed to 12 month, 6 months, quarters? One quarter displays a loss and suddenly it is staff cuts and massive cost reductions.

Human beings can be fickle. To run a free market economy without recognition of the fickle nature of humans is crazy. You think that those companies that are now worth 1/10th of what they were yesterday are any different? That there market share has fallen by 90%? That there goods are no longer required or needed?

The markets are not about "today" as such, they are about "tomorrow". The markets are simply about faith in the future. Is our future really so bleak that it warrants the crashes that befall us?

We've lost the ability to look at what we have and can achieve and instead just concentrate on an imaginary market (for that is what it is) and let a select few control major aspects of our lives. We may question the prophets of doom when they talk of alien invasions and meteors striking Earth, yet we are led by the whims of so-called economists that have no further insight into the inherent worth of material goods than we do. They just know how to plan a dodgy-deal better than we do ;-)

Economists benefit from the see-saw of the markets and we get thrown the crumbs from the plate. The see-saw can be slowed down. Free markets need to be regulated markets, not just an extension of auditing that throws up a mountain of BS virtual paperwork but real prescriptions to slow down the actions of idiots who care nothing for the effect of their actions on every man woman and child.

People need the invitation of being able to succeed and benefit from their inspiration, there is nothing wrong with being rich when it is hard earned. The markets are about exploitation. I produce something that you want and so you have to pay me to produce it.

Good old fashioned exploitation is good for everybody - the fashion world is full of it - that 5,000 dress isn't just cost + 10% profit! How many of us feel the need for a 5,000 dress though? If you can afford it, more fool you!

In contrast, exploitation of necessities is just plain wrong. Sure, make a profit but not at the misery of millions that then have to do without. This is just common sense isn't it?

I have no answers, but plenty of blather and questions!

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 06:23 AM

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
Everyone is missing the point - we are punishing the rich for being rich.

And why shouldn't we? I seem to get punished for being poor all the time.

They chose to spend their lives making THEMSELVES rich. What if they had spent their energies helping to make themselves better 'people'?
And then maybe the greed and Human misery they have created could have been avoided?

While I respect your views, I simply cannot understand them. Let's say, hypothetically, that an unknown rich relative dies and leaves you everything. Overnight you become one of the rich, you are now a member of the group you so despise. Would you stick to your convictions and give everything away? Or do you become a rich person who might support charities and animal shelters. But, I believe most would still choose to stay wealthy - for their own benefit and their children.

There are bad poor people, and their are bad rich people. Bemoaning your lot in life because you happen to be the one of the poor majority is just defeatist whinging.


posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 06:43 AM
Well, we should make a difference between the "rich" and "elites" . When I say "elites" my mind goes to the top 100 richest people in US/EU that managed to grab billions of worth work-hours of the other people. Yes, I beliebe Capitalism is as wrong as Communist , but with a different flavour.
As long as Capitalism exists, skilled people would find a way to "extract" the wealth and put it in their pockets. They could be working really hard for it , i do not say they do not work . But the "rich" would be just people that manage to adapt to this jungle and take the resources of other people.
However, I believe that the system cannot be applied anymore in a civilised society. There was a thread on ATS (1 month ago I guess) on how a money-system would look in the case of an advanced civilisation. The most realistic proposals would not include Capitalism . My believe that we will see the transition of our civilisation to a next type (type one?) and this will bring the collapse of Capitalism. I do not say it is all bad, but the next one will be a hybrind on Capitalism and Socialism . Bit similar with Finland for example.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by sty]

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 06:46 AM
reply to post by deltaalphanovember

I like the supreme realism in this post. The fact is that there is nothing wrong with people being "rich". Yes, we need to ensure that people have the opportunities to live without poverty, a level playing field for all to start with and if they have the gumption to make something of their lives and earn wealth then great.

I do not believe in heavy taxation of inherited wealth as this just stinks. So Mr. Minister says, "Oh, I know your aunt died, sorry about that but I'd like her money please 'cos I can look after it better than you can"

The issues in our society are not caused by the rich who have "created" wealth. They are caused by the people who "moved" wealth from one group to another.

Do I feel poorer because some guy has enough money to buy a new car? No, I feel poorer because my heating bills have sky rocketed yet British Petroleum made 10 billion in profit (profit mind you... not turnover). I feel poorer because my council tax has sky rocketed in spite of falling standards of service provision. I feel poorer because food bills have gone up time after time. I feel poorer because some people think it is "great" to have starter homes that cost 10 times the average wage.

I like the "market economy" but it isn't a controlled and tame species. I like to look at lions in the wild but I wouldn't want to stand next to them without controls in place. The same should be true for the market - a "totally" free market is a recipe for disaster when it can affect us so detrimentally.

We need the exchanges, we need that market to utilise and benefit from faith in the future, to promote new ideas and products and innovation, but we don't need basic necessities of human life being priced through the roof just to make a few bucks. There has to be some division of the free market.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:49 AM
reply to post by ANOK

Sry but you don't need an 'economy' to trade.

Yes you do. By definition, if you trade, you have an economy.

An economy is the realized social system of production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other area.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The 'economy' is just a way to get you working for money that you can spend on stuff you really don't need, so others can get fat and rich by doing nothing but for themselves.

You seem to be confusing the definition of an economy in general with the system we have in place now. I have already pointed out many problems we have with the present system, and why it is not a true capitalistic system.

You are conditioned to think happiness comes from possessions and wealth, when really it's just a life devoid of your true potentials.

What we have here is a case of bad aim. Let me introduce myself:

Humans are a different animal when taken out of the 'norm' of society and are freed from it's stresses, conditions and coercions.

True, a fact I have been pushing for quite some time now. I have a great deal of respect of the Amish, who live as you propose. However, not everyone is Amish, and precious few have the ability or the desire to live such a harsh lifestyle.

Producing your own food, shelter, water, and other needs and wants requires, first and foremost, land on which to accomplish this. I am lucky; I have some land. I grow a garden, have plenty of nut trees around, am planting more berry bushes this next spring, and as soon as finances allow, am building a chicken house and getting some goats. I am also working on a way to heat/cool my home through geothermal as well as examining ways to produce electricity locally. But even with about 5 acres of open land available for all that (most of my land is wooded and part is leased out to a local farmer), I still have to be careful to use it efficiently. Any building is pushed back into the mountain area to leave open ground for any solar use or agriculture, and there can be a good deal of plumbing involved to move fresh and waste water to and from them.

With all of the buildings intruding into the mountain, there is also the question of ecologic impact on a virgin forest I am very fond of. It is also harder to build in the mountain. So I have to choose what I am able to produce myself and what I have to rely on others for. I could build a mill and produce my own flour from wheat, but the amount of room required to grow enough wheat for my family, combined with the expense of building a mill to grind it and the extra chores of running that mill mean I have chosen not to do so. If I want flour, I have to purchase it from someone else. I can make a small chicken house in the mountain (surrounded by goats to ward off most small predators) to produce eggs and meat, and that is an idea that will work with my situation.

But remember that most people do not have even that 5 acres to do with as they choose. What about them? Do we resign them to starvation because you don't like the present system? The very systems you mention (the 'hippies') are designed to care for all in the economic group. That's right, they used an economy as well, although theirs was no doubt based more on communism than on capitalism. Communism does work in smaller groups, but it is notoriously ineffective in larger ones.

Also try looking up permaculture and how that could get us away from the centralised system we have and into self sufficiency.

I did. It appears to be a fancy word for what we always used to call 'living off the land'. It is an agricultural system, not an economic one. Obviously it has many excellent benefits, but this thread is about economic systems.

We don't either want, or need, your 'system'...

It's not my system. I don't like it either. The difference is I think things through.

Like it or not, my friend, no man is an island. We all need things that we cannot produce alone. Think about one little example a moment: that computer you are typing on to post your comments. The core unit is a sliver of silicon, refined to such a level of purity that few companies worldwide are able to produce it. That silicon not only must be ultra-pure, but then it must be 'doped' with specific impurities in a very precise ratio, and in extremely small and precise patterns. All that requires millions of dollars worth of equipment, in order to produce a chip that can be sealed in a ceramic case and plugged into a socket. The boards are composed of micro-intricate designs of conductors etched onto a phenolic board. That requires a massive amount of knowledge as to how electricity acts when cycled at millions and even billions of cycles per second. And finally, each component is made in multi-million-dollar factories to exacting specifications. That's just to make the electronics in the tower (and horribly simplified at that). Now, would you like an explanation of what goes in to making the monitor or the hard drive? I think I made my case.

I have worked in electronics privately all my life. I have the capability to design and prototype almost any electronic circuit I wish, at my home. I can work with the latest generation of surface mount components and produce board traces as small as 0.005" with an acceptable success rate. Yet I could not begin to make a computer from raw materials. And a computer is one single device among so many that we use today.

Please, think over what you are advocating, and learn what you are talking about. You are advocating communism in small groups, while denying it is an economic system at all. You are confusing agriculture with economy. And you are totally ignoring the advantages you readily adopt that came about due to capitalism.


posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:59 AM
reply to post by sty

Well, we should make a difference between the "rich" and "elites"

Oooooh, I like the way you think!

I would like to know more about this proposed economic system that is neither communistic nor capitalistic. I cannot fathom such a system (although I admit that does not mean it can't exist). How exactly would people bond together to produce the goods that require cooperation? How would a fairness be attained between those who must perform hard labor (digging, building, farming) and those who work in less physical jobs (design, machine operation)? It would appear to me that there would be an inherent inequality in this decision process regardless of the system used.

How would disagreements be resolved? How would the people who would take advantage of the system be thwarted from doing so? What would be the basis and reward for innovation? What would be the driving force to combat human laziness? So many questions...

But sooooo much potential....


posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:00 AM
Predatory capitalism is a dead end that eventually destroy the economy. True capitalism needs the diversity of competition in order to thrive... without it an industry becomes a monopoly and begins to stagnate.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Excellent post, I really enjoyed reading it. I was actually thinking Pamela Anderson would be a good source of raw material for computer chips.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Harman

When the world economy is arranged at a manner that secrecy in financials is impossible you will see that buying shoes for $350 that had a total cost of $10 will plumet, if people SEE that certain moneystreams go to companies that are known child labourers their sales will go down, if people SEE that certain companies pay their employees the bare minimum but their profits are through the roof their sales will go down.

I see a flaw in your thinking, though. That overpriced shoes or child labor is "punished" by the consumer requires a VERY well-informed, educated consumer... which in turn requires a lot of work and effort from the average American. Alas, the average American is neither well informed nor educated and, I would guess, has no interest in breaking a sweat to find out what a certain corporation does.

If you do not care that the company you buy from is heavily into clusterbombs, go ahead and buy it's products, if you do not care that those $5 shoes costs $250 for you, go ahead, it's your hard or easy earned money you are spending.

Unfortunately, self-interest comes first for most people, and if that means buying a pair of $20 shoes that has been made via child labor, vs. a $100 pair that's made in America by a company that pays its workers decent wages, guess which one the ordinary person would pick?

I may be pessimistic, but I'll always remember that story Catherine Austin-Fitts likes to tell on C2C AM: she once held a lecture in front of a group of "world-improvers," who asked her how the corruption of the government and the secret drug trades could be stopped. She asked if they could push a button to stop all illicit, government-sponsored drug trade and corruption TODAY, but it would mean making a financial sacrifice in terms of less money for Social Security, Medicaid, etc., how many would do it? ONE person out of about a hundred said they would still push the button -- all others were too concerned with their SS check.

If we wanted that kind of "true capitalism" to work, first we'd have to have a top-notch education for everyone, and second, people would have to become much more social-minded and less selfish. I'm not holding my breath.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:16 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

European style capitalism is often a blend of both socialist and capitalist traits. That is one path that seems to work well.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:24 AM
I recently spend a number of months traveling around America and to be honest at the end of it I thought it was visually a bit dull. The reason for this seems to be the unadultarated mass roll out of large corporations throughout America. Town after town city after city you just get a rollout of the same shops, gas stations and motels. To name a few Wal Mart, Starbucks, Holiday Inns, McDonalds, KFC, 7/11 the list goes on. In fact after 50 KM or so driving on the freeway it was like was constant deja vu. The only thing that seems to vary are the bars (not inc Hooters). Also there are hardly any independant gas stations or motels throughout Amercan unless you really go out into the sticks.

So to conclude yes Capitalism is a failure and DISTROYER of local and eventually national culture.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by grover
Yes it does, so far. I'm watching their successes and failures very closely.

Any system can be corrupted. The trick, I think, is to use socialism to correct the inherent potential problems in capitalism, without allowing the socialistic parts to overrule capitalism's obvious advantage in encouraging individual success. So while I support certain socialistic aspects, I am very cautious about introducing too much socialism into capitalism. I think a little goes a long way.


reply to post by pharaohmoan

That is pretty much accurate, I'm afraid. And it only illustrates my point about runaway capitalism and the reasoning behind a progressive tax system. As entities, whether corporations or individuals, reach that threshold level of wealth, they begin to strangle the system rather than contribute to it. Growth at that point must be challenged to protect the smaller businesses and allow them the opportunity to grow as well.

Unfortunately, we are presently doing the exact opposite of this, and making it easier for the larger companies to grow out of control, while simultaneously strangling smaller companies out of the market.


[edit on 31-10-2008 by TheRedneck]

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:39 AM
reply to post by sylvie

Thanks for the feedback and you are right in the lazy aspects of the people. But one of the reasons that some data is hard to get is because the ones giving it out want it to be. A very easy to use site could be made without to much of a problem i'd think. So even the lazies could see in a second what the ratio's are, where it went and what the company where it went does. The only thing this system will do is give everybody the freedom to make a informed choice, not based on hearsay or whatever, Just the cold hard facts.

Real education where critical thinking is promoted instead of ignored would be a huge step forward.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:46 AM
When I lived in New England I noted that our politicians up there, both Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal were a different breed than you see in other areas like here in the south for example.

For one they were more pragmatic and far less dogmatic and the other was that despite their party both sides agreed that there had to be strong social nets in place for the less fortunate, if only because a new england winter can kill, but at the same time the stress was on frugality. In short lets take care of our own but be sure to watch the pennies while you do it.

I see a blend of capitalism and socialism working in the same sort of manner. Its interesting to go back and read the arguments of the Fabians of the late 19th and early 20th century on these issues.


posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

hehe, a blend of this hybrid is already at work in several countries in the EU - Finland, Norway , Denmark as example. The minimum salary per economy is only 3 times smaller than a good dentist salary... Tax is almost 50 % but the money are used very well. The government is also called "e-government" as it is transparent to the people via the Internet (Estonia also tried this - i am not sure how this goes) . Sweden is a similar example - yet they produce Sabre , Volvo - and Nokya in Finland . Linux was made by a finish guy and if you look on the Internet, they are the leading people into "home / desktop CNCs"

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:10 PM

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
Overnight you become one of the rich, you are now a member of the group you so despise.

Well that would depend on a lot of things. What do you mean by rich?
What I consider rich are those faces we don't publicly see, but have so much wealth they control things from behind the scenes. The people wealthy enough to buy and control governments. I'm not even talking about working people, even lawyers and other high paying jobs do not make you 'rich'.

And if you don't despise them then you just want to be one of them, have fun chasing carrots...You might get lucky, but really what are the chances? Unless you're 'connected'....

No matter how much money I would be left by someone I won't ever be accepted into the circles that control everything. But I don't come from a family of wealth so that ain't happenin'...

Just throwing money at something is not the answer. You all seem to not be able to see beyond the need for cash. Money is an illusion that only has value because we except it as such, and in the paranoid state the system keeps us in most people can't see beyond the scam it is.

There are enough world resources that EVERYONE could have all they need, but a few own the majority of it and keep ripping you off by selling you their surplus at inflated prices.

As far as economy goes, Redneck, you're just arguing semantics. When I say 'economy' I mean the politically driven capitalist economic system, not a system of barter and trade. Call it what you will, it doesn't make my argument any less valid. We don't need a world based around selling things, why has that become our only goal and bench mark for success? How about bettering ourselves as Humans and taking care of the suffering of our fellow Humans by living for our needs not our greed?

It is a fact that enough food to feed the world is currently produced. 300 kg of grain per head is currently produced worldwide each year. 200 kg of grain contains the calories needed by an adult per year. (Grain is widely used as a measure of food production as it supplies more than half humanity's calories.)

The 5.8 billion people in the world today have, on average, 15 percent more food per person than the global population, of 4 billion people, had 20 years ago.(4)

The world today produces enough grain to provide 3500 calories per person (this estimate does not include vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meets, fish.)(23)

It is the poverty of millions of people who cannot afford to buy food that causes starvation. This conclusion has been reached by Vaclav Smil in a recent study entitled Feeding the World(29). An F.A.O. study by Nikos Alexandratos confirms this point. He writes Food availabilities for the world as a whole are today equivalent to some 2700 kilocalories per person per day …., up from 2300 calories 30 years ago.(28)

We have a world crises because some people think they should have more than others, and far more than they need or could ever need.

There can only be so many 'rich' people in this present system and it is in their best interest to remain the only rich people as it's what defines their existence. If none of us wanted for anything then they would lose all their power and control, which is what it's really all about after all. Money is just a tool of control.

Feed your needs not your greed...

[edit on 10/31/2008 by ANOK]

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by ANOK

I really don't consider it semantics to be accurate, but I do understand your position a bit better now, I think. Thank you for the clarification.

The problems you mention (and they are problems!) are not caused by capitalism, IMHO, but by the abuse of capitalism. If there were no reward (money) involved, how many people do you think would get up every morning and go to work? I would hazard to say precious few. People are inherently lazy and selfish.

So without some sort of rewards system, how do we combat these two human traits? I mean, it is one thing to state that it would be a better world if everyone worked what they could and only took what they really needed, but so far no one has come up with a way to change human nature and accomplish that.

Until we have a planet full of people who do not wish to have better than they have now, and who have such a strong work ethic that they will work without any encouragement in the way of monetary gain, your idea is just another of those wishful dreams that can never happen in reality. And I say that with sorrow, because your vision would truly be a type of utopia, if it were only possible.


posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:04 PM
Capialism is not a failure. We are not a Capitalist nation. If we had a free market we would not have a central bank and would have government regulation to control greed (human nature). Granted the small guy can work for himself and make a good living but if the time comes to grow big they are quickly swallowed up by the money changers. You can't get a buisness loan without signing a deal with the devil.

Socialism has never worked. I am not going to work my ass off so BO can give it to the asshole next door that WILL NOT do anything for himself. If it comes to that I will qiut my job and put my handout. Why work your ass off if you can put your handout and play golf all day!!

Personally I can't see the market staying up much longer once he is elected. The markets do not like socialist policies (outright socialist policies) and higher taxes (especially Cap gains). My money is out and I am anxiously awaiting the fall.

See you all in hell!

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Sillyfool
...We are not a Capitalist nation. If we had a free market we would not have a central bank and would have government regulation to control greed (human nature).....

Capitalism is a system whereby the means of production and distribution are privately owned, which is what we have now, but as you say it also requires a free market, which we don't have and never will. The problem is capitalism, and the 'free market, is ultimately controlled by those who benefit from it the most. It is state capitalism, which is still capitalism.

Socialism has never worked. I am not going to work my ass off so BO can give it to the asshole next door that WILL NOT do anything for himself.

Hmmmm, that's not socialism. Socialism is the workers ownership of production and distribution (as apposed to private individuals). In this way all will benefit from their work, it has nothing to do with you giving anything to anybody, it is the working system giving more to you (unless you are an owner that is) instead of private owners.

Socialism is not 'social programs', even though like in any civilised system there will be a need to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. What do you want, the disabled living on street corners and begging you for a little change?

Capitalism is what allows people to be lazy and live off the labour of others. You've just bought into the myth that wealth equates hard work, when the truth is most of Americas, and Europe’s, wealth was created by the slave trade and ripping off third world resources. Those that are truly rich didn’t work hard to earn it; it was inherited wealth from their families, wealth stolen off the backs of slaves and the working classes (especially during the industrial revolution).

Personally I can't see the market staying up much longer once he is elected. The markets do not like socialist

I wish people wouldn’t throw the word socialist around when they don’t know what it means. Your biased, state controlled (!), education system is doing you all a serious injustice, and the MSM takes advantage of that. Please don’t rely on it, educate yourself.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:20 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
....Thank you for the clarification.
The problems you mention (and they are problems!) are not caused by capitalism, IMHO, but by the abuse of capitalism....

Thanx but your accuracy is just an opinion, imo of course.

But yes, you're right it is the abuse of capitalism, or more accurately the abuse of people by capitalism. I think that's the point isn't it? Everything can look good in theory, but when put into practice it's often another matter.

Yes capitalism is abused. Abused by those that have the wealth to do so. How did they get that wealth? By exploiting those that they could. You see it's a bit of a catch 22 isn't it?

How can you have capitalism that is not abused? Create a government to control it? But how can you be so sure that government is not above being corrupted by the wealth? I think we all know it is right? So you are supporting a system that allows, even legally, some people with power to abuse.

What keeps people from seeing this? That old carrot and stick trick.
You are constantly told that wealth is your answer to everything and are kept chasing it your whole life. By doing that you miss out on your true human potential.

If there were no reward (money) involved, how many people do you think would get up every morning and go to work?.

Well I disagree that people are lazy and selfish. That’s just another trick. It has been proven that we are actually quite empathetic, and it’s this system we live in that creates greed, laziness etc…

In a true socialist system those that can work will have to work, or the community they live in will not tolerate them for long. You live in a community that you benefit from then you are required to participate. A community can quite easily police itself in that respect.

Our reward would be a community free from exploitation, coercion, poverty, crime, politicians, war etc...

You might find this article enlightening...

The idea that dangling money and other goodies in front of people will "motivate" them to work harder is the conventional wisdom in our society, and particularly among compensation specialists. Those of us who have challenged the Skinnerian orthodoxy that grounds this conviction have apparently caused its professional apologists to reassert in ever more emphatic and defensive language what most of their audience already takes on faith. (Hence the amusing spectacle of being admonished that it is "time that management specialists ... understood the importance of money" -- as though the field were guilty of attributing too little importance to it!)...

In numerous studies conducted over the last fifty or sixty years, researchers have concluded money is not the prime motivator for most people. Yes, people work for money -- but it is not their biggest motivator.

Maybe it's you who hasn't thought this through very well?

So without some sort of rewards system....

The problem is it’s not Human nature, it’s taught, by the system in your state run schools, your MSM, your church.
It is NOT human nature. The system perpetuates those bad human traits by conditioning you to WANT what you don’t NEED.

Until we have a planet full of people who do not wish to have better than they have now, and who have such a strong work ethic that they will work without any encouragement in the way of monetary gain...

But it is possible, anything is possible, right? You have a very defeatist attitude if what you’re saying is really true.

What makes you think only money can make things better? That is a very short sighted, shallow opinion. You need to realize that it's capitalism that keeps us from making things better. Everything is produced at the cheapest possible way to increase profits, not to better things for us ALL, but the few lucky enough to own the means of production.

We could have had clean free energy, but no, the oil and auto industry etc., won’t let that happen.
We could be using Hemp, for food, oil, material, medication, making jobs for thousands, but no, the pharmas’ and Dupont won’t let that happen.
Disease cures kept secret, for profits.

I could go on all day on what capitalism has done for us…Being caught up in this selfish desire to just gain for your self is hurting EVERYONE.

Capitalism is not sustainable for a long term system. It worked great for those who were in at the beginning (Europe, USA etc.), but the rest (3rd world etc) it is a nightmare they can’t keep up with.

…what else is the life of all men engaged in business but fraud and perjury? What is the life of the curiales but injustice? What is the life of government officials but slander? What is the life of all connected with the army but pillage? Salvian, The Presbyter

In our contemporary world it is early yet, but the path looks frighteningly familiar [to the Roman Empire]. Instead of Senators, we have billionaires and multi-millionaires and corporate leaders, and politicians who get lobbyists to write their bills, so that Medicare cannot negotiate drug prices, so that the food industry does not have to reveal whether its products contain genetically engineered substances, pesticides, or synthetic hormones, and developers can take away your houses, or corporations can export your jobs. These same politicians say they have to cut funding to Medicaid, student loans, Medicare, senior housing, Social Security, community policing and child care among other programs in order to pass permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. Aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina is not fully funded, but the wealthiest corporation in the world (Exxon) gets billions in government subsidies. This isn't just a partisan pattern. This is a course of self-destruction:

So how do you plan to stop the ABUSE of capitalism?

There is enough for all, but not enough for one greedy man." Gandhi

[edit on 11/4/2008 by ANOK]

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in