Unregulated Capitalism does not give opportunity to all

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You are right on some things and wrong on so many others.

You are 100% correct on "Unregulated Capitalism" and before someone goes crazy, let me explain. (Ferengi in Star Trek come to mind)

1) Anti-Monopoly Laws - A damned good thing, and it is a FACT that we would not have the internet in the form that we have if AT&T had not been divested. Unfortunately over the last few years AT&T and Verizon have been allowed to reassemble (they have allot of money to sway the regulators) and almost completely destroy the CLEC industry (competition). Now they are set-up to kill the last of the competition (cable companies) and have the old East / West Monopoly again. This was done by reversing regulations which kept them from driving out the competition. Corruption for money and political support.

2) Along with Monopolies, we have "IRRESPONSIBLE" capitalism running rampant... what do I mean... well let me say it point blank - When Profit completely trumps National Security, National Sovereignty, AND The PEOPLE of the United States, then we have a big G*d D@mned Problem! We would NEVER let the Soviets or anyone else be a primary supplier of Steel, Manufactured Goods, etc. yet we have allowed China to fill this role, in return they use slave & child labor and artificially keep their currency low. THIS will destroy the U.S. Economy UNLESS we implement "Fair Trade" Tariffs. Failure to implement Fair Trade tariffs WILL result in the LOWERING of the standard of living in America down to the standard of the competition if we are EVER again to compete. We supply the world with almost NOTHING now. Our wealth has been given away to foreign interest in the name of "Making a Buck & Profit Margins" for the Elite and Damn the people of the United States because the Elite can now live anywhere in the World they want after the U.S. is a broken hull. Another recent example of the insanity recently are all of these "so called" green jobs.... well guess what, THEY are being outsourced to China as well. IF WE DON'T MAKE anything to trade and nobody has a damned job and can't afford "services" (which are being outsourced as well), we spiral into bankruptcy!

3) A repeat in some ways but YOUR investment or profit margin CANNOT be allowed to destroy the National Security of this country! This would be called subversion and treason in the past. Many people have been prosecuted and executed for knowingly undermining the security and stability of the United States for money.


As for the Envy comments, this is where you are very very wrong. ALMOST everyone is this country has the opportunity to go as far as they want. The ONLY things that can stop you (besides obvious disabilities) are Yourself.

1) If YOU do not get a basic education in grade / high school you will FAIL. If YOU decide to just get by, you limit YOURSELF and it is nobody else's fault.

2) Do we all have the opportunity to go to university? YES - You have numerous ways to do this but they all require YOU to do something. YOU can join the military, work (entry level) at a job that has tuition reimbursement, take advantage of scholarships (if you work to make the grade and not complain you have no opportunity). Take Tech Courses to get a job. A CCNA will take you a whole 3-4 months to complete, a CCNP in about a YEAR and YOU can start making 30-60 K. ITIL, MCSE, Six-Sigma, Project Management. YOU can do any of these things successfully if you can read and have the BASIC math skills of a 6th grader. A single 3 month class 3 hours a day, 3 days a week for a couple of these. A 4 year degree in almost anything other than Law, Engineering, or Medical is about useless except in Government and a few old brick and mortar companies. Get a skill.

Again, you can get all of this education at almost no cost if your underemployed or unemployed through numerous programs and of course you might want to actually serve your country and join the Military and get experience, training in a real career, insight and some discipline.

Wait, Go to University? (I have only heard Canadians and some Europeans use that phrase) Canada I take it?

2) Do we all have the opportunity to become interns? What? Only teens and college students are interns and that doesn't usually lead to anything unless you "prove yourself". Not high on the priority list when IT & Tech jobs still pay quite well for not spending a fortune on education.

3) Do we all have the opportunity to start a business let alone grow it? Well that question is foolish.. Of course you do if YOU have and idea or service that people will buy. Google, Facebook, Ebay, MySpace, Twitter, need I go further. If you don't have a plan or an idea, that is not anyone else's fault.

NOBODY assumes we all have the same "chances" in life.. .that is naive. YOU have to work for it. YOU have to recognize the opportunities and JUMP. Stop the ENVY of looking at everyone else and hating the fact that "they" had college paid for or whatever. Screw them.. YOU make your fate.

Are we all born equal under the same circumstances? NO, of course not, just means YOU have to work / try for what YOU want. If you don't know what you want then your relying on blind luck... not a smart plan. Unless your disabled, unless YOU became a criminal, or decided to not try in school or other choices YOU made then YOU have the opportunity to succeed.

You will have bad times as well, most of us have ups and downs. I took a hit in a lay-off in 2003 and had to spend my entire 401k. Had to take a job for less than HALF of what I was making. But guess what, I spent 40 hours a week LOOKING for that job. I drove 500 miles away for that interview and I win again! I am like an old turd... you can try to sink me but I will always float to the top! LOL.... I WILL WIN. In the end, I always win. Nothing is going to stop me from fulfilling my goals and that goal is a decent income. If I have to drive pizza again and take a class or 2 with job assistance or government benefits / assistance then I will. If I have to go to school again, I will be #1 in the class or be damned for not trying... why, because that instructor has friends in that particular industry that he will contact and recommend YOU if your kick a$$!

Win for yourself, Win for your family, Win for revenge if you must (I got in a bit of trouble when I was 16, My mother was going to ship me off to my Father's house, my Father's wife HATED me. She told me I was a looser, she told me I was a piece of crap while her children in private school were so smart. Well guess what, now I make twice as much as my father and my 1/2 siblings are just getting by. Looser... really... NO I will not be a loser. I will not accept it. I am to good to fail repeatedly. I can't sell anything, ever except myself, talents, and knowledge. I know my limitations on what I can succeed at and what I can't and I will excel at the things I can do.


Well a bit long and egotistical (Yeah, I already know I am) but to end, let me provide a phrase of wisdom.....

Do you know the difference between Jealously and Envy. There is a Huge difference.

Jealousy is WANTING something that SOMEONE else has. Jealousy, though a negative emotion can be positive by MOTIVATING someone to GET what they want.

ENVY is knowing YOU cannot ever have what you want (usually but not always because of effort & ability) AND NOT WANTING ANYONE ELSE TO HAVE IT EITHER!!

Envy is 100% destructive. It is a trap that many people have fallen into. YOU must ask yourself if either descriptive terms resemble your attitude. If envy describes your outlook then you need to change before it destroys you and those around you.

reply to post by skunknuts


We already have that system. Unfortunately, over the last 100 years or so, our government has destoryed it.

To the OP.
Being born means you have the "opportunity" (so long as you're not messed up). Being born into bad situations DOES NOT mean that you will not have said opportunity. It means you just have to realize your situation and work with it.

reply to post by infolurker


Bully...Just Bully. My thoughts exactly. Here Here. Bravo.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Again you reference me with an assumption, a theory it doesnt need the working class when no such real life system has ever been able to exist.

You say it hasnt ever been ABLE to exist. This would mean it had been tried and failed to exist without a lower class to exploit.

The fact is, it has never been implemented as suggested, therefore, it is wrong to say it failed.

If I give you a recipe for a cake, and you take half the ingredients I suggest, and mix them up with more ingredients of your own choosing, you are in error if you call me up and say,

"Your recipe is unable to produce a cake."

You didnt use my recipe, you used some bastardized version of it and called it my recipe. Big difference. And thats exactly what has happened to capitalism. Only we got a cake that was somewhat palatable, and not an utter failure. But it isnt the cake that Adam Smith gave us the recipe for.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Apologies Illusion, I just now read your reply to me. I agree that Smith's theories mimic "natural selection" quite remarkably so. I also find it ironic that it is "survival of the fittest" that has been most refuted in Darwin's theory. It has always struck me that those same Marxists and Leninist who wish to frame oligopolism as capitalism have also endeavored to erase "survival of the fittest" from the theories of evolution.

I am, however, not sure what you mean by "can't have it both ways". I do acknowledge that there will be people who fail to thrive in a pure system of free market principles, but there are people who will fail to thrive regardless of the system in place.

While I think we are all biologically programmed to survive, some of us don't do this so well and will act in anti-survival ways. God knows I have engaged in such anti-survival behavior and I am grateful to have outlived my own stupidity...at least I think I have.

What efficient economic system is there that would keep inequities from becoming so great? It reminds me of the old joke: "What's the difference between capitalism and communism? Well, in capitalism, man exploits man and in communism it is the other way around."

I have been insistent that capitalism has never had a chance to thrive because of heavy regulations. I am more than willing to acknowledge this is indicative of a flaw with in the theory of capitalism, but when faced with such hybrid theories like "Keynsian capitalism" or mild forms of socialism, that have been given a chance and look at the inequities they've produced, I hold strong that given a chance, capitalism might work.

The unseen hand garners much derision as some form of mystical nonsense, and perhaps deservedly so, yet there is strong evidence that when people are allowed to act in their own self interest, the greater good is accomplished. The strongest evidence of this can be found after disasters, such as an earthquake or hurricane. It is interesting how people, normally unconcerned with the welfare of others will become acutely aware of the welfare of others during times like these.

People are basically good, and can be trusted to do the right thing, for the most part. There are no doubt bullies and thugs and there always will be no matter what system is in place. However, under a free and unregulated market all people can compete unencumbered by suppression and oppression, but regulate that market and it favors the bullies and thugs who rely upon the law as legal plunder.

Originally posted by infolurker
1) If YOU do not get a basic education in grade / high school you will FAIL. If YOU decide to just get by, you limit YOURSELF and it is nobody else's fault.

I agree. I know full well the responsibilities we all have but that isnt the point of my thread. The point I am trying to convey is that unrestrained capitalism doesnt work.

This isnt about a rant against the hard work ethic. People do this to derail the argument the derail the argument away from the actual system.

NOBODY assumes we all have the same "chances" in life..

Free market advocates boast we have opportunity and freedom under unrestrained capitalism. I disagree as the system only leads to unfair highly unbalanced powers which eventually deminish any chances for the majority to have an opportunity, to eliminate any chances at all.

Unrestrained capitalism is based on this perfect competition theory, only to follow on into corporatism where the chances for any new comer to compete is virtually non-existent.


[edit on 9-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I am, however, not sure what you mean by "can't have it both ways". I do acknowledge that there will be people who fail to thrive in a pure system of free market principles, but there are people who will fail to thrive regardless of the system in place.

All I meant by my comment was that we have to acknowledge that the system itself is not set up so that everyone will succeed. It is as guaranteed under capitalism as any other system that there will be people who fail. Some because they do not try hard enough, or want to make it work, and some because they just arent the best suited individuals for success through no real fault of their own.

This part of your post;

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is also revealing that you argue that is "common sense" that we can not all be successful and influential. It is a jaded view to argue that some people are not capable of knowing success, and will never succeed in life.

seems to overstate the possibilities for all individuals. I would say it isnt jaded to acknowledge that not everyone can succeed. In fact I would argue it is more humane to acknowledge that not everyone can succeed.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What efficient economic system is there that would keep inequities from becoming so great?

Personally, I am of the opinion that this could only happen with a political system in which money had no influence. Plato's Republic is an attempt to create such a system where money and military power exist, but neither are allowed to govern the state. He does not spell out in detail what his merchant class will be doing, but it seems clear to me that he is of the opinion that they will be allowed to compete freely, just not govern. I think a combination of the system of governance of the Republic, and free market capitalism could work very nicely.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I have been insistent that capitalism has never had a chance to thrive because of heavy regulations.

And I agree to some point, although Adam Smith did not argue for NO regulation. Just very limited regulation. And, in our current system, all of the regulation has not been the government imposing upon business, but also business imposing on the market itself to limit competition and create favorable conditions once it has the money to buy influence with the government. Only if we can keep businesses out of politics can we really let the invisible hand do its work. Otherwise, they inevitably use their self interest to re-write the rules for the next generation of competitors. Creating obstacles for the new players that allow them to retain competitive advantage often long after the invisible hand would have sent them the way of the dinosaurs.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The unseen hand garners much derision as some form of mystical nonsense, and perhaps deservedly so, yet there is strong evidence that when people are allowed to act in their own self interest, the greater good is accomplished.

Agreed. I think the unseen or invisible hand draws much derision because I do not think everyone has completely understood the link between natural selection and it. Possibly because at the time Smith himself did not understand it that way. However, it is clear to me that that is indeed what he was describing, and if we took great pains to understand that, we would also see WHY it would work. It would work because it is a strategy that has worked for billions of years here on Earth.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
However, under a free and unregulated market all people can compete unencumbered by suppression and oppression, but regulate that market and it favors the bullies and thugs who rely upon the law as legal plunder.

I agree. But that is why some system must be in place to ensure that politics and law are not bought and sold like commodities. Adam Smith lived in a monarchy. Not a democracy. The problems we have in that regard were not anticipated by him. Plato, on the other hand, though long and hard about the problem inherent in Democracy. Which is why I would argue that a marriage of the two philosophies would serve us best and most fairly.

In fact, I would also argue, that that is in fact what some of the founders of our country were trying to do. They simply could not protect us from our own advances in technology. They made an effort to keep businesses and corporations from influencing elections unduly, but the safeguards they built in have been eroded over time by case law, and the influence of the media. It would have been hard for them to imagine a time when the country was so spread out and populated that people would have to rely on televised advertisements to find out who was running for office. In essence, every election is a false dichotomy because only corporate sponsored candidates get the air time required to stand a chance of winning. I dont think they anticipated that.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


A totally unregulated marketplace is a nightmare of greed. The big deregulated banks crashed the world economy. The deregulated company of Monsanto now can have GMO foods in American products yet we have laws stating we the consumer does not have the right to have this on packaging so we all consume it unknowingly. A deregulated multinational corporation will bottom line itself to the point that it will resort to moving to near slave labor wages. Look up history, in the 1800's you had children working in factories and it was dangerous and did not earn much money.

Total deregulation leads to the everyday person into slavery. It never works history has proven that you need to stop listening to the corporate funded think tanks that put this garbage into your thinking. you have been slowly brainwashed to think corporations and banks will ever do the right thing and free market and competition will never make it so in the long run they dont take advantage of whatever resource they can.

Left unregulated they will run the world into the ground like the mindless bottom line machine it is.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

People are basically good, and can be trusted to do the right thing, for the most part. There are no doubt bullies and thugs and there always will be no matter what system is in place. However, under a free and unregulated market all people can compete unencumbered by suppression and oppression, but regulate that market and it favors the bullies and thugs who rely upon the law as legal plunder.

People are not corporations. You need to take your rose colored designer glasses off for a minute and see it for what it is.

You can compare big corporations to gang type mentality. It is not a person but a large group of people working by the rules of turning as much profit as possible. This gang mentality ends up without much conscience and will do everything within limits given to it to achieve its goal. Take off the limits and it will eventually destroy even itself.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


It is acknowledged and agreed that the system is not set up so that everyone can succeed, but what system is? Certainly not the evolutionary process where some will quite literally fall prey to predators, whether they be beast or virus. What economic system can address the problems of inequality, both economic inequities and physical differences, not to mention psychological differences?

In terms of labeling an attitude that asserts that not all can succeed as jaded, I don't mean to argue that all can be rich and everyone can exist at the top 1%, mathematically that is just impossible. But the top 1% nor even 10% shouldn't be the limit to what defines success. Many teachers operate at a budgetary lifestyle well below the top 40 percentile and yet they are so profoundly good at what they do, so remarkably influential in their teaching that it would be a great disservice to us all to dismiss their efforts as not successful, to give just one example.

Money has no influence? Perhaps if we can get to a point, much like on Star Trek where nano technology has gotten to a point where everybody can go to the computer and order what they need and voila! A cup of Earl grey tea hot, or an apple or a juicy prime rib steak is there for the taking. A virtual garden of Eden where money is no object, and all that one needs is there for the taking. However, we are not yet there, and until we are, then money in one form or another will prove necessary.

Not necessary in that we can't barter, but currency is not just money, it is the perception of value. The big problem has always been those who would usurp the system in order to gain control over others. Regardless of what economic system is in play, there are always thugs and bullies, and even Captain Kirk and Picard had to deal with them. It is rare that these thugs and bullies can be reasoned with, and keeping them from engaging in usurpation's is a difficult task, but so is living.

Part of the reason usurpers have been able to use the law to legally plunder is that they have been successful in their propaganda convincing large masses of population that "there is nobility in poverty", or that systems that will work, are sold as systems that won't. Whether it be tyrants who sell a bill of goods wrapped in notions of divine right of kings, or priest class mystics who claim an authority, or megalomaniacs who pretend to serve as leaders of the collective, they gain this power through propaganda.

The unseen hand is not trusted by those who really want to control others, or it is trusted but trusted to do exactly what Smith said it would do, which does not fit into to a would by tyrants agenda. Yet consistently, when people are left alone to handle their own problems and create their own wealth, they do so more times than not. It is the propaganda that endeavors to paint a different picture. I just yesterday saw a commercial about the poor water conditions in other countries and it shows a woman going to the river to scoop up a gallon of water and she goes home to give her two children two glasses of dirty brown water while they sit at the table working on their lap tops.

How is that possible that children can have their own lap tops but no means to water purification? It is blatant propaganda that either assumes the populace watching it are too stupid too pick up on these anomalies or too easily manipulated by the sight of dirty brown water. What it reveals is a stupidity on the part of the makers of this propaganda, and whomever may fall prey to these silly logical fallacies are not nearly as stupid as those who would manipulate them. I have great faith in individuals and humanity as a whole and all the arguments I've heard against them are emotional revelations by those who are unhappy with their own situations, unwilling to admit that they are hopelessly and inextricably linked to the humanity the revile and every bit as much an individual as the next person.

I like what you have to say about politics and especially law not being bought and sold as a commodity, and would that we could get to such a point. However, in terms of politics, I like what Jefferson say's when he states that there is a certain amount of rottenness that enters into men who run for office, as I think there is truth to this. In terms of law, what are we to do when the priest class lawyers will argue that the law they defend is not as scientific as the laws of mathematics or physics? As long as they will continue to undermine the very product they serve, and sell it as an inefficient product, then the law will be bought and sold, as a marked down commodity.

When we begin to demand that either the laws of legislation are as sacrosanct as the laws of physics, and that legislatures don't make law anymore than Newton didn't make gravity, then I think we can perhaps keep the law from being a product that goes to the highest bidder. But the wholesale purchase of law and politics will continue as long as people are willing to agree that we are less than who we really are, rather than strive to be who we should be. We are all capable of great successes and remarkable influence.

It wasn't until Steven Hawkins own body caved in on himself that he became successful and influential, and yet here is a man who is remarkably disadvantaged physically. This has not kept him from success and by his own admission has probably marked his drive for success more than anything else. He refused to succumb to a universe that demands we all succumb, and if he can do it then why can't we?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You are absolutely correct, capitalism gives nothing. Its simply provides the opportunity for people to earn it.
This I think is where all the fallacies start, this idea that people should be 'given' something - - beyond opportunity.
Now the truth is that the path might be a bit steeper for some than others, but the fact is there is a path. Ask someone who grew up under communism, they didn't have a choice, their path was chosen for them. University might be free but you must study what the state says. If the state screws up and makes a million doctors and no farmers they all get to starve. (and recall 'the state' is still just people)
I think most of us would prefer to make our own mistakes, the opportunity to succeed by its very nature includes the opportunity to fail.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
I never fail to wonder at the cynicism displayed by some people about capitalism. I am not rich, but I am not poor. My parents grew up during the depression and WWII. My father never got past the 6th grade, but due to their hard work, I went to college. They are now retired and have a comfortable retirement. No one gave them anything, they worked hard-scrimped-saved-sacrificed and got ahead.

Hello Alreadygone,

I respectfully disagree.

I think you are missing the point of the OP, in a state of unregulated Capitalism, your story, and mine are in the extreme minority. Conservative Capitalism is a failed ideology.

Look where it got us. But that was nothing compared to what some people want.

Where would you draw the line? If it were not for legislation, it would be legal to dump toxic waste into rivers. Or just dump it on your property.

If those laws are repealed, what do you think those industries would do?
Be responsible to the environment, and the health of citizens?

I don't think so.

We need more restraint, not less.

Ziggy

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

A totally unregulated marketplace is a nightmare of greed. The big deregulated banks crashed the world economy. The deregulated company of Monsanto now can have GMO foods in American products yet we have laws stating we the consumer does not have the right to have this on packaging so we all consume it unknowingly. A deregulated multinational corporation will bottom line itself to the point that it will resort to moving to near slave labor wages. Look up history, in the 1800's you had children working in factories and it was dangerous and did not earn much money.

Total deregulation leads to the everyday person into slavery. It never works history has proven that you need to stop listening to the corporate funded think tanks that put this garbage into your thinking. you have been slowly brainwashed to think corporations and banks will ever do the right thing and free market and competition will never make it so in the long run they dont take advantage of whatever resource they can.

Left unregulated they will run the world into the ground like the mindless bottom line machine it is.

Do you honestly presume that greed will just go away if some form of government control legislates it away? One of the primary reasons communism has failed is that it ignores the very real fact that people are greedy. Your assertions that banks and corporations are "deregulated" is just not true. The FDA was created to regulate corporations like Monsanto and look what happened!

Furthermore, corporations are statutorily created entities that exist by the grant of the people and can be destroyed by the people by revoking their charters. Yet who actually works towards this goal? Instead, most people turn towards imagined leaders and ask them to reign in or control these corporations rather than simply destroy them.

Time and time again I argue that it is through massive competition which translates into small businesses, that is what capitalism is, and time and time again people keep insisting on pointing towards anti-capitalistic oligopolistic corporations as being capitalist, not so they can fix the problem and only so they can whine about it.

Do you want to fix the problem? Stop abdicating your inherent political power and unite with others to destroy the corporate system and let freedom reign, but is this what you want or do you crave some other system of controlling people? Would you attempt to put in place some system that criminalizes greed? Who amongst any of us is expected to believe that you are any less greedy than the next person, and who amongst us is expected to believe that if only some ideal leader would come along then they could protect us all from us?

You, much like others who've fallen prey to the propaganda of control, rely upon phrases such as: "total deregulation leads the everyday person into slavery" without even realizing the complete contradiction made with such a statement. First of all, one can not have deregulation with out first having regulation. If regulation was working so well then why deregulate? If a system isn't broke then why fix it? The arguments for deregulation always come in reply to an overbearing government that has driven the economy into disrepair.

Secondly, deregulation is never unregulated, it is a loosening of regulations, but never just letting go. Thus, the very same licensing schemes that existed before deregulation still exist after it. In today's market place if you want to shine shoes and develop your own business doing so, you are required by local ordinance to obtain a license to do so, and your local government will not grant you such license until you obtain a federal tax I.D. number, and that my friend is slavery, and it is also regulation.

Why would a shoe shiner need a license to do so? Why would a book seller need a license to do so? Why would a clothier need a license to do so? That they do speaks to the slavery you so cavalierly declare comes in the form of deregulation. All the while screaming the corporation is capitalist mantra, showing just how heavily you have indoctrinated. But you will never fight the corporation, you will instead plead helplessness and inability and because you plead these special circumstances you expect all others to be as helpless as you, so that all power can be placed in a charismatic leader who will most assuredly represent the corporate interests over yours.

You rely upon silly little emoticons to accentuate your points and what are your points? You say nonsensical things like: "People are not corporations. You need to take your rose colored designer glasses off for a minute and see it for what it is." Yet, corporations do not run themselves, they are run by people, and when held accountable as people rather than allowed to hide behind corporate status, they will act far more ethically than when given such dubious cover.

It is not the rose colored glasses from my house that allowed CEO's and corporate officers the camouflage of corporate personhood, it is the ignoramuses with their own rose colored glasses who have granted this usurpation of power. Your efforts to explain group think in terms of gang mentality only underscore your own ignorance. Group think can only have effect as long as individuals are willing to be the effect of it and refuse to be cause themselves.

It is up to you, not as a collective, but as an individual, to do what you can to reign in the plunder that corporations so readily engage in, but the moment you begin screaming "more regulation" is the exact moment you abdicate your own power and hand it off to another who could care less about you and why should they, since you are so willing to give up power that is yours?

Originally posted by Chett
You are absolutely correct, capitalism gives nothing. Its simply provides the opportunity for people to earn it.

I clearly stated in OP that unregulated capitalism bases itself on the assumption that everybody has the opportunity and freedom to reach the american dream when infact it restricts those opportunities.

Unregulated capitalism survives on a large lower class majority to stay down and a minority of those living the american dream. It also restrains opportunities of the majority to the point where the system eventually becomes corporatism. The system of where the top one create virtually no chance for more people to climb up in life. Its not a workable system and never has been successfully implemented over the years.

Please read the OP before you reply.

This I think is where all the fallacies start, this idea that people should be 'given' something.

Never said the people should be given something for free in life. Considering that the majority will always end up at the bottom end of the stick in the system of unreglated capitalism, considering that we are all born with a meesly 1/10 chance to even earn a good job, its not opportunity.

My argument is against the system in the view of free marketers, which is clearly flawed. They will bring in the excuse that this has to do with people being lazy to succeed when their system demands the majority to be rock bottom with individuals having virtually little opportunity.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Chett
You are absolutely correct, capitalism gives nothing. Its simply provides the opportunity for people to earn it.

I clearly stated in OP that unregulated capitalism bases itself on the assumption that everybody has the opportunity and freedom to reach the american dream when infact it restricts those opportunities.

Unregulated capitalism survives on a large lower class majority to stay down and a minority of those living the american dream. It also restrains opportunities of the majority to the point where the system eventually becomes corporatism. The system of where the top one create virtually no chance for more people to climb up in life. Its not a workable system and never has been successfully implemented over the years.

Please read the OP before you reply.

This I think is where all the fallacies start, this idea that people should be 'given' something.

Never said the people should be given something for free in life. Considering that the majority will always end up at the bottom end of the stick in the system of unreglated capitalism, considering that we are all born with a meesly 1/10 chance to even earn a good job, its not opportunity.

My argument is against the system in the view of free marketers, which is clearly flawed. They will bring in the excuse that this has to do with people being lazy to succeed when their system demands the majority to be rock bottom with individuals having virtually little opportunity.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Here is where you get to the heart of the matter, and it lies in the fact that you expect a job. You have no desires yourself to run and operate your own business but instead want a job to work for someone else who has made the effort to create that job for you.

You whine about how you think capitalism can't survive without a working class, in fact, you declare it a fact, but the only fact of the matter is that you have no other ambitions than being a working class person yourself, and if you do have ambitions outside of that you have certainly not made that clear here in this thread.

No one has accused you or anyone else of being lazy and yet you keep insisting that this will be the argument brought in, and yet, to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been brought up by anyone other than you. You attempt to demonize capitalism and those who advocate it by putting words in their mouth and speaking for them, when in truth you speak for no one other than yourself.

If you want to be a working class hero this is your choice, if you don't want to be a working class slave then you also have the choice to be your own boss and run and operate your own business. You can whine about how hard that is and how unfair the system is or you can use your facility for language to go out and find some investors and build a business.

Instead of wasting your time attempting to sell people in this site on the evils of capitalism why not put that effort into selling your own product and in doing so getting much closer to flourishing and prospering than you would ever do as a working class slave? There are people who every day go out into the real world, some even enter into this virtual world of the world wide web and work at selling their own product in order to make a living. They do not waste their time bemoaning the unfairness of it all, and just do what they can to actually compete in the market place. A market place that is far from unregulated no matter how "deregulated" people like you claim it might be.

If you define success as otherwise than economic, then of course all human beings can be a success. I assumed we meant economically, rather than in human terms, since we were talking about economic systems. I agree. In human terms, all human beings can be a success, if they themselves define what success is for them, rather than use benchmarks set by others. Happiness is the end to which most of us really strive, and money and economic success just happens to be the thing that many of us feel will bring us happiness. But it often doesnt when pursued as an end in itself. It is a much more efficient path to happiness to do what you love.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Money has no influence? Perhaps if we can get to a point, much like on Star Trek where nano technology has gotten to a point where everybody can go to the computer and order what they need and voila! A cup of Earl grey tea hot, or an apple or a juicy prime rib steak is there for the taking. A virtual garden of Eden where money is no object, and all that one needs is there for the taking. However, we are not yet there, and until we are, then money in one form or another will prove necessary.

I am not sure if this was directed to my argument, but if I gave the impression that money itself as a convenience should be done away with, that was not my intent. My intent was that money should have no political influence.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Part of the reason usurpers have been able to use the law to legally plunder is that they have been successful in their propaganda convincing large masses of population that "there is nobility in poverty", or that systems that will work, are sold as systems that won't.

Or that systems that will not work are packaged as systems that will work.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The unseen hand is not trusted by those who really want to control others, or it is trusted but trusted to do exactly what Smith said it would do, which does not fit into to a would by tyrants agenda.

I agree completely, and this is why money and politics should not be allowed to be in bed with one another. Tyrants (or really anyone if they get the chance, and are not aware of the tendency) will change the rules of the game, the laws of the society, to suit their own interests if they are allowed to. It is basic human nature. Although I agree with you, that humans are not bad, they are self interested. In competitive markets, it is in the self interest of the person to please other people. When a person has the power to make the rules, it is no longer in their best interest to please others. The invisible hand cannot work if one or a few of the competitors are writing the rules. The will invariably create a rule that makes the invisible hand only apply to those who cannot write the rules.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
How is that possible that children can have their own lap tops but no means to water purification? It is blatant propaganda that either assumes the populace watching it are too stupid too pick up on these anomalies or too easily manipulated by the sight of dirty brown water.

I am not sure. I dont know what country you are speaking of. I do know there are groups who try to provide the children in developing countries with free laptops, but without knowing more about the situation, I am afraid I cannot comment.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
When we begin to demand that either the laws of legislation are as sacrosanct as the laws of physics, and that legislatures don't make law anymore than Newton didn't make gravity, then I think we can perhaps keep the law from being a product that goes to the highest bidder.

Again, I am not so sure, philosophically. Rules, if they are written too inflexibly and specifically, can be easily sidestepped. It is part of the brilliance of our founding fathers that they made our own legal code so flexible and adaptable. Which is why I like Platos idea, that those who dispense law must somehow have all motive to make laws that suit them stripped from them.

Another inherent problem in democracy as we know it, is that Smiths capitalism depends to some degree on specialization to create efficiency. People doing what they do best, as you have mentioned yourself. Unfortunately for people in democracies, most voters do not specialize in understanding policy and law. It would be interesting to see how Smith would have dealt with the unique dynamics that Democracy brings to economics. His theory assumes a benign monarch to act as relatively impartial governor for the system, as the monarchs well being is not tied to the support of any one business interest or another. (At least not in the way a modern day President who must be re-elected every four years is)

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Here is where you get to the heart of the matter, and it lies in the fact that you expect a job. You have no desires yourself to run and operate your own business but instead want a job to work for someone else who has made the effort to create that job for you.

You dont know me personally.

You whine about how you think capitalism can't survive without a working class, in fact, you declare it a fact, but the only fact

I declare it is fact because its always been that way. Infact for the last few decades the gap between the rich a poor has been increasing. Not only that but the portion of lower class workers has been steadly increasing aswell in percentage:
freedomkeys.com...

You could not find me one example of a period where capitalism existed without the lower classes. You claimed that "in theory" it should work but never cited a time when it was ever successfully implemented. You claim that it should work but have nothing to show for it. You and those who have echoed your argument here.

Your "theory" over the matter doesnt make it fact. We have only seen the capitalist system with lower classes taking the bulk of the population and it has been steadly increasing. Nobody has seen or heard of capitalism without the lower classes because it is impossible to its existence. Capitalism needs to work on a pyramid scheme and thats why its so flawed.

Regulated capitalism isnt perfect but it by the least protects the opportunities of the majority from slipping away and it by the least prevents the system from heading into corporatism.

If you want to be a working class hero this is your choice, if you don't want to be a working class slave then you also have the choice to be your own boss and run and operate your own business.

In this system not everybody will have the luxury of that opportunity. This system needs the weight of the majority to work at the bottom. If everybody attempted to be their own boss, this flawed system of your would push them back and maintain the gap because thats how the system works.

Im not proud of being working class, but I am a hard worker and I get by. I have goals but due to my unfortunate circumstances I cant acheive them now neither can millions of others. We are holding the system afloat due to the fact we lost out in the odds of opportunity, 1/10. We can always try again but in this system the odds will always be against us the elite will always decrease those opportunities.

You seem to think this is about the hard work ethic. In this system of unrestrained capitalism its not necessarily the hard work that gets you anywhere, its the odds of being born or striking the lottery (metophorically or not). Its a system where the minute your born, the odds of an opportunity are most likely stacked against you.

The corporate elite prefer to keep it that way.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Apathy

The number 1 problem with the whole system. We (and I mean all of us not some limited set) are all way too lazy to fix things.
Corporate greed is indeed hurting us but the solution is built into the system if we would simply use it. Don't like Monsanto and GMO food? Don't buy anything associated with Monsanto.
Corporations will get the message if people vote with their wallets.
Worried about companies and toxic waste ... they dump and you dump their stock.
Now if you have a solution to human apathy I am with you.
What have you (anybody on this thread) done about any of this? Vote? Either the regular ballot box kind or with your wallet?
Until the 'people' stand up and take control the greed will get us.

And before anybody jumps me, yes I do vote with my wallet, every single day. I do not purchase anything from companies whose policies I don't agree with. I do pay more sometimes but I sleep better.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Yes my friend the Star Trek analogy was directed at your statement. I am sorry I misunderstood and did think you were suggesting we do away with money, which I am not adverse to and ironically think that we are soon entering an age where it is wholly conceivable that capitalism would become obsolete, the irony being that capitalism was never given a chance to begin with.

I am most certainly in agreement with you that money should not have political influence, but then again, I should still have a thick head of hair and a slim waist but reality seems to differ with me on that. There just is a certain amount of rottenness in those who run for office, and running for office requires money, even in the best of situations.

Although you suggest we might have some philosophical differences I am not so sure that we do. We both agree that is it bad news to allow government officials to posses enough power to affect the natural rules of behavior. The natural rules being, that when all people are acting in their own best interest, that collective effort will move towards a greater good because people realize they are social beings and must acknowledge the needs of others in order to facilitate their own best interest.

It is only when people begin to believe that they have no individual power and that all power belongs to governments or the officials who lead them, that the corruption of power begins and eventual leads to absolute corruption. While you seem hesitant to acknowledge that laws governing human behavior can be immutable and just as stringent as the laws of physics, which ironically aren't as stringent as we thought them to be since there are constants that don't seem to be as constant as we thought them to be, however, they are not nearly as malleable as too much legislation is today.

You suggest that the Founders of the U.S. envisioned a government that had the flexibility to change laws, and to some degree you may be right, however I would stress that the Founders were painfully clear, mostly enumerated in the Bill of Rights but even before this was written, they were adamant that certain laws were non negotiable. Those non negotiable laws we know as unalienable rights.

Every person is as free to do what they want to do as that freedom does not cause unjustified harm to another. What is justified harm? Self defense or defense of loved ones, and even if necessary strangers from others who would cause harm. Thus, it is not okay to cause harm to another! And the only time it becomes okay to cause harm is to stop others from doing so. This is immutable and can not, even though legislatures have tried to do it, be erased, it is immutable.

Rules are one thing and can allow for flexibility but law is law and if it is malleable then it is not law. It may pretend to be law, it may be enacted in the form of a statute that serves as evidence of law, but if it is some arbitrary piece of legislation that allows for the harm of others or the abrogation or derogation of ones rights, then it is not law and contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution for the United States.

That said, there are many government officials today who will argue this point and being immensely influenced by money will argue that the Commerce Clause gives them authority to regulate health care as just one example. It is a stretch of great imagination to make such an assertion and yet members of Congress are doing so right now. Who benefits from such assertions? Follow the money!

It seems to me that whatever disagreements we might have are far outweighed by the agreements we do have. Yet, it is nice to have friendly disagreement with one I agree so much with. It can only sharpen us both and help us work together towards a better tomorrow.

We shouldn't have to work more than 40 hours a week to have a comfortable life. I understand hard work, I have done the 84 hour week, I did it, made a ton of money. But it was, work & eat & sleep and that's it. I have also done the 16 hour week too.

This point about hard work is a given, but working at three part time jobs at 20 hours each making $10 an hour is not my idea of enjoying successful capitalism.

But in this past "Great Recession" capitalism has crushed the middle class and certainly prevented the poor from getting to the middle class. Wealth reversal was and is common even for the upper middle class during the past few years.

Capitalism had progressed to Corporatism, bailing millionaire companies and there rich CEO's just because there having a bad run, is not longer free market capitalism but corporatism.