It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Unregulated Capitalism does not give opportunity to all

page: 4
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
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.


Well said BlueJay.




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Heh, what a silly topic. Ask someone in Africa if they wouldn't mind being part of the American "lower class". Running water, electricity, and no machete-wielding mobs. Sure, each man will earn according to his own industry, and that makes for inequality. What would you have us do, split things more evenly to appease your morals? Your guilt? Your whims? Mind your own business.

It always amazes me that grown men with all this life experience can come to such rediculous conclusions. The U.S. lower class enjoys things most of the world can't even dream of because of the efficiency free trade can provide. Efficiency. Think about it - in an hour, you can program a computer to process data, clean 30 lbs of clothes, or cook a meal for 10. Eh, what's the use .. continue to wallow in your pity for the "lower class". Me, I'm happy to be part of the lower class. Life is good, don't touch my freedom. If you want to live with coddled housecats, go be a monk.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I never claimed to know you but I am certainly reading the posts you posted in this thread you've created, and while I quoted you in your entirety in the post that compelled me to take you to task as I did, allow me to quote you more specifically. You said:

"considering that we are all born with a meesly 1/10 chance to even earn a good job, its not opportunity. "

Who are you talking about if not yourself? Are you speaking for me, when you say "we"? Because you don't know me personally either, nor do you know the vast majority of the 90% you are presumably speaking for with such a gross over generalization. What you are doing is presenting a fallacious argument in the form of an excluded middle. There is only, in your argument, those at the top 1% or top 10% depending upon your whimsical nature at one end and then the poor, poor pitiful bottom 90% or 99% on the bottom and all the bottom feeders in your world can only hope to earn a good job. Nowhere do you even try to allow for the fact that anyone of those poor, poor pitiful souls can start their own business.

No matter how many times I insist that capitalism has never existed you still yourself insist on asserting yourself that:

"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."

Of course I can't find you one example since I keep telling you it has never existed. If I asserted that God never existed would you ask me to show you that God never existed? Do you constantly go around asking people to prove the negative? And the irony is that your following sentences rely on the very fact that I have told you that capitalism has never existed. So, on the one hand you smugly declare yourself right because I have failed to prove a negative, and on the other hand smugly declare yourself right because all I can do is claim it never existed.

Then you turn right back around and begin discussing capitalism as if it has existed and that my "theories" have no bearing. But, this is all capitalism is, a theory, and I have never asserted it to be anything more than this. I do claim that if given the chance it could work, but you claiming it couldn't because it doesn't only makes you appear as if your not sure what your arguing.

In fact, you continue to declare things that aren't true as facts, and perhaps you believe that if you tell a lie loud enough and long enough that people will begin to believe it, but as I have stated, I have much more faith in people than you seem to, and no matter how much you attempt to disguise the truth, A is still A. You can scream all you want that A is really B but it is only a matter of time before people will stop taking you seriously. A is A and will always be A.

Regulated capitalism isn't capitalism and why you are so intent on declaring it so is your issue not mine. I have entered this thread with the simple goal of clarifying what your problem is with and that is not with capitalism, and I have maintained this position throughout. Conversely, you change positions at the drop of a hat, and while you claim that is capitalism that oppresses the working class, you will praise capitalism as a workable system as long as it is regulated. But just as A is A, capitalism requires a free and unregulated marketplace.

Running and operating your own business is not a luxury and far from it. It takes hard work and careful planning. It takes the investment of capital and the ability to turn that investment into profit, not luxury. You claim that if everyone attempted to be their own boss it is the "flawed system" of capitalism that would push them back into servitude, but on the contrary if everyone attempted to be their own boss some would fail at it, but because everyone had attempted to do so, this would create a demand for workers and that demand would create a stronger bargaining tool for those who did agree to work.

The hard work ethic is only one small portion of what it takes to successfully run and operate ones own business. Beyond a hard work ethic it requires enough savvy to understand the principles of economics, the craft of marketing and the skills required to compete, and manage a business. It is not I who is continually attempting to reduce success down to simplistic ideas but you.

Your final sentence of your last post reveals exactly who you have a problem with and I have told you so myself. It is the corporate elite of whom you have a problem with not capitalism. If everyone, as you put it, would deny the corporate elite their power by refusing to do business with them and simply do business with like minded people, then the corporate elite would either have to improvise, adapt and overcome, by changing in a way to better suit your ideal world, or crumble.

You attempt to dismiss capitalism as not a valid system and if you have read my posts in their entirety, which I doubt you have, I have admitted that since capitalism remains solely a theory never given the chance to function, this very well may be indicative of flaws in capitalism, however, you have offered nothing as a better alternative, other than the continue to create the very same regulatory process that has allowed for the system we currently have, a corporate elite.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


The idea is that the lower class still exists, but improves in livelihood. In what nation does the lower class still have an xbox and flat screen tv in their crappy apartment? "Da hood", that's where. The government should only fracture monopolies though, and do its justice with corruption.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal
Heh, what a silly topic. Ask someone in Africa if they wouldn't mind being part of the American "lower class". Running water, electricity, and no machete-wielding mobs.


Yep when your in the lower class, atleast your better off than the africans. This is excuse enough for this system to continue to peck away the opportunities of the majority of working american, excuse enough to ignore the fact the top percentage are assure their reserved space.

Nevermind the fact the odds are stacking against the average joe in the pyramid scheme of a system, just look to somebody more lower across the world. What away to PR this flawed system.


The U.S. lower class enjoys things most of the world can't even dream of because of the efficiency free trade can provide.


Free trade like NAFTA??
The lower class enjoys corporate healthcare second to Costa Rica?
The fact the odds of having any opportunities of the american dream is diminishing generation by generation because the corporate thugs are sercuring the market and their reserved space?
The lower classes which take up 90% of the population makes up under a third of the wealth? Good ol' corporate capitalism ya know?


Efficiency.


Efficiency? After all the cr*p we have gone through over this system, you say efficiency? Have you ever heard of a real case in which a capitalist system is efficient and not in need of a majority lower class? Maybe you can talk that over some of the others on here.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
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.


Why stop there? We shouldn't have to work at all to have a comfortable life. Really, it's all about what you're willing to settle for in life. If you want the car, house, boat, whatever - you're going to have to produce something useful for people. If you're a vascular surgeon, that's not too hard. Janitor? You're gonna be working awhile.

Think about that comfortable life and what it takes. Running water? PEX tubing, copper pipes, PVC pipes, a plummer to sweat joints, route everything, install your fixtures, and that's just scratching the surface. Electricity? Have fun maintaining that cross compound generator, repairing that distribution breaker, wiring in that protective relay, and so on. You think we work for free? Turns out our labor is expensive, and for you to think that you deserve it for 40 hours of your labor .. just because .. no matter how valuable your labor is .. well, that's stupid.



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.


Yeah, you'd be better off living in a place that regulates and taxes all industries so that a can of beans goes from being $0.10 to $1.15. Or requires so much in the way of zoning that land costs 10 times what it should because the supply of buildable land is artificially constrained. Or taxes your gas and paychecks to build a museum you will never visit. Yeah.

Be thankful you can still buy a can of beans for $0.50 and shack up with a roommate in a city for a couple hundred bucks every month. Decent clothes at Goodwill for a couple of bucks a pop, or Walmart for your nicer stuff. Really, it's not that bad if you just make peace with not living like Donald Trump. He's a miserable looking bastard anyway ..



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.


If by capitalism you mean free trade, then you are completely incorrect. Do you honestly think that a system that allows you to choose your career, work as much or little as your want, and let people keep the proceeds of their labor ... is a BAD thing?

Free trade makes it possible for you to fly across the country for $300, without having to ask for permission, without having to sign forms, just because you want to. Free trade is the reason you can buy a car, computer, house, whatever without being in the upper class.

Think about it - if the owner of a company needs "slaves" to work for him .. he's got to pay them. They will eventually prosper. Someone will eventually find a better way to conduct business. He will compuete with the other owner - lower prices, higher pay to draw in the talent, etc. Is it any wonder that India and China are beginning to see signs of a middle class? Don't you think that might have just a LITTLE to do with business being thrown their way. Yeah, I'm sure they hate being exploited ..



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.


Agreed. The rules, once established, should never, ever be ammended or replaced by any private or public interests, no matter what. This is the government's fault. They put a bill of sale on the rules.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Exactly and unregulated Capitalism ends in monopoly and few other nasty things that are now discouraged as history shows. Those regulations were put into place for a reason as those problems became a problem NOT at the inception of the system. I generally view those who wax romantic about Unrengulated Capitalism as either unrealistic pie in the sky idealists with no real understanding of history or human nature. Or people who know the rules are in place for good reason and find thew to be an inconvience and want them removed for their own greedy reasons. Which is why they feed the idealists with their sunshine and puppy dog illusions.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dasher
What has brought down capitalism will bring down every form of economics or government eventually. That great death is brought about by Pride and it lives in Chaos. Capitalism is idealistic, Socialism is idealistic, so anyone who immediately dismisses an idea as idealistic is very ignorant of history.

I tend to believe that we should have capitalism as "default law" without the allowance of perpetual corporations and with minimal regulations combined with more appealing and beneficial helps for non-profit businesses (socialism through freedom), and any non-profit businesses (businesses that provide true services or products) or non-profit charities (religious/social/philosophical groups) must allow all financial records to be posted publicly and without the smallest hindrance to their understanding. Through these balances, the ideals of capitalism (competition and individual choice) remain while socialism that is honest is encouraged and thrives without the ideal of service to all who are in need being forced unfairly.

While this concept seems "idealistic," it is no more idealistic than either idea alone, it is the way things already are (minus corporations and plus increased non-profit business advantages - but not for non-profit religious entities, possibly leave them as they are now), and would work for a long while if established and then left alone instead of being allowed to be manipulated.

Or, maybe we should be all polar about it?

[edit on 1/9/2010 by Dasher]


I agree with much of what you wrote. Both pure capitalism and pure socialism are unworkable for any length of time because they are both inherently imbalanced. I propose the following:

1) Money would have no inherent value, but would only represent the value of work performed in adding value to society. So what is beneficial to society? People fulfilling their dreams (as long as they don't hurt others) is a benefit to society. People inventing new things is beneficial. Infrastructure being built and maintained is beneficial. People having basic needs to live modestly comfortable is beneficial. People caring for others is beneficial. People solving problems of society if beneficial. There are many things like this that would qualify as a benefit to society.

2) Governments would be highly localized such that any citizen would have easy access to those who are elected as representatives. Using state-of-the-art Internet technology, the citizenry would make more decisions than they now make. Essentially, elected experts would do research and summarize bills for the population to vote on. Any citizen could register to vote on a particular bill, both for interim votes and on the final vote.

3) Local governments would introduce money into their local economy by paying for existing and new social projects that any citizen could introduce. The cost of all government projects would be paid for by new money introduced into the economy. There would be no taxes.

4) Once money is in the economy it would then circulate in a capitalistic free-enterprise economy. There would be a stock market, giving investors the opportunity to invest in private enterprises. No interest is permitted to be charged for loans, so money lending in the private sector must be for share in equity only.

So, what are the unique features of this economic and political system:

1) The currency of a particular economic zone only represents value that is inherent in the infrastructure and assets of that particular zone.

2) No interest/usury is charged at any time. People can not make money off of money. They can only make money by producing some increase in the society's value, or by purchasing an interest in some private endeavor.

3) Each local government issues its own new currency into the system to pay for all functions of government. Individuals do not pay for government directly through taxation, but rather they pay for government by providing their labor/ingenuity in exchange for equitable payment.

4) Any citizen can obtain a business start-up grant from the government if that particular business is something the society wants. The "wants" of the society are determined by direct evaluation using the citizen-involvement network (Internet). If the government will not pay for all of a project, the balance must be obtained by private investors who will take an equity share in the business.

5) Because money is valued according to the value of the infrastructure and assets of the society (at a local economic zone level), there will never be inflation or deflation. The precise value of the money for any given zone can be controlled by zone regulators by adjusting the Depreciation Rate of the zone's assets, and by controlling the percentage they pay for a project.

Essentially, this is a primary societal economy, with a secondary capitalistic economy, governed by efficient and hand's-on citizen-based governance, backed and supported by an elected body of expert advisers.

By structuring the economy such that the government bodies can spend as much money as they want without adversely affecting the value of the currency, it becomes possible for mankind, both individually and as a whole, to reach its highest progress potential. No more will any man or woman be hindered in fulfilling their ideas, dreams, and aspirations because of a lack in funding, partners, or connections.

I have built a software program that models the economics of this proposal, and it proves to be highly stable and precisely controllable to encourage or discourage performance. Unlike the current economy which is based on increasing debt, this system is based on increasing societal value.

Careful thought has been given to balancing the fulfillment of the individual with the progress of society, and any input or questions by other ATS members would be appreciated.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Yep when your in the lower class, atleast your better off than the africans. This is excuse enough for this system to continue to peck away the opportunities of the majority of working american, excuse enough to ignore the fact the top percentage are assure their reserved space.

Nevermind the fact the odds are stacking against the average joe in the pyramid scheme of a system, just look to somebody more lower across the world. What away to PR this flawed system.


Saying freedom pecks away at opportunities is like saying slavery is freedom. And reserved space at the top? Look around - there's no reserved space. If you want to build a flying car, go do it. Of course, you'll have to deal with labor unions, your state's DMV, the federal transportation administration, the IRS ... and that's just the beginning.



Free trade like NAFTA??
The lower class enjoys corporate healthcare second to Costa Rica?
The fact the odds of having any opportunities of the american dream is diminishing generation by generation because the corporate thugs are sercuring the market and their reserved space?
The lower classes which take up 90% of the population makes up under a third of the wealth? Good ol' corporate capitalism ya know?


Did I say NAFTA? You're grasping pretty desperately for those strawmen. I might as well say all Democrats are homosexuals because this one time, Barney Frank ... never mind.

Healthcare. Heh, you don't even have to pay for emergency care in the U.S. Anything non-emergency .. yeah, you're gonna pay through the nose without insurance, Medicare or Medicaid (which covers the vast majority of people).

Ever stop to wonder WHY healthcare is so expensive? Regulations, money spent on medical R&D, medical professional shortages ... nah, that couldn't have anything to do with it. It's a SERVICE and nothing more. Why don't hospitals or doctors openly compete for business? The FTC prevents it. Why can't a guy who sets bones for $400 a pop work out of his house? Because the local health department says he can't. Why can't you import cheap medicine into the U.S. from foreign markets? Because the government says you can't, and that's because the laws were bought buy the companies, and that's because the government has authority where it should have none.



Efficiency? After all the cr*p we have gone through over this system, you say efficiency? Have you ever heard of a real case in which a capitalist system is efficient and not in need of a majority lower class? Maybe you can talk that over some of the others on here.


I assume you're referring to the manufactured "U.S. recession". Do you really think banks WANT to be saddled with a home they can't sell? Do you really think the government had NOTHING to do with forcing lenders to dish out loans to the "underprivledged"?

Gotta laugh at this guy talking about the crap that's come out of a system that's put cheap food in your stores, machinery in your factories, cars in your garage, electricity at your outlets, water at your faucets .. the system is falling apart, but it is because capitalism cannot survive in a world where its participants can BUY the rules. Capitalism is nothing more than you and I and everyone else putting our labor on the open market to support whatever lifestyle we desire.

You keep saying "lower class". If this is what you aim to eliminate, then we must all accept an equal share of resources, no matter what. An equal share for all. This requires enforcement. This contradicts our drive to do what is in our own best interest. This is not popular.

To wrap this up quickly, a system where men engage in commerce freely will result in those who are richer than others. But in this system, we all become more efficient. If you can't see that by comparing industry in the 1800s to that of today ... then I'm wasting my time.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Exactly and unregulated Capitalism ends in monopoly and few other nasty things that are now discouraged as history shows. Those regulations were put into place for a reason as those problems became a problem NOT at the inception of the system. I generally view those who wax romantic about Unrengulated Capitalism as either unrealistic pie in the sky idealists with no real understanding of history or human nature. Or people who know the rules are in place for good reason and find thew to be an inconvience and want them removed for their own greedy reasons. Which is why they feed the idealists with their sunshine and puppy dog illusions.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Wow! Talk about sunshine and puppy dog illusions, here we live in a clearly regulated market place, where in the U.S. alone there is the FDA, the USDA, the TSA, the EPA, the ATF, which are the more recognizable acronyms for agencies. There is also the Commodity Credit Corporation, (CCC), the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, (CFTC), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, (CPSC), the DEA or Drug Enforcement Agency, the Employment and Training Administration, (ETA), the Employment Standards Administration, (ESA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC), the Farm Credit Administration, (FCA), the Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), the Federal Communications Commission, (FCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, (FDIC), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (FERC), the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, (EREN), the Federal Maritime Commission, (FMC), the Federal Railroad Administration, (FRA), the Federal Trade Commission, (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission, (SEC) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, (APHIS), to name just some of the federal administrative regulatory agencies and still you people have the audacity to refer to the market place as a "deregulated" marketplace.

Not only that, you will readily admit that the system currently in place is clearly broken but blame it on a free and unregulated market system that has never existed and declare those who believe in such a system as idealistic fools. What utter nonsense is this? Either you people are grossly ignorant of all these regulatory agencies in existence or are well aware of them and truly think those you oppose are too stupid to know these regulatory agencies exist. Either way, your brazen propaganda is beyond tolerable it is seriously pathetic.

If you think you understand human nature so well why don't you recommend even more regulatory agencies to add to this gluttony of bureaucracy known as the federal government and while your at it why not add to the gluttony of state regulatory agencies as well. God knows we could use such human behavior experts such as yourself to further protect us from the evils of capitalism, and we all understand that the ineptitude of these administrative agencies all ready in place is just because there aren't enough and what we need is even more bureaucracy!

Sheeesh!!!!



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Exactly and unregulated Capitalism ends in monopoly and few other nasty things that are now discouraged as history shows. Those regulations were put into place for a reason as those problems became a problem NOT at the inception of the system. I generally view those who wax romantic about Unrengulated Capitalism as either unrealistic pie in the sky idealists with no real understanding of history or human nature. Or people who know the rules are in place for good reason and find thew to be an inconvience and want them removed for their own greedy reasons. Which is why they feed the idealists with their sunshine and puppy dog illusions.


It ends in monopoly because the government puts law up for sale. Monopoly in a free society is unsustainable. People will innovate, outwit, outwork, and outperform. Monopolies will try to crush this - not through competition, but through regulation.

A man who clamors for less freedom .. Speaking of puppy dogs, how does that leash feel around your neck?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91

The idea is that the lower class still exists, but improves in livelihood. In what nation does the lower class still have an xbox and flat screen tv in their crappy apartment? "Da hood", that's where. The government should only fracture monopolies though, and do its justice with corruption.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Gorman91]


Bingo, brother. That's the whole point. The "lower" class in a free society is just a group of people who aren't as rich as most of the other people. Buuuut, he has a car, washing machine, house, TV, xbox, a fridge full of beer .. life in the U.S. is good. And it could be even better with some tweaking.

Makes you wonder how someone can compare the U.S. lifestyle, and the technology base that led to it ... to undeveloped countries and comes to the sort of conclusions that this Southern Gestapo guy does.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Guidance.Is.Internal]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal

Originally posted by Gorman91

The idea is that the lower class still exists, but improves in livelihood. In what nation does the lower class still have an xbox and flat screen tv in their crappy apartment? "Da hood", that's where. The government should only fracture monopolies though, and do its justice with corruption.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Gorman91]


Bingo, brother. That's the whole point. The "lower" class in a free society is just a group of people who aren't as rich as most of the other people. Buuuut, he has a car, washing machine, house, TV, xbox, a fridge full of beer .. life in the U.S. is good.

Makes you wonder how someone can compare the U.S. lifestyle, and the technology base that led to it ... to undeveloped countries and comes to the sort of conclusions that this Southern Gestapo guy does.


Maybe you'd like to respond to my post above... I'd be interested in your thoughts...



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   
BTW
Healthcare in Costa Rica is both excellent and cheap. My experiences with health care in many parts of the world says the US is about as bad as it gets, and more expensive by a lot.
I don't much like the bill that is about to pass for a lot of reasons but its hard to see how it can actually make maters much worse.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
One of the major arguments from conservatives for capitalism is that it gives everybody the opportunity to succeed and make something of themselves. I must say I disagree on that assumption.


Wrong, it isn't an assumption. Its the very definition of capitalism... everyone having equal opportunity under the law. Under all alternatives the opportunities are re-routed unequally to those favored by the government, like Goldman Sachs and the Federal Reserve. Under capitalism however, there is equal opportunity without favoritism. Either you have equal opportunity, or you have favoritism. You choose favoritism.


The system of unregulated capitalism needs a lower class to survive. Its common sense to understand that we cant all be successful and influencial. We can't all start a successful business and there is only a limited amount of a market out there to tap into. Now when we move away from the chanes of simply "becoming successful" there is the argument that we "have the opportunity" to become successful. How is that? Not all americans have the opportunity to become successful. Many are born into lives where their chances of even gaining an opportunity are nil.


Wrong. Every man, woman, and child on the planet Earth can be successful. We can all have the food, clothing, shelter, and water we need. We will never have all the food, clothing, and shelter we want but you don't have to own the world to be considered successful.


Do we all have the opportunity to go to university? No because to many it is simply to expensive or simply are unable to keep up with the education standards. Some of us even have families to look after whether it is our own or our relatives.


We don't need university to become successful either, even using your implied definition of success as "a large sum of money". The only reason we need universities in the first place is because of REGULATIONS. It is perfectly possible to become a doctor or lawyer by apprenticeship or technical certification. However, that is illegal because of the REGULATIONS by regulation lovers like yourself. I hope you are enjoying the economic cancer caused by those ridiculous regulations, that force the poor to try to attend university when without the regulations they wouldn't even have to.


Do we all have the opportunity to become interns? No as the jobs that usually lead to success are limited and on high demand.


Dead wrong. Higher pay can only result from a shortage of people available to do a given task. If any Joe on the street had exactly what it takes to become a brain surgeon, the pay would be maybe $10 per hour for that job. So the concept that education can only get you so far is nonsensical. Doesn't it occur to you that the reason for high-paying jobs is that they are MORE PRODUCTIVE than low-paying jobs? Therefore, if more people have the ability to do high-paying jobs, there is flat out MORE PRODUCTION and therefore the number of jobs is not at some artificial ceiling. I don't know why regulation lovers don't see this simple concept.

There are absolutely unlimited jobs when you factor in education, invention, technology, and entrepreneurship. Absolutely nobody has to be a janitor. If we all had engineering degrees and the like I'll bet my life no problem that machines would be doing that work. This is important to know! And the most important factor in this is starting to realize the government can't do jack for us and we've got to figure this stuff out without them. Government workers love their jobs because of the benefits... THEIR BENEFITS... not yours. Government regulators are their making rules for their benefit... see how that works? The sooner people get this the sooner we can realize capitalism is how you get poor people to the middle class and beyond.


Do we all have the opportunity to start a business let alone grow it? No, because to many of us our circumstances in life prevent us from persuing such opportunities. Those on the right assume that we are all born under the same cirumstances, they assume we all have open doors to us and they assume that a 9/10 chance of success in life is "opportunity" when it is no such thing.


Sorry you can't see in front of your face. Any single one of us except perhaps those who are mentally challenged can start a business. most small startups can be done with $100 to $20,000. Even earning $1 a day, you can save up $100. I'm starting a business and have so far spent about $350. However, I could have done it for less with the drawback that it would be slower progress. That is right, $0 in my case would have been possible. Your problem is that you fail to try to see any opportunities when they are everywhere.


Are we all born equal under the same circumstances? No. I'd also like to rally against the assumption that those who work at the lower end of the system are all there by their own faults. That is simply not true as in society we are brought up under circumstances for the most part beyond our control.


Right. We can't all be your version successful, which is what you consider "making tons of cash". But we can all have all of our basic needs met. Those who support capitalism are well proven to be extremely generous people from a statistical standpoint and don't just let people starve. Liberals on the other hand have been shown to be selfish and want the government to do the charity work.


The truth is that the foundations of the free market or Capitalism centers around this assumptive view that we are "all equal" and that we all had the same golden spoons when we were born. Those assumptions are flawed and biased. Neither is the assumption that we all have been given the same opportunity.

Capitalism centers around the assumption that the government can't do spit for the economy, which is a provable fact.


Does this mean a system like Capitalism is unworkable? No not really. There should however be recognition of the circumstances of many under such a system and this why it is important the unfortunate bunch be priority as the odds are already stacked against them in life. People always forget that the system of capitalism needs folks like this in such unfair cirumstances. This system needs working class folks like myself to keep the system alive. So, the assumption that we all had an opportunity needs to be corrected.

Capitalism is the only system that can work in terms of improving quality and quantity of life. Collectivism, socialism, fascism, etc are systems that can only hurt an economy because of their violent and inefficient nature. They can do things to help for sure but what is done to hurt the economy will always result in a net drawback.


This is why I get sick to death of when people assume that "everybody had an opportunity, or are just lazy" when it comes to opposing any support for the lower classes from government. Its a generalization the corporations would just love to keep alive so they could earn every last penny.

SG

Not everyone has an opportunity to make money. And in a capitalist system, they would not be entitled to leech off of others using violence. However, under a capitalist system those at a disadvantage will not be allowed to starve by those of us who have hearts, most notably the conservatives and capitalists if you were to look at the generosity statistics.

Under capitalism, everyone has the opportunity to make boatloads of money so long as they are not specifically disabled by something. And even then the opportunity to make a living is very strong except in the very worst of cases.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by truthquest]

[edit on 10-1-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
We don't have unregulated capitalism here.

And the men who make the regulations are subject to influence from men with power and wealth.

The regulations make it harder for you and me to start a business. That is why nobody does that anymore.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
What I have discerned is that those on the "right" are fooled into believing they are part of the group of opportunity when really they are part of the other. This idealism will blind them into self-destructive choices that do not serve their wellbeing.


Its what Marx calls the false class consciousnes. we have the same in the UK. People are led to believe if they work hard they can share in the wealth created, they ignore the fact that they have not recieved the same advantages of those who hold the positions of power within our society.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
What I have discerned is that those on the "right" are fooled into believing they are part of the group of opportunity when really they are part of the other. This idealism will blind them into self-destructive choices that do not serve their wellbeing.


Its what Marx calls the false class consciousnes. we have the same in the UK. People are led to believe if they work hard they can share in the wealth created, they ignore the fact that they have not recieved the same advantages of those who hold the positions of power within our society.


What Marx calls a "false class consciousness" capitalists reject as they don't accept a class consciousness. Such victimology is for "workers" and the "proletariat", not for innovators, inventors, and producers who will endeavor to succeed regardless of the advantages they begin with.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Ok. Capitalism leads always to monopolies or cartels - that is not of value to society. Unregulated free market would acquire and make scarce everything, so they can sell it for higher price.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
What I have discerned is that those on the "right" are fooled into believing they are part of the group of opportunity when really they are part of the other. This idealism will blind them into self-destructive choices that do not serve their wellbeing.


How does freedom constrain opportunity?


Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Its what Marx calls the false class consciousnes. we have the same in the UK. People are led to believe if they work hard they can share in the wealth created, they ignore the fact that they have not recieved the same advantages of those who hold the positions of power within our society.


What do you think a paycheck is? You're being given wealth from someone much wealthier than you (chances are). The wealth you derive from them depends on how valuable your labor is to them. What's so hard to understand?

How does someone being richer than you diminish your wealth in ANY way? Explain this to me. Stop repeating Marx and start thinking about what he's saying.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join