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: 6
42
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I really hate this attack on corporations.

First the free market is people trading goods and services. Corporations developed simply because of the efficiencies of scale. This can be done with basic laws and rules, no problem.

Capital formation is simply saving money to have a nest egg or invest to make more money. There is no rulebook or manifesto to this, just plain old common sense.

There is good regulation and bad regulation. Barrack Obama was in Chicago at the beginning of his career shaking down banks to make loans to poor people who could not pay the loans back. IMHO, this shakedown is the reason for the last melltdown. Congress and the President pushed home ownership which created a bubble with the FED's help.

I have a friend who loved the fireworks business. He imported a shell from China the ATF did not approve of, so they put him out of business. Why? Regulations. Regulations have an impact on the free market. Some keep competitors out or allow a monopoly, which is bad IMHO.

My assessment of the US today is that it is a very hostile environment to invest in or form a business in. The threshold of opening your own business is high, too high. This results in less people working. That's why jobs go to China. Earnings are diverted to high taxes instead of going to create jobs.

And here is another thread attacking corporations. We need more corporations bringing capital to the US, not spending and investing it overseas. Corporations can deploy big things like cell phones, networks, or build things that inviduals may not be able to do.

I think most corporations follow the law and those that don't are fined or sued or meet other problems, like losing markets.

The big banks screwed up and got the federal government to accept all the moral hazards, this is really bad for the country's taxpayers. GM and Chrysler did too. Bad news for free markets and taxpayers. Bad banks and companies need to go.

I see a lot of lamentation of young people about their future as a wage slave. I went to college with a very negative view of business. I took a history course based on the text book, "Ascent to Affluence" by Thomas H. Hession and Hyman Sardy. It goes through the entrepreneurship of Americans in developing the economy. It turned my mind around.

I worked in a an office for years, and I always had this idea of becoming an entrepeneur. Find out what you have, your niche your creative idea and do that. Whatever you do is a stepping stone to the next thing.

I am a capitalist now with an LLC, and money I could use to build local projects goes to the federal government and then to Wall Street banks that don't give a rats ass about me. I hate that. It doesn't go to the poor, but it goes to bankers who should be drawing unemployment and pays their bonuses. This is under liberal government. Bailing out banks or corporations is not the free market or capitalism. Removing risk from life removes reward.

If you think corporations want to keep the poor poor, then that is a poor corproration. I want people to be affluent not poor, and the only way that is going to happen is to let the free market work with a minimum of BS, let capital reform and bring jobs back to America by making it less hostile. I would recommend thinking like an entrepeneur and being different. You have to do something, do what interests you.




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by expat2368
 


Here again we have yet another idealist who believes that altruism is a viable method and that humans would actually act in selfless ways. The fact of the matter is that there is no species on the planet that acts selflessly and humans are no different. Every species acts in a selfish way and this should not be held up as some sort of evil act. Selfish has a tendency to be defined as a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others. However, if people are the social beings they have demonstrably shown themselves to be it should be clear that having regard for others is in ones best interest and it does not require selflessness or altruism to show this regard for others.



Do you really want to consider your self just one of a myriad of species on the planet? How about considering that we are capable of seeing what has happened in the past and are intelligent enough to decide we do not want to be part of that experience. I am a capitalist, I have always been self employed and made my own way since age 18. It is not about being idealistic, it is about having seen how a system is flawed and understanding it is doomed to failure unless attitudes like you have are changed. IF we really want to live in a system where everyone has an opportunity to succeed as a capitalist if they so desire we must teach people to understand how much is enough.



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by expat2368
 


Again the little parable about an economic pie where only a few can eat but there are countless more than a few who need to eat. This is not how the world works and it is a false representation of reality. Let us just look at the parable your pastor presented:

We have a hundred people in a room with just one table and 10 chairs and all who can find a chair at the table can sit and eat while the remainder can not. How many people would stick around and sullenly watch those ten people eat while they go hungry? Wouldn't you just leave that scene and find a better option? Oh no, instead you would join the mob and rise up against the ten and bully them, but then what? Will you continue to devour each other until there are only ten of you left? Would all of you be so mindless as to not consider there are greener pastures and better opportunities outside this room?

It is always the same and in order to explain these simplistic notions of economy there is always some ridiculous hypothetical that has nothing to do with reality presented in order to convince those who don't buy the simplicity that they are correct. They can't ever point to the real world and use real world situations to illustrate their point, it is always some variation of the three men in the middle of the ocean with only a two man life boat to survive scenario.

Perhaps you and a few others in this room filled with one hundred people genuinely lack the imagination necessary to first leave and find a more preferable scenario, and then create that reality, but then it would just be a few of you left and most likely the ten at the table will toss you a bone and some bread scraps if that's what makes you happy. The rest won't settle for bones and bread scraps nor will they resort to thuggish mentalities and bully each other in some insane king of the hill game just to get something to eat. There are far easier ways to provide sustenance than this.



This scenario has everything to do with reality. I failed to make clear and you did not understand that there is no option to leave. The hundred people are trapped in the room and must eat or die just as we are all trapped on this planet and cannot leave. Scraps cannot be thrown from the table... you must have a seat before you can eat.

In essence this is the system in which we currently live and it is a system that is doomed to fail unless we learn how to be intelligent beings and not just one of the species on the planet.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by expat2368
 


Here again we have yet another idealist who believes that altruism is a viable method and that humans would actually act in selfless ways. The fact of the matter is that there is no species on the planet that acts selflessly and humans are no different. Every species acts in a selfish way and this should not be held up as some sort of evil act. Selfish has a tendency to be defined as a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others. However, if people are the social beings they have demonstrably shown themselves to be it should be clear that having regard for others is in ones best interest and it does not require selflessness or altruism to show this regard for others.

Again the little parable about an economic pie where only a few can eat but there are countless more than a few who need to eat. This is not how the world works and it is a false representation of reality. Let us just look at the parable your pastor presented:

We have a hundred people in a room with just one table and 10 chairs and all who can find a chair at the table can sit and eat while the remainder can not. How many people would stick around and sullenly watch those ten people eat while they go hungry? Wouldn't you just leave that scene and find a better option? Oh no, instead you would join the mob and rise up against the ten and bully them, but then what? Will you continue to devour each other until there are only ten of you left? Would all of you be so mindless as to not consider there are greener pastures and better opportunities outside this room?

It is always the same and in order to explain these simplistic notions of economy there is always some ridiculous hypothetical that has nothing to do with reality presented in order to convince those who don't buy the simplicity that they are correct. They can't ever point to the real world and use real world situations to illustrate their point, it is always some variation of the three men in the middle of the ocean with only a two man life boat to survive scenario.

Perhaps you and a few others in this room filled with one hundred people genuinely lack the imagination necessary to first leave and find a more preferable scenario, and then create that reality, but then it would just be a few of you left and most likely the ten at the table will toss you a bone and some bread scraps if that's what makes you happy. The rest won't settle for bones and bread scraps nor will they resort to thuggish mentalities and bully each other in some insane king of the hill game just to get something to eat. There are far easier ways to provide sustenance than this.




Not a very creative solution I would say. I would go and stand behind one of the people eating and after he has eaten for a bit, I would offer him 10$ for a couple chicken wings, just to warm him up to me. Then I would say "Hey man, once you're not hungry any more, why don't you pass me some food and I'll sell it to the others who are waiting, and we can split the proceeds. I'll also take some for myself so I'm able to work on our behalf without discomfort. Then once you are full enough, we can auction off the seat to the highest bidder, and then you and I can go out for some beers and dessert!"

Now, once I started doing all that, the others would see it, and they would all start doing the same thing. So instantly we would have producers and a distribution network, marketing to the consumers. The producers and distributors would be fat and richer, while the consumers would become fat and poorer. If people didn't have money, we could offer them loans with their cars and homes as collateral, or we could just take their entire birthright... maybe some of them are named ESAU



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by A52FWY
 


Corporatism just isn't capitalism and if you want to praise the corporate mentality go right ahead and do so, but please don't equate the licensed and artificial entity of corporations with the very real and free market businessman who would actually dare to take full responsibility for his or her business.

Corporations exist by grant of statute which means they are public, which is quite different than a private business. In a true capitalist society there must be massive competition, not a few conglomerates who gobble up every corporation they can either buy or drive out of business.

I am sure you work very hard and any success you have achieved is probably well earned, and if you believe corporatism to be necessary to economy that is your business but what is needed right now, is a massive influx of small businesses all competing and providing necessary goods and services to the marketplace. If multitudes of Americans went into business for themselves instead of thinking like worker bees, then unemployment wouldn't be such the bug a boo it is today.

Praise corporatism all you want but for God's sake please call it what it really is and not equate it with capitalism.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by A52FWY
 


I would suggest you watch the documentary called "The Corporation" by Michael Moore. It really is quite enlightening.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Very true.

In a true free market, sex and drugs are perfectly acceptable commodities, as there is a willing buyer and willing seller. Anyone who wants those regulated can't call themselves a "free-market capitalist" with any honesty.


You got the cat out of the bag!

That's the main hypocrisy with hardcore lassez-faire capitalists... that there's always a point where they don't accept some form of competing economy such as sex and drug trade, who, by the way, would be a lot more sane and far less exploitative and murderous if they would be, simply, fully tolerated, just as paper money and other legal commodities are. What's the problem with prostitute houses and growing your own pot to sell it to the interested neighbors? There's none. There are countries in Europe, like Czech Republic and the Netherlands where they made it legal and never had any social problem with it, and people living by these means are living far better conditions and are more protected in their everyday life. Why there is organized crime? Mainly because the "capitalists" in power refused to accept and tolerate alternative forms of trade such as these. Instead, they waged war upon all these "nasty" forms of competition, while at the same time legalizing corporations and giving them absurd rights and legal protection. Drug dealers and prostitutes (or their pimps), no matter how legal or tolerated they are, can personally answer for their "evil-doings" if they gets to happen, because they are living physical persons. But corporations, on the contrary...

When an US administration will decriminalize sex and drug trade, there you gonna have a truly constitutional and capitalist government. But that's not going to happen in ages. In fact USA is more likely to completely disappear in totalitarianism than seeing a revival of the Republic.

This is not free trade and liberal capitalism, this is simply good old mafia-like oligarchy. This is the big failure with America, to have never been able to realize true capitalism by keeping the State away from despotism and corporate welfare.

As a libertarian marxist, I'm gonna tell you that "liberty" and opportunity do not emanate from natural laws of the market written in the skies or abstract ideas written on a Constitution (no matter how great these ideas are), but are generated by a set of material and political conditions that State regulation AND/OR the people themselves (through social struggle) can provide. We need State regulation to have opportunities for free enterprise, but if the State fails to its social contract, then you've got to take opportunities by yourself. This is exactly what the labor movement did, and criminal gangs as well, each in their own perspective. In an unfair and unbalanced world, conflict is everything.

[edit on 10/1/10 by Echtelion]

[edit on 10/1/10 by Echtelion]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by expat2368
 


But, we are just one of the myriad of species on the planet, and this in no way diminishes yours or my worth. How about you considering that we are capable of acting in good and ethical ways without creating bogus scenarios that do not have anything to do with reality? In fact, let me quote you exactly:

"This scenario has everything to do with reality. I failed to make clear and you did not understand that there is no option to leave. The hundred people are trapped in the room and must eat or die just as we are all trapped on this planet and cannot leave. Scraps cannot be thrown from the table... you must have a seat before you can eat."

Are you serious? This scenario has everything to do with reality if you are a character in some absurdist play by Ionesco or Sartre. Seriously, where is the reality of this? What room is it? Is it like a banquet room at the Holiday Inn or Sheridan? One hundred people all trapped in the room and can't leave? No cell phones? No way to call the F.B.I. or Sheriff's to report this heinous hostage situation? And what a hostage scenario it is, terrorists who have devised some childish musical chair game where only ten get to survive. Oh yeah, very realistic.

If your hypothetical situation is the sort of intelligence you are suggesting we should adopt then we are all in serious trouble. Your child like insistence that we can only be good through sacrifice is tragic. Sacrifice by definition is the giving up of something of a higher value for something for a lesser value and this is just insane. Sacrificial societies, if your willing to look back into the past and see what happened, always failed.




[edit on 10-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Very true.

In a true free market, sex and drugs are perfectly acceptable commodities, as there is a willing buyer and willing seller. Anyone who wants those regulated can't call themselves a "free-market capitalist" with any honesty.


You got the cat out of the bag!

That's the main hypocrisy with hardcore lassez-faire capitalists... that there's always a point where they don't accept some form of competing economy such as sex and drug trade, who, by the way, would be a lot more sane and far less exploitative and murderous if they would be, simply, fully tolerated, just as paper money and other legal commodities are. What's the problem with prostitute houses and growing your own pot to sell it to the interested neighbors? There's none. There are countries in Europe, like Czech Republic and the Netherlands where they made it legal and never had any social problem with it, and people living by these means are living far better conditions and are more protected in their everyday life. Why there is organized crime? Mainly because the "capitalists" in power refused to accept and tolerate alternative forms of trade such as these. Instead, they waged war upon all these "nasty" forms of competition, while at the same time legalizing corporations and giving them absurd rights and legal protection. Drug dealers and prostitutes (or their pimps), no matter how legal or tolerated they are, can personally answer for their "evil-doings" if they gets to happen, because they are living physical persons. But corporations, on the contrary...

This is not free trade and liberal capitalism, this is simply good old mafia-like oligarchy. This is the big failure with America, to have never been able to realize true capitalism by keeping the State away from despotism and corporate welfare.


Did you just foolishly post your reply without reading the reply to his post? Come on! It's not free market advocates that have demanded this insane drug war or prohibition on prostitution. Your left wing indoctrination is showing and you are foolishly equating capitalism with right wing religious extremism and ignoring that left wing extremist also advocate the drug war and prohibition on prostitution. Try to think outside the box, or just try to think.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Capitalism may indeed be congruent with freedom. It is not however, never going to lead to a society where all people within that society have a wealthy lifestyle, or even all people living above poverty.

This conclusion is inescapable. We do not meed billionaires at all. They may indeed be the most successful, or most lucky ot what ever you want to call it but a society does not need them. They absorb more resources than they could ever actually earn or justify in comparison to the work and efforts put forth by any blue collar worker.

If hard work and effort are to be a reward then it needs to move beyond intellectual work and effort or "luck" and reduce the pay of some of those getting million dollar bonuses while they are downsizing the work force.

The bottom line is weather America wants to be a society were all live in comfort or just a few live in gluttonous comfort.

Oprah, Bill Gates etc....Bill and Oprah should pay their Janitor more so they could send their kids to school.

Good luck getting the gluttons to do the right thing.

X



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well said, the only concern I have is that after a given amount of time the unregulated capitalist market prevents competition, opportunity and chances for success.

Yes we all have the ability to go our own way and carve our own fortune out of life. However, if I go out today and start building cars that get 200mpg I will be destroyed. Too many companies stand to lose because my product is better than thiers; instead of creating a better product themselves, business and government will work together to ensure MY product never hits the market.

Corruption and greed 100%.

Marvin Minsky from MIT made a relevent comment a long time ago. He said (and I am paraphrasing as it's been almost 20 years since I heard it) that the age of the lone inventor is over, progress will now come from labs and research teams funded by corporations and governments.

I could not disagree more. I offer this comment as an example of the arrogance and narrow mindedness that dominates our system. Marvin's comment clearly illustrates that the system is now geared for minor, incremental advances governed by the whims of business and thier protection of profits. In today's enviroment we have to remember that companies and government DO NOT have our intrests in mind.

There have been rumours for decades about corporate warehouses filled with as yet unreleased products. Why? They need to recoup thier investments. I have read many times the theory that Sony Corp could have released the CD in the 70's. What I have heard suggests 2 reasons why they did not 1) they felt that the public would have a hard time accepting the new tech as it was 8track and Ep/Lp's at the time...too big a leap too fast & 2) they had spent lots of money on R&D for intermediate tech's that they wanted back.

(I personally believe that marketshare is used for release as well. When a given percentage of the population has purchased a product it's successor is released. This ensures a never ending cycle of upgrading not just the product itself but everything associated with it too. For example, I own a lot of VHS movies still, I was replacing them with DVD's but now that's been replaced with BlueRay...I don't need three sets of the Star Wars trilogy in three different formats.)

This leads to a problem first raised by an uncle/engineer years ago. If companies are actually that far ahead of what's available then they further limit competition because they know what's coming and how it works. Advance knowledge; companies can crush competition today because they know what a competitor is going to do tomorrow.

It also means that they can buy advanced ideas at firesale prices because they know what it will be used ten years from now and the inventor may not. My uncle's example was Microsoft.

A programmer could resolve a problem today that has been plaguing the Windows 12 team for years. Since the programmer doesn't know how important and valuable the code is going to be they don't know what the proper price is when the company offers to buy them out.

Why do you think companies are so against extending patent protection beyond the current 20 years for inventors? Time and time again inventors have died penniless even though they invented something radical or advanced; there was no application for the idea at the time the patent was issued. If you add this to the idea of waiting-for-release products then it is easy to envision a company further delaying a product until the patent expires and they don't have to pay to use the idea.

Just a thought.


[edit on 10-1-2010 by [davinci]]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51
Oh yes, unregulated capitalism is the silver bullet to our problems? The "right," has been trumpeting this mantra for as long as I can remember. However, we see what their unregulated capitalism model has done to the country, and most recently I might add.


What planet are you living on? Where are you seeing this "unregulated capitalism"? You've got to be joking .. the U.S. economic system is nothing but regulations heaped upon regulations. The U.S. government was intimately involved in home lending to risky prospects.



Here is unregulated capitalism in a nutshell. For example, Larry makes widgets, however, he is tired of paying James to truck his goods to market, and Larry has more capital and collateral than James, so he uses his clout to buy him out. So, James loses his business and Larry corners the market further. Now the price of tires has gone up for Larry's trucking fleet, so he goes to some rubber producing country and buys the local rubber manufacturing company.


Something tells me you don't run a business.

I'll try to translate this tortured mess. James' business was purchased by Larry (but somehow James actually "lost" his business). I'm sure we can assume that James is now destitute despite being paid for his business. Now in an unrelated story, rubber is getting expensive for Larry. Let's read on ...



Yet, again, Larry continues to corner the market and liquidate the competition. This behavior continues until Larry owns everything in the arena of the widget business. Then anyone that wants to do business in widgets has to go through Larry or his heirs. Kind of difficult for an aspiring entrepreneur to get a leg up in that climate, when in an instant one puts their head up to test the waters, the big corporate juggernaut hacks off their head before they even have a chance.


So now Larry bought a rubber plant to make his tires. He's buying up everything left and right. Now he's the only guy in town making tires, trucking and making widgets. Apparently there's a supernatural force field preventing people from competing with him. After all, never in the history of commerce has a large company ever had to compete with upstart. Nope, never. Ever. And that upstart always loses. Always. Hear that Microsoft, hear that Google?

Anybody notice how absolutely stupid this scenario is? He's trying to argue that competing with large companies is pointless. But didn't those companies have to start somewhere? For his scenario to make sense, you'd have to assume that there has only ever been one large company. Otherwise he would be admitting that competition resulted in the failure of a large company.



In capitalism, no company or corporation is too big to fail. However, that same one percent who have all the wealth and stature who have roles in government and corporate America would have lost a lot of money if they let those companies fall. So, as a result of that, they chose to meddle in the economy, and save their wealth. If the market was allowed to take its course, new companies would have arisen to take the place of the fallen and better than they were before.



You're saying that under capitalism, nobody is too big to fail (which is true). On the other hand, you're saying that the certain companies were chosen as being too big to fail (which is true). So .. you've proved that the U.S. isn't a capitalistic system. Thank you, we already know this.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by A52FWY
 


I would suggest you watch the documentary called "The Corporation" by Michael Moore. It really is quite enlightening.


This is now the second thread I have seen you credit Micheal Moore for the documentary The Corporation. This film was written by Joel Bakan and directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbot. Micheal Moore had nothing to do with this documentary.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by [davinci]
Marvin Minsky from MIT made a relevent comment a long time ago. He said (and I am paraphrasing as it's been almost 20 years since I heard it) that the age of the lone inventor is over, progress will now come from labs and research teams funded by corporations and governments.


Well it certainly isn't getting any easier to be the lone inventor!



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by [davinci]
 


Thanks for your input and well said yourself. I appreciate your very real concerns. Knowledge is Power! Let's just take the example you gave of building a better vehicle. Indeed, there is historical relevance to this as Preston Tucker in 1948 and John Delorean in 1981 both, by all accounts, built better cars than the standard "big three" automakers but were in one way or another suppressed. It is a very realistic scenario and much better suited to describe the problems with capitalism than the silly three men in a two man boat scenario.

Both Tucker and Delorean failed to realize their visions and meet with success with them, and in the end the consumer lost out. However, there are ways to beat those corporate thugs at their own game. Consider the idea of multi-level marketing, which is either equated as either a pyramid scheme or with unglamorous companies such as Amway. But Amway effectively showed how such a system can not only work, but can beat the corporate system at its own game.

It can do so because it is reliant upon thousands of independent distributors that are all voters and consumers themselves and just too powerful for any corporation and government to suppress. Build that better car and develop a multi-level marketing company to market this vehicle and I predict huge success. I would love to hear your thoughts on that.

I have long lamented what seems to be the death of the individual Captain of Industry who like John Galt or Hank Reardon or Dagney Taggert forge successful businesses through their own sheer effort and ingenuity. I agree with you that such a history is far from over, but it is time again that individuals tell their lawyers to go to hell and refuse to incorporate, dare to take the risk and build their own empires.

Keeping up with technology and dealing with planned obsolescence are two very crucial modern problems of business that must be dealt with. However, this canard that in order to be successful one must view ethics as a luxury has got to stop. Ethics are key in terms of any success whether that success be measured by the influence a teacher has on students, the amount of lives a doctor or nurse saves, the texture and longevity of grass in a yard taken care of by a landscaper, or the computer programs we have all become so dependent upon.

I tutor college students and have tutored a few in business and marketing and I am astounded that the text books will first, only spend a few pages in a several hundred, even thousand page text book on ethics, and when they do discuss it, address it as if it is a luxury and not a necessity. It is very disheartening and only compounds the very real problems we face. But, this is the product of Cultural Marxism and can be overcome by those thinkers, those innovators, those producers who know better.

Just my own thoughts, thanks again for your input.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Guidance.Is.Internal
 


Thomas Edison once stated that the process of invention was 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. That much is still true.

Personally, I think we are on the verge of another wave of invention similar to that of the early 20th century. There is so much technology out there to be explioted; inventors have the ability to see what an item can be used for regardless of the current application.

It's funny though, the lone inventor does pop up and embarass the universities and research labs if for no other reason than they have not been indoctrinated into a mindset of what is and is not possible. Inventors have the freedom of not worrying about how an idea will reflect upon them and thier standing within the field...most inventors are already ridiculed for trying something new as is.

There is a quote from the show 'The Outer Limits' that continually rings through my head....'When technology is ready, science advances'. History is full of examples where several people around the globe were all working seperatly on the same idea. Why? the median level of technology/knowledge surrounding them was enough for them to see what ELSE could be done with the materials available.

The number one virtue of an inventor is an open mind, something more institutionalized researchers are affraid to express.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Echtelion

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Very true.

In a true free market, sex and drugs are perfectly acceptable commodities, as there is a willing buyer and willing seller. Anyone who wants those regulated can't call themselves a "free-market capitalist" with any honesty.


You got the cat out of the bag!

That's the main hypocrisy with hardcore lassez-faire capitalists... that there's always a point where they don't accept some form of competing economy such as sex and drug trade, who, by the way, would be a lot more sane and far less exploitative and murderous if they would be, simply, fully tolerated, just as paper money and other legal commodities are. What's the problem with prostitute houses and growing your own pot to sell it to the interested neighbors? There's none. There are countries in Europe, like Czech Republic and the Netherlands where they made it legal and never had any social problem with it, and people living by these means are living far better conditions and are more protected in their everyday life. Why there is organized crime? Mainly because the "capitalists" in power refused to accept and tolerate alternative forms of trade such as these. Instead, they waged war upon all these "nasty" forms of competition, while at the same time legalizing corporations and giving them absurd rights and legal protection. Drug dealers and prostitutes (or their pimps), no matter how legal or tolerated they are, can personally answer for their "evil-doings" if they gets to happen, because they are living physical persons. But corporations, on the contrary...

This is not free trade and liberal capitalism, this is simply good old mafia-like oligarchy. This is the big failure with America, to have never been able to realize true capitalism by keeping the State away from despotism and corporate welfare.


Did you just foolishly post your reply without reading the reply to his post? Come on! It's not free market advocates that have demanded this insane drug war or prohibition on prostitution. Your left wing indoctrination is showing and you are foolishly equating capitalism with right wing religious extremism and ignoring that left wing extremist also advocate the drug war and prohibition on prostitution. Try to think outside the box, or just try to think.


I just cared about that last post. Why should I read every single in one of these huge threads anyways?

Indeed, no matter what are the politicians who launched the drug war, they're obviously not advocates of the free market... rather just a bunch of oligarchs. With George H.W. Bush as their probable kingpin.

I'd rather say that religious extremism is to believe in the absolute existence of private property and in the "natural" laws of markets (if people like you actually understand what is Nature and especially how it works, rather that inducing their own beliefs over it, that's another question), while all these are simply abstract social constructs created by the group who gets to attain the greatest power. No my friend... there are no right or left wingers, we are only mens. A patriarchy of MENS seeking to gain and/or protect monopoly for themselves, first, and their relatives after, while the rest of the people are just statistics. Remember how capitalism appeared as an answer to feudalism. It allowed power-hungry mens to make their own little kingdoms and empires without having to be blue-blooded or to be chosen by God, by having freedom of enterprise, having the possibility to take part in public policy-making and even to be able wage their own wars for territory.

Left wing indoctrination? Pfft! There is a world of difference between seeing things from a particular perspective and being indoctrinated. It's actually when you forget your biased perspective and take everything for absolute FACT that you are indoctrinated... are you?



[edit on 10/1/10 by Echtelion]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Echtelion
 


Right, wisdom from a member who can't be bothered to read the entirety of posts this long. Okay then.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


This scenario you present, while much more realistic than the bogus hypothetical about the 90 victims in a room filled with 100 people parable, is still a hypothetical not at all rooted in reality. In fact, I would swear too many people got their business economics education from Frank Capra and his films like It's a Wonderful Life.

Your own scenario is remarkably similar to that story. In this beloved film starring Jimmy Stewart and Lionel Barrymore, Stewart plays the lovable and iconic working class hero, George Bailey while Barrymore plays the evil and heartless capitalist slumlord/crooked banker Mr. Potter. Through a series of events that leads to Georges Uncle Billy loosing a weeks deposit, of which he actually leaves behind at Potters office, George is faced with loosing his own business, the very same savings and loan that Potter once controlled.

We as the audience know that George is a good and ethical man and we never challenge his business sense because the Capra doesn't want us too, instead the director of this film will stage several scenes to show just how dastardly the evil capitalist Potter is and how he only wants to be the only rich man in town and desires everyone else live in abject poverty.

George is distraught and suicidal but just before he leaps off the bridge to his own demise he is saved by an errant angel, who must show George his value and worth to the town in order to earn his wings. So, as if we are watching an Americanized version of A Christmas Carol, we will go into the future to see how desperate the town would become without the heroic and ethical George to save them all from the dastardly slumlord Mr. Potter.

In a nightmarish vision Capra presents to us Pottersville which is a town filled with seedy nightclubs and pawnshops, and all Georges family and friends have gone on to either commit horrible crimes or live in utter despair. George comes to understand how important he is and how crucial it is that he save this helpless town filled with future victims from the clutches of an evil man just too powerful to be overcome by anybody other than Jimmy Stewart!

Of course, let's never mind that loosing one weeks deposit to the savings and loan company he runs is enough to destroy the business. It would be...well, too business like to suggest that maybe George had all ready made some mistakes as a business man before this to put him in such an untenable situation. Let us go along with the notion that Potter got rich by making everyone else poor and now he reaps in the obscene profits of seedy night clubs and pawnshops even though the rest of the town is too poor to patronize these nightclubs and buy goods at the pawn shops. Let's just assume that this Pottersville is now a tourist attraction because everyone knows that we love to frequent towns in disrepair so we can party in that towns seedy nightclubs and buy the pawned used items of poor people from pawnshops.

This scenario is fantasy, and Marxist fantasy made at a time when HUAC was about to investigate Hollywood for their communist propaganda. Of course, any body who's attended a public school knows full well that these communist witch hunts were a sad and tragic black mark on America's history and we know they were witch hunts because we were all forced to read Arthur Miller's histrionic play The Crucible so we could learn how the ideologically neutral Hollywood was unfairly investigated. Anyone with half an education, at least public, knows that it is the right wing and capitalist advocates who have been indoctrinated by a corporatist agenda, not the noble Marxist who are not communist and not even Marxists but freedom loving altruists, who only want to make the world a better place without doing anything about it themselves except vote for the next FDR.






[edit on 10-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


So what you are saying is that human nature is what it is? That we should just remain no better than just one of the "myriad of species on the planet"? That we should just aspire for no better than to endure for millenia a continuous cycle of serfdom followed by revolution followed by some form of freedom and capitalism followed by serfdom?

Is it impossible to comprehend that a capitalist system is possible where we are free to aspire to our dreams and work to accumulate those things which we desire for life while understanding the the unbridled accumulation of wealth and power at some point is a bad thing and takes opportunity from others?

The story of the 100 people in a room from which there is no escape is exactly what we live in on this planet. None of us can leave, we must survive here or perish. The ten people at the table who will not get up are the elite, the powerful on Earth who accumulate and accumulate and have no understanding of anything but their own self interest. They sit at the table while millions starve and they, while professing to be generous, could care less.

Maybe that is why Earth seems to be such a sightseeing destination for Alien cultures. They come here to observe the planet of mental defectives that are incapable of progress beyond being war mongering selfish barbarians.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by expat2368
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


So what you are saying is that human nature is what it is? That we should just remain no better than just one of the "myriad of species on the planet"? That we should just aspire for no better than to endure for millenia a continuous cycle of serfdom followed by revolution followed by some form of freedom and capitalism followed by serfdom?

Is it impossible to comprehend that a capitalist system is possible where we are free to aspire to our dreams and work to accumulate those things which we desire for life while understanding the the unbridled accumulation of wealth and power at some point is a bad thing and takes opportunity from others?

The story of the 100 people in a room from which there is no escape is exactly what we live in on this planet. None of us can leave, we must survive here or perish. The ten people at the table who will not get up are the elite, the powerful on Earth who accumulate and accumulate and have no understanding of anything but their own self interest. They sit at the table while millions starve and they, while professing to be generous, could care less.

Maybe that is why Earth seems to be such a sightseeing destination for Alien cultures. They come here to observe the planet of mental defectives that are incapable of progress beyond being war mongering selfish barbarians.


If you had bothered to read all of my posts, in fact, all the posts, you would know that this is not at all what I am saying. People don't have to accept your overly simplistic and totally unrealistic version of reality in order to be good and iconic and heroic.

People don't have to accept your bad math and acquiesce to a pie economy just so you can impose income caps on people and pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself on how moral you are for controlling others.

But that's okay, since I am unwilling to agree to your cynical view of humanity that will allow you to one more time, like a bad comedian who thinks if he explains his jokes to the audience they will laugh at them, explain the brilliant symbolism of your parable because surely if you explain it enough times, I will finally get it and see how evil I really am, not for any actions I have done, not because I root for evil, but merely because I don't accept your ideology as my own.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]




top topics



 
42
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join