Unregulated Capitalism does not give opportunity to all

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Thanks for this thread, you know the phrase the "American dream" that was invented to give hope to those at the bottom of the class ladder to have the live on hopes of better days and a life of riches.

But in America and like in any other nation wealth is control by the few.

The American dream is nothing but hoax.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I still believe everyone has an opportunity. The chances of actually using it for some people are VERY small.

Hell, if it was not for my family I would probably be on the wrong path. So assuming there are people like me out there but without a family, they may be doing a lot worse off.

The problem with any economy is that I feel you can never make it fair for all. Our system can still use massive improvement though without harming people.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

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.

I saw him on the documentary several times so I assumed he made it. Thanks for correcting me on that. I have added several thoughtful comments to this thread, and you have not responded to any of them. May I ask why?

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Thanks for this thread, you know the phrase the "American dream" that was invented to give hope to those at the bottom of the class ladder to have the live on hopes of better days and a life of riches.

But in America and like in any other nation wealth is control by the few.

The American dream is nothing but hoax.

In 2008 the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the annual income of people doubled from that of 1968 from $13,374 to $26,804, and non wage compensation in the form of benefits had increased greatly as well. These figures are adjusted to account for inflation to accurately show how people two years ago were doing fabulously better than people were doing 40 years ago. Between 2005 and 2006 the millionaire population had increased by 8.3%, (See 2008 U.S. Census report and Wall Street Journal The Wealth Report June 27, 2007).

That's some hoax.

reply to post by downisreallyup


I am sorry Downisup, I saw where you asked another poster for their thoughts, and I cried like a little baby because you hadn't asked for my opinion. Actually, I really only responded to those posters of whom I disagreed with, with the exception of a few who replied to me directly and I spoke back. But since you are asking for my opinion, I will happily share it with you. Allow me the opportunity to go back and re-read them, and I will respond.

Your pal,

JPZ

reply to post by downisreallyup


Part of the reason it has taken me so long to reply to this post Downisreallyup, is that you have created a complex system that requires thought and consideration before replying. It has been infinitely easier to respond to those posters who were relying on overly simplistic ideas and really spending more time complaining about perceived problems than taking the time to actually offer up solutions as you have.

I don't know if you are correct that both pure socialism and pure capitalism are unworkable. I am a huge believer in capitalism but also firmly believe that the theory of capitalism has never been given a chance to be tested, so I just don't know how workable it is but would rather give it a chance, then any other system first.

That said, let's consider the system you propose. First you offer:

"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."

In actuality this what you are suggesting to some degree is the way money all ready works. The dollar is no more than a piece of paper and due to the unfortunate decision to issue fiat money it has no inherent value and merely represents the amount of money any person has earned. What has to be understood is that the rate of inflation can become astronomical under such a situation and has. If the dollar were fixed to a certain resource such as gold or silver, then the value of that dollar would be directly proportional to the amount of gold or silver being mined. If gold was being mined regularly and in abundance then the value of the dollar would be low and if gold were in short supply and mining not very productive, then the value of the dollar would increase with the price of gold.

Also, because the dollar was fixed to, say gold, the amount printed would have to be directly proportional to the amount of gold in supply. This may seem like a painful process, but only if one is not considering that the value of all commodities would rise and drop proportionately as well. If money is in short supply, the prices of goods and services would drop, if money was in greater supply because the gold supply had increased, then prices would rise. It is a very simple and basic method of ensuring the currency is backed by wealth and holds value.

The importance of this is a dollar bill is nothing more than a promissory note on the value of gold. Under this condition, any person should be able to walk into any bank and redeem the dollars they have for actual gold. Under a fiat system this can not happen and the dollar bill is not a promissory note but simply a note, and it is backed merely by consumer confidence which is infinitely more fickle than the price of gold.

While I agree with you on the notion that people should engage in activities they want to do in order to make a living, and thus fulfill their dreams, such a system can't be mandated to any modicum of success in my opinion. People may want to follow their dreams but sometimes what we want and what we actually do are two different things. There are parts of your tenets that smack greatly of socialism or socialistic ideas that I have a hard time seeing how they can work, such as people having basic needs to live modestly. Are you suggesting that we all should only live modestly and no one can accumulate great wealth so that no one will be poor?

If this is what you are suggesting, it is not workable in my opinion. First of all, it is an encumbrance on freedom. You earlier make the caveat that people can not hurt others, but if you are advocating a cap on wealth, you are advocating hurting people. People should earn what they are worth. It is not based upon needs but based upon production. Those who are not capable of producing will not earn as much as those who are. I often hear how unfair such a system is, but it is the game of life. Who would want to watch a football team where both teams are equally as good or equally as bad and nobody wins or looses and every game ends in a tie?

People wouldn't want to watch this sort of game, nor would people be satisfied with this sort of equality in their own lives. We all need a game, and without a game, we will do unbelievable things to invent a game, often turning in on ourselves or our loved ones, just to have a game. However, when that game is played in the system of survival, and in the market place, then the need to win and not loose creates much productivity, not just from the winners but from the loser's as well. Just as it is in football, losing teams don't always have losing seasons, and conversely winning teams don't always have championship seasons.

People solving the problems of society is something people have been doing as individuals for quite sometime now. When solving these problems comes with financial reward, it is all the more likely these problems will get solved, mostly because there is motive to do so, by more than just a few.

My God! The sun is coming up and I have been up all night dallying in this site. You will have to forgive me, and let me come back later today to finish up my thoughts.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Unregulated Capitalism, meaning law of the jungle where the fittest survives, is truly not an opportunity for all. No human is the same and starts at the same starting block in life, due to his culture and environment.

However, regulated Capitalism, checked by those voted into power through elected representation may give many others a chance to excel by improving their environment and culture through affirmative actions.

It can also ensure a level playing field for all through workers representation such as elected representative interest communities or unions, so as to ensure capitalists, whom provided the capital and the risks, do not shortchange the very workers who are supporting them through their productive efforts, each paid according to the amount they deserve for their roles and productivity.

Mankind must never go without representative regulation, for we are natural beasts at heart, born out of jungles. Civilisation is an imposed order upon us and if we are not constantly reminded to remain on the civilised path, we will only stray and revert back to the beasts we naturally were. We need regulation, for we are still a young civilising culture, compared to beasts of millenia past.

reply to post by marg6043


I'll say it again. In no other nation does the lower class have all the commodities one would consider rich in the 3rd world. Today, take not of one thing. The only reason why the few have the most is because government got involved to try and deregulate it. Once they did, like a leaper, it infected the government. Because the truth is this. When government tries to intervene in anything except monopoly breaking or charging corruption charges, only one of to things happens. Either the company eats the government, or the government eats the company.

The American dream did exist, because guess what, most of those CEOs today started out in the lower class. The American dream no longer exists for the reason of the above. keep it separate, and you keep it safe. regulating a business is like putting an elephant in a maze. The elephant will just ram through the walls, everyone else will just have to go through the maze. No regulation is like no maze. Everyone gets to go on their way equally. Besides cracking the occasional monopoly and getting rid of those corrupt individuals in businesses, the government should not intervene. Labor unions and human resources will automate the rest.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Capitalism is a sham created by the wealthy as a means to control the masses and maintain their station in life.

Our planet has a finite amount of resources and when they aren't shared equally violence ensues. Think of the earth as a pie cut into ten pieces and humanity consisting of ten people. Our current situation is one person (the top 1%) has nine pieces of the pie and the remaining nine people are fighting over the last piece. Thats Capitalism in a nutshell and it will always result in a violent planet.

We aren't all created equal and we don't have to exist in a never-ending competition for life sustaining resource's. Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and nurture the sick or we will continue to exist in this nightmare created by greed.

Star and flag for you!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Incredible how you can compare the American economy by the same numbers the government try to use to show how good as a nation we are doing.

Wake up we are stagnated and those numbers you show are poverty level and growing.

We are going backwards no forward.

Well, luckily, in here, education is free. Yes, this means university too.
But schoolbooks are expensive. Capitalism is nowhere near perfect, every system has flaws mainly because they are systems. I don't know about you guys but I dont like economic slavery, I think life should be something else than 9-5 in an office or whatever. I think it's absurd that you need PERMITS to fish your own food, or PERMITS to hunt your own food. Basically, if you don't want to buy your food from a market, you have to buy PERMITS to get your food by other means. And that my friends, is how the system makes sure that we have to be part of society even if we dont like it.
Slavery, indeed. You work for money that ends up in someone elses pocket so you can have food in your table.
Capitalism sucks, every system does.
We need to get rid of systems so the people can be free again, however, I don't see this happening in the future. New generations get too used to the system and cant live without it, while the older generations pass away.
The time to act has come and gone long time ago. Of course, if we could suddenly "wake up" everyone to the reality and show how wrong it is, then we might stand a chance.
Of course, if you can find a place where there is no society, you can be free. But those places are getting scarce.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Incredible how you can compare the American economy by the same numbers the government try to use to show how good as a nation we are doing.

Wake up we are stagnated and those numbers you show are poverty level and growing.

We are going backwards no forward.

What is incredible is that you and others will continue to shout that wealth is controlled by the few and scream about the top 1% as if there can be a time when there is no top 1%! You wake up!! Most people don't want your brand of socialism or communism where you would prohibit people from excelling!!!

Message from the "Right".

Your correct for the most part.

Capitalism DOES need some regulation. Remember back when we had the monopoly laws being enforced? Ahhh, the good old days.

Then came the return of "predatory" capitalism in the guise of Walmart. "We will ALWAYS destroy any who dare question us...ALWAYS" should be their motto.

Its almost like we have returned to the end of the 19th century when businesses used people as cattle and not partners. I'm totally on board with keeping a company profitable but not to the point that its hazardous.
Tyler Pipe here in Texas is a good example.

www.pulitzer.org...

With the deregulation of industries, the attack on the back pocket has grown. Utilities are a great example. What used to be a manageable price of $100 a month DURING SUMMER time, now can hit $300 for an average size home. When you couple this with the economy going to hell, I seriously think they are consciously making an effort to eliminate Capitalism.

Make sure everyone is good and financially screwed and the "idiots" will agree to socialism.

Now as far as people being able to do small "start ups" and be well off, its still possible. Its just a damn site harder to do now, similar to the days of "Tucker" and his auto company. Get too big and the big boys will crush you....

Or the Govt will with their "environmental" regulations.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Thanks for this thread, you know the phrase the "American dream" that was invented to give hope to those at the bottom of the class ladder to have the live on hopes of better days and a life of riches.

But in America and like in any other nation wealth is control by the few.

The American dream is nothing but hoax.

In 2008 the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the annual income of people doubled from that of 1968 from $13,374 to $26,804, and non wage compensation in the form of benefits had increased greatly as well. These figures are adjusted to account for inflation to accurately show how people two years ago were doing fabulously better than people were doing 40 years ago. Between 2005 and 2006 the millionaire population had increased by 8.3%, (See 2008 U.S. Census report and Wall Street Journal The Wealth Report June 27, 2007).

That's some hoax.

I estimate that since the 1970s UK property prices have increased more than 2000%. Presumably rent has gone up in a similar way. The figures are similar in the USA.

So the above figures are pretty meaningless.

Interestingly, the only people to benefit from the increase in property prices are the rich, because they are able to lend more money and earn more from debt.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I have all ready answered your demand that I name one time in history where capitalism didn't need a working class in an earlier post by stating that there never has been a time in history where capitalism has been able to operate under its own tenets.

There is no time in history when there was a free and unregulated market place. Certainly not in the U.S. since from the beginning, and the value of gold was fixed by government edict from that start.

Your complaints are against oligopolism or corporatism and have nothing to do with capitalism except for the bill of goods you were sold by Marx. Furthermore, the "working class" is not bound to indentured servitude and can at any time break free of this "class" and strike out on their own and do business. Even in a highly regulated marketplace there are still street vendors across the nation who ignore the oppressive licensing and prohibition laws and sell their goods in public places anyway. They do so because there is a demand for those goods and people will buy those goods, regardless of the regulation that would seek to hinder it.

Well said sir.

Now let's look at the other end of the spectrum where it seems the OP wants to head towards. Socialism. It can easily be argued that many in the US who you claim don't have a chance to better themselves have simply become too complacent and apathetic to their situation to attempt to change it. When their families, for several generations, have been suckling at the taxpayer's teet of the welfare-state where one is rewarded with more and more money each month by simply reproducing and having as many offspring as possible so they never have to work a day in their life. Then those kids can grow up in the government schools, replicate their parents behavior and repeat the whole process in exponential growth.

As Jean Paul mentioned we have corporatism. Actually I'd say we have a judgeo-corpocracy whereby the corporations control the legal branch of the Federal Government and can therefore legislate to their own contentment. We don't need to further play into the PTB phony left/right paradigm of Hegellian conflict and swing the pendulum into socialism (especially socialism whereby the current corporate rulers in private industry are simply absorbed into government via bailouts and takeovers).

Basically I don't want anyone on any side of the phony left/right paradigm (that some folks here just can't seem to lift the thin veil of perception from and perceive both sides get played to further the same agendas) taking any portion of my earnings for anything.

I do not want to support government run welfare, government schools, government health, corrupt law enforcement, etc.

In return for the "privilege" of being "allowed" by my "masters" to keep that which is the fruit of my own labor then I would very much enjoy the opportunity to donate some of my earnings to that which I deem a worthy cause.

It is really a moot point though as a currency crisis is guaranteed through debt default of the federal government. It is mathematically impossible to pay off debt without inflating the Federal Reserve Note to its intrinsic value of zero. The FRN will be no different than the 3800 failed fiat currencies the world has tried before. It is oh though, the underground economy based on barter and gold/silver is well underway, further cutting the tax collectors out of the loop.

Good job OP!

More threads like this please!

To those that think there's never been unfettered markets may I suggest you move to Somalia.

Certainly no government there to interfere with your wet dreams.



[edit on 10-1-2010 by seethelight]

The trouble with unregulated capitalism is that it will by itself become an oligarchy. Those who succeed will use their economic leverage to stop competition.

So unregulated capitalism won't work, unless you want an oligarchy. Some regulation is required, such as the stopping of monopolies and the encouragement of competition.

This is clearly not happening because the extremely wealthy are using their economic leverage to control government policy.

reply to post by rizla


It was John Kenneth Gailbraith who coined the term "oligopolism" to describe the current corporate hybrid of monopolism and oligarchy. Since the modern day oligarchy all ready exists with a heavily regulated market your concerns are moot.

Originally posted by rizla

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Thanks for this thread, you know the phrase the "American dream" that was invented to give hope to those at the bottom of the class ladder to have the live on hopes of better days and a life of riches.

But in America and like in any other nation wealth is control by the few.

The American dream is nothing but hoax.

In 2008 the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the annual income of people doubled from that of 1968 from $13,374 to $26,804, and non wage compensation in the form of benefits had increased greatly as well. These figures are adjusted to account for inflation to accurately show how people two years ago were doing fabulously better than people were doing 40 years ago. Between 2005 and 2006 the millionaire population had increased by 8.3%, (See 2008 U.S. Census report and Wall Street Journal The Wealth Report June 27, 2007).

That's some hoax.

I estimate that since the 1970s UK property prices have increased more than 2000%. Presumably rent has gone up in a similar way. The figures are similar in the USA.

So the above figures are pretty meaningless.

Interestingly, the only people to benefit from the increase in property prices are the rich, because they are able to lend more money and earn more from debt.

The above figures have all ready figured in the inflation you are speaking too. It is clearly stated so, did you just conveniently ignore that because it undermined your agenda?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You totally miss the point. No, we aren't all born into the same circumstances. But with a free market system, we all can man up and do our best, and if our best is better than the rest, we have the chance to rise to the top. It's called EARNING it.

I'm sick to death of hearing about people who "never have a chance." I grew up dirt poor, with nothing, and entered adulthood with nothing, working a part-time, $5.15 an hour job and trying to survive on my own, trying to find a place to live, food to eat, and pay for a car. Four years later, I was making $45k a year, and training for a job with six figures. Now, I decided to walk away from that, because it wasn't the life I wanted, but if money is your measuring stick of success....there you go.

If accomplishments matter more to you, like they do to me, well, Im just now finishing up my first novel, and here's to hoping that has a measure of success, so another dream of mine can be fulfilled. If not, well, I can always go back to the grind, try harder than all the whiners who expect everything to be given to them, and succeed that way again.

Capitalism is king, because it means FREEDOM. Self-determination. Some people have to work harder than others, yeah. And that can suck, I know. But usually that has as much to do with the actions of our ancestors, or inaction, in some cases, than any evil capitalists. Certainly, the ineptness of my parents and their laziness has a lot to do with my poor start. But that was their choice, because of what mattered to them.

The mistake most people are making right now is blaming capitalism for things like...all that has been going on with the banking industry. But that's NOT a free market form of capitalism at work. If it was, there would be no Federal Reserve, no Reserve Notes, and no bailouts. Those at the top would only stay at the top through continued success and would pay for their failures, if we had a true free market system.

Don't equate a poor understanding of what free market capitalism is with a failure of concept.