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.

 

Is Capitalism Healthy?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign
 


No, why because it inherantly kills the value of your labour and puts that value into an unpredictable share price from which mostly only a few with a lot of disposable income benefit from its price flucation.

IOW there is little to no real value to your labour that you see, accept that you might be providing goods or services for others.

The value is killed off in effect.

It seems you are a slave to people who are total strangers to you.

It seems obvious to me that Capitalsm is outdated and leads to a draconia, droid type society. We need a new system of values and incentive, and fast!




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by pharaohmoan
 


I wholeheartedly agree. The people defending Capitalism seem to ignore the point of my question. I have to continue to restate my question. What I asked was not whether or not Capitalism was "better" than such-and-such.

(Yet I get the "take economics 101" response.)

I asked if there was a better way to run a country than to resort to anything that we currently understand to be Capitalism/Communism/Socialism/etc. Why do I ask this? Because it is openly admitted that Capitalism is not perfect, but it is the "best" system we have AT THE MOMENT. Therefore, I proposed the notion of perhaps generating a completely different form of economics.

----------

HOWEVER, my most important question was whether or not Capitalism was healthy to the HUMAN BEING. I asked about the ideas of Capitalism, and the sociological effects of people adopting those "capitalizing/profit" ideologies. I asked about whether or not it was a system that was positively stimulating our ethics and morals for one another.

Or if it serves to generate a social stigma of constant competition and vigilance against prospective competition.

I asked if these values could translate into a behavioral pattern that makes people act less considerately towards one another, if it breeds animosity, and whether or not these things are GOOD for the populace at large.

-----

All I keep hearing from the defenders of Capitalism is this numbers and innovation speech. As if we were talking about running a machine. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Capitalism is more about Capital and less about having humanity for one another.


And then we wonder why we can behave the way we do? It really is survival of the fittest. It is a constant gauntlet.

-----

Those that dare chalk it up to human nature are full of absurdities, imo. Human nature has gross inconsistencies across cultures and environments. Let alone calculating the fundamental upbringing and instilled values, the genetics of the mind and body, etc.

All these factors serve as variables that affect our decisions. And at the end of the day we still have the ability to override overwhelming consensus with mind-blowing acts of sentient choice. Where we violate all logical paths and careen straight for the unmarked door, trumping the experts.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Well capitalisim has its downside, yes people will go out of their way to make money off the misfortune of others. But the ammount of freedom it grants far outweighs the downsides.
It also gives people responsibility for their own lives they can work hard and get a good job or they have the right to start their own business. Unfortunatley the people with the least ammount of money have the view that somehow they are a "victim" of capitalisim instead of seeing things for the way they are, the only thing holding them back is themselves.



I've heard people talk about "resource based economies", but I haven't looked into it enough to truly advocate it.


Well if you read up about the resource based economy it really sounds close to communisim. They do not factor in civil services like police prison and jails because they think there would be no crime because they think all crime is a symptom of poverty,which is false. They claim to have no currency that things would be distributed. But they cannot answer the question about
what if someone decides not to work or work less than everyone else?
What if i have 6 kids and the next guy has none, i get more because i need it even though the next guy works just as much?
To make things even to determine how much a person worked and the value of their job there would have to be some type of currency even if they called it something else.
So everyone works and everything get distributed equally? Sounds like communisim (econimically) to me.
The problem is people have no incentive to work harder if there will be no bennifit for doing so.

It is not a matter of greed it is just the basic pirnciple of exchange that is how capitalisim works. I did this for you and in return i expect that If i do nothing for you i do not expect anything in return.
With a resource based economy it works like this
No matter how hard i work this is what i get because this is what is available to go around if i do not work this is what i get because that is what is available to go around.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


There is such a thing as incentive outside of monetary gain. I think it is ridiculous to assume no one will accomplish anything if all basic needs are already provided. People will naturally want to accomplish and explore.

Communism doesn't fundamentally work because there isn't a means to provide for all to have the basics and not lose something. The argument is that without a producer, then there is no economy.

This doesn't calculate the pretense of an automation of production means. This also doesn't calculate more abundant/convenient sources of energy.

A large majority of crimes ARE committed by people that come from poverty. Then again, you could argue that most people of the world are in poverty, no? The birth of a great many crime stems from poor living conditions. It isn't just money.

It is broken neighborhoods, horrible living conditions, psychological downtrodden members of the community, scarcity and so much more.

A great deal of crimes would disappear if more people had their fair share. Individuals that commit crimes in such a world thereafter are not doing so because of need, but out of impulse, that is to say ... that they aren't mentally sound.

-----

This would then become an interest of modern medicine.

You have to understand that the majority of careers that WOULD be eliminated are jobs that no one cared to do in the first place. The "jobs" left over would be taken up by those with specific interests in those fields.



(Robotics. Genetics. Psychology. Medicine. Arts.) These are just a handful, a little drop in the bucket of careers that people pursue simply because they want to. Not because it is forced upon them.

"You want to treat physical illnesses and injuries?"

"You want to make art? Dance? Sing? Write? Draw? Build?"

"You want to improve technology?"

"You want to improve genetic processes and the genome of the human?"

"You want to help route out psychological impairments?"

These are things that have incentive enough in the things they consist of. They don't really need monetary reward. If you have your share and it is a good deal that keeps you content, all other strides are made to satisfy your own agenda. And by extent, satisfy others.


You cannot tell me that if I had food/water/shelter/communication/electricity/etc., that I would not pursue some serious endeavor for the sake of bettering myself and perhaps even aiding others.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by SentientBeyondDesign]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign
 




There is such a thing as incentive outside of monetary gain. I think it is ridiculous to assume no one will accomplish anything if all basic needs are already provided. People will naturally want to accomplish and explore.

Im not talking about basic needs, the things that people want and do not need. People would want to accompish and explore if it would benifit them in some way.



Communism doesn't fundamentally work because there isn't a means to provide for all to have the basics and not lose something. The argument is that without a producer, then there is no economy.

Communisim only works if everyone works, and yes without the producer there is no economy.



This doesn't calculate the pretense of an automation of production means. .


Sure it does the market will always find a way. If there are thousands of robots all making a product there would be more of a demand for people in the fireld of machanical repair and computer programing.



This also doesn't calculate more abundant/convenient sources of energy

Nuclear power is very convenient and abundant no problems so far.



A large majority of crimes ARE committed by people that come from poverty. Then again, you could argue that most people of the world are in poverty, no?


Yes a large percentage of the world is in poverty. And it really depends on what you mean by crime. Speeding in a BMW and vagrancy are both crimes.



The birth of a great many crime stems from poor living conditions. It isn't just money.


People create their own living conditions and make their own choices nobody is forcing anyone to be poor or commit crimes.



It is broken neighborhoods, horrible living conditions, psychological downtrodden members of the community, scarcity and so much more.

It is the people who live in those neighborhoods who make them broken. In my neighborhood if my lawn was dead all the windows on the fron of my house were broken and i had a bunch of people drinking an littering in front of my house, there would be a problem. Even though im within my rights to so these things one of my neighbors would eventually come talk to me about it. Because the people in my neighborhood have a standard of living they wish to be held. People in those "broken" neighborhoods have no such standard and live in the filth they have created.



A great deal of crimes would disappear if more people had their fair share.


Fair? What is fair? You do not produce enough to suport yourself then you should not get anymore. Let me tell you something about these poor people and what is fair. When i was 19 i had a really good job and made pretty good money compared to others my age. Now i still did not have enough to move out and get a place of my own, well i could if i only lived in a place and did not drive a car or buy food. I was working 60 hours a week on full time and one part time job (both above minimum wage) and going to school.
So this is where things get really "fair". I could not get section 8 housing assistance because i made too much money, i could not get food stamps because i worked full time and i was making too much to earn financial aid for school. I found out that if i worked 10 hours at minimum wage i could get most of my expenses paid for and have more spending money. So people that are in poverty get so many handouts that i can see why someone would want to make crap money. So they get all this free money and they are the ones that are getting the short end of the stick?
Im not against welfare or financial assistance but i just think that people should have jobs to get it.



Individuals that commit crimes in such a world thereafter are not doing so because of need, but out of impulse, that is to say ... that they aren't mentally sound.

I think the poor commit crimes because they get used to the idea of just getting something for free.



You cannot tell me that if I had food/water/shelter/communication/electricity/etc., that I would not pursue some serious endeavor for the sake of bettering myself and perhaps even aiding others.


But who decides what one needs? And how would this work? Most people do not work except for a few and everyon one gets free stuff all the time? People would always dream up something that is valuable. I have no doubt if someone had everything they needed they might take up some project but i think most people would not.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
let's imagine we're living in a time long, long ago, the societies are just starting to form. you live amoung a small group of people, with each contributing something for the rest, together, you are providing most of the needs of that new society. one knows of this great breadmaker that is living a few miles away. you's don't have anyone who can make bread that good!! so, how do you convince this breadmaker, who is at the moment, working hard to fullfill just about all the needs of his family? do you go and burn down his house and endanger his family till he breaks down and m oves into your society for safety's sake, or do you instead, clue him in on all the advantages, you make bread through the day, the grain will be provided by joe over here, and well, sue will trade you clothing for your bread, mark will provide you with meat, ect....

I think that it's one of the basic constructs of society, the breadmakers would never have gone into the village if he wasn't ensured that for his toil of ma king the bread, he could be reasonably ensured that the rest would be provided for him.
And, I think that once that construct breaks down, society would also break down, if you are working your arse off for society and it fails to provide you with your basic needs, you will eventually stop working for that society and go bake to gardening, hunting, gathering, ect.....and forget about making the bread for everyone!



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join