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.

 

Why Capitalism Fails

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Also a big problem nowadays is inflation. Inflation has made prices go up at astronomical rates and this is the reason the working man is getting poorer. Salaries have no where near kept up with inflation and the government is partly to blame as well as ourselves. How can we really sit here with minimum wage being $7.75 an hour? In 1960 it was $1 an hour i believe. So 50 years of inflation for that little raise? It should be AT LEAST $20 an hour and even then that's hard to live on. Well in NYC it is I know some other places the cost of living is actually reasonable. 1 bedroom apartments for $1000 a month? Even with $20 an hour that's $3200 a month. Less taxes let's say $2400 a month. So half the money right there for an apartment. On minimum wage $1240 a month! LOL that's FU***ING INSANE. That's before taxes to. So you tell me these rich people who make policy aren't keeping us poor? You're going to tell me walmart execus don't benefit from paying people $7.75. That is straight up slavery I don't care what you say.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by stigup]




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Depending on how the public funding played out, (how much surplus was left after spending on public goods the markets dont naturally supply) it could work out that people of a certain age be given "seed money." The big thing that needs to happen is that children not be rewarded or penalized for the sins or glories of their parents. The problem with allowing the use of a parents resources would be that a child who might be more excellent would be disadvantaged.

One thing I think it is important to remember is that in such a society the entire dynamic would be different. The fear that makes you think you NEED an advantage in terms of money would not be as prevalent, because you would not be competing against those who had an unfair advantage over you. You dont argue that you need your parents body for a period of time to make it work for you as an individual do you? (Assuming a parent who was exceptionally fit) or argue you should be allowed to use their brain for some time. Why? Its not because that wouldnt provide an advantage if you had a remarkably gifted parent mentally or physically. Clearly it would be to your advantage to do so if you could. But you cant. Nature doesnt allow it. And we cant cheat that. So, we all happily work within the constraints and physically and mentally compete on our own.

It would be no different is financial inheritance were disallowed. It would be the norm. You would not be afraid of the level playing field in that area just like you do not fear the level physical and mental playing field. You would find your area of excellence and work in it, rather than compete where you were not naturally suited.

Thats another thing, people would be happier in such a system, they just cant see that from where they are now. Plato knew it thousands of years ago. He was trying to maximize more than profit, but happiness as well as economic efficiency. Which is important for humans. If not to corporations.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I can only speak for my country, but here we have higher income tax on higher income, meaning managers and other people higher up in the pyramid doesnt make that much more money than people with a degree working in a corporation.

We also have free university eduction for everybody. Anyone can become any profession.

There is much less incentive to make your life about collecting money and becoming rich when you know that the income difference wont be very large. So people tend to pick careers after what they like doing instead, which in turn leads to happiness and people being good at what they do.

Oh, and the most important thing of all: There is no need to step on other people.


[edit on 14-7-2010 by Copernicus]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I see what you're saying. I don't know, this would mean giving seed money, as well as property to every body , and that's more like socialism. I don't see how this would be done. Maybe I am just not getting it.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 



Which maximizes happiness as well as excellence. Which is what any human society should be aiming for. Dont you think? Its more in tune with our nature.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 





They already do. It's called employment. The only thing standing in the way of job growth in this economy is the government.


Cool...
I'll keep that in mind the next time I hear about executives receiving million+ dollar bonuses.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Copernicus
 



Which maximizes happiness as well as excellence. Which is what any human society should be aiming for. Dont you think? Its more in tune with our nature.


Exactly. Most people are good people, and the only ones who love capitalism seems to be the ones who dont mind stepping on others and who looks down on "losers who doesnt make it". Good people dont want a system like that. They dont want to treat others like that.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by Copernicus]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


What I am arguing is that IF seed money was necessary, (which was your argument, that you needed it) perhaps that could be addressed. But then I argued that it is unlikely you would need it, in such a system, because we dont expect it intellectually or physically.

No one argues that because their parent could finish a foot race 4 seconds faster than other peoples parents that they should be given a 4 second head start in any foot race they run. Everyone is content to start out at the starting block and compete on their own merits, because thats how we do it.

I was arguing that your feeling that you should be given a 4 second head start because of your parents excellence is fear based. And justifiable in our society, because other people get that advantage. But in a society where NO ONE has that advantage, you would not even think to expect it, or fear you could not compete without it. If you were not a fast runner, you would just throw the discus, or jump, or find some event at which you could succeed on your own merits. Or create an event for yourself.

You would not HAVE to give out seed money.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


So you're talking about doing away with money entirely? Is that what you mean? I am really trying to grasp what you're saying. Or that it wouldn't take money to start a farm, business, etc.???



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enf0rc3r
Difference here is that in real life u dont get a liberal professor failing you automatically. In real life, if u work hard, u will make money. Simple concept that has made America the power house it is today. The professor was a complete idiot, ad used a biased model of capitalism based on his political views to hammer home a point that some people aren't good enough in his world to succeed.


Sure by working hard you can get money. However for most workers the amount of money they get is not in line with what the work is worth, thus they would rather not work and get welfare and still have that same #ty existence they would have if they were toiling hard in the sun. How can you blame them? The solution is to take steps to ensure that minimum wages are at a level that can provide a decent level of existence. I think all workers should get union and goverment type payscales and benefits. They get them because they are fair. It's not that union workers are overpaid, it is that non-union workers are underpaid. Anything les is exploitation.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Hey you

But you know Cuba is a special case. I think most of the hardship cubans have gone through is due to the US embargo, not communism.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

Originally posted by theotherguy
Technically, all of us can actually physically provide for ourselves. You just start planting and building. Anyone with an able body can do it. It is the laws of our society, the laws of the rich that prevent us from doing that. They control the land, control the factories, control all the patents and copyrights and put in place all of the bureaucracy that we must adhere to. It is they who have made us dependent, they who have removed our ability to fend for ourselves.


Im pretty happy I dont have to work in the field all day long and make my own clothes, grow my own food and build my own house. People used to live like that a long time ago and after a while, they realized it would be more efficient to have specialized professions so everybody didnt have to spend their lives doing sowing, farming and building.

Is it really right to blame the rich because long ago, someone in their family decided to invest their savings in a factory or a shop so people could trade money for items?

The problem is that with capitalism, you can never have enough money, so you keep hoarding forever until the planet is dead, unless there is money to be made by saving the planet.

Dumping toxic crap in the oceans is one way of saving money. I dont know any way to get rich by saving the planet. Do you? Which is why capitalism is a real killer.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by Copernicus]


But I would take a hard self-sufficient life to homelessness, which is what about 30 million Americans will soon be looking at since we have no jobs. My point is that they can't even do these things because in our present society it is illegal.

Try building a log cabin like the pioneers did - a housing inspector will come along and tell you to bring it up to code.
Try growing your own food and selling it for profit - someone from the department of agriculture will come along and tell you that you need a specific license, a business permit, and aren't using the right pesticides on your crops.
Try building something in your garage to sell for profit. Maybe you are an auto mechanic and have access to a junkyard - more people will come along and tell you that the vehicle you built isn't to code and is violating some random-ass patent law.

You might even get arrested.

My point is, when workers control the means of a countries production they can support themselves. They can't right now because the rich don't let us. There is no reason for homelessness in modern America. No one else needs to support them - they simply need to be allowed to support themselves. The people who have made them, and all of us, dependent on the current system are the rich business owners.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


No, it would still require money to start a business. But each person would have to do it on their own. Just like college today requires money. (In theory) I went to work in my late teens/early 20s in construction (for someone else) and earned and saved the money I needed to pay for my education, which I did, with no loans or grants. In a free market, the barriers to entry into college (cost) would not be as high. I wouldnt have had to spend as much of my youth working to pay for it. In a system that had education as a public good, all I would have had to work for was my living expenses or start up costs for my own business. Gates had to finance his own enterprise, many wealthy people had to work for others initially to get the money they needed to start their own business. And lets not forget that not everyone wants to start a business. Some people are happy and content to work for others, in a market where businesses are also in competition for labor and they are treated well.

How much money it would require to start up a business would depend on the type of business. But in a more level playing field, where monopoly and oligopoly cannot get a foothold, the entry costs are much much lower. Property costs are much much lower if people cannot over generations gain a monopoly on land in some area. Supply and demand move freely, (where they dont when one or few people control supply) and prices stay reasonable in those types of situations. (Which is a feature of a free market, that wages and prices stay equitable, and dont get all crazy and out of whack like they do in our market) "Profits" are lower, (approach zero) but that doesnt mean you dont make money, you make money in the form of a salary that you pay yourself, (assuming you are a business owner) and competition keeps those salaries "normal" or competition selects against them by increasing your costs and making you non competitive. The market itself forces a more equitable distribution of wealth using self interest and competition as its means. Free markets arent designed to create the mega wealthy. Its not what they have ever been designed to do. They are designed to create wealthy SOCIETIES" hence the "Wealth of Nations" not the "Wealth of a few greedy old codgers."

All of what I just said is not new news, or made up just for this thread, (though the no inheritance part is not part of conventional economics) or unheard of, these are knowns, these are expected results, these are what we are already ostensibly striving for, but not getting. This is the free market how it works, how it should work, what Smith and other later economists argue for. Later economists just dont seem to understand why we cant get it. They keep tweaking this and that, but they dont seem to understand the fundamental problem with how WE are attempting to create a free market.

All I am doing is explaining, using the natural selection a free market is based upon, why we arent getting the expected results, and how we could.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Hey you

But you know Cuba is a special case. I think most of the hardship cubans have gone through is due to the US embargo, not communism.


I disagree. The government seized my parents land, evicted them from their home and gave it to a government official. The government jailed my grandfather on my mothers side for 11 years for speaking out about it. He was never actually charged with a crime. Government that is small and provides only basic services(such as those supported by the Constitution) cannot murder their own citizens, or jail them, or take everything they've worked for. Only big governments with force and force of law can and do. All of this happened before the embargo. If Cuba is a special case, how is China and North Korea doing? NK is a basket case, and China has unemployment so high that it seems silly to complain about our own numbers in contrast. EU social policies have destroyed the Euro, and Greece is now on fire.

What Cuba had before was corporatism. Much like now, we are transitioning from corporatism to socialism, and NO ONE seems to be demanding that we do what we're supposed to, Obey the Constitution, use our history as a guide, put principle ahead of instant gratification.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by projectvxn]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


You tell em Project.

Violence is the ultimate result of Socialistic policies.

Brutal, unmitigated, total violence.

It's not like we don't know this. - the fact that we KNOW this is the ultimate outcome yet people still demand more of it blows my mind.

People SHOULD move to Cuba if they want "free" handouts.

There's lots of socialist countries, very few if any free-market countries.




[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Actually to see the failure of the laissez faire free market capitalism promoted by some of these modern right-wing "libertarians" one needs only to look to Somalia. Their government has absolutely no control over the economy and look what it brings them; a society of gangs, warlords, and pirates.

Regulated capitalism works amazingly, it's what our founding fathers gave us here in America. People always think of the American founding fathers going into some closed room to write the constitution because they were greedy rich white men who wanted to set up a system which perpetuated some kind of landed gentry. It's a common myth and one that very nicely suits both conservative and corporate apologist liberal ideals. Conservatives can point to it and say, "See, our system was set up to benefit the wealthy, the lazy poor be damned." While corporate apologist liberals use the myth to say, "Well I know that's how it's supposed to work but we're better than that."

The problem with this story is that it is truly a myth. The American founding fathers were the liberal middle class of their day. Who were the conservatives? LOYALISTS! Rich colonial business owners who wanted nothing to do with revolution because upsetting the status quo would hurt their profit margins. The American founding fathers wanted to give America a system that would ensure equality; that's why Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia was free to anyone who could get in, because he knew that the best defense against tyranny is an informed public.

In fact, Jefferson and James Madison argued on numerous occasions because Madison wanted a system where a group of un-elected Elders ruled over the thirteen states and Jefferson wanted the public in control. Madison didn't trust the "rabble" as he called them, he thought that giving too much control to the people was the path to social instability; but Jefferson knew better. He knew that the best system is a flexible one, one where money does not get passed along to inheritors but gets re-invested in the fabric of society. He and most of America's founding fathers didn't pass on personal fortunes, because they knew that the accumulation of wealth was the first step to the rebirth of a nobility and aristocracy.

If only everyone was as foresighted as them: we wouldn't need government regulation and capital gains taxes; but unfortunately our society has metamorphosed from a nation of barn and community builders concerned with civic duty and responsibilities to the state into a nation of vapid consumers concerned with dog whistle issues designed to distract and divide us such as abortion rights, gay rights, immigrant rights, and prayer in school when we should really be concerned with the fact that our defense budget is over half our yearly spending and pursuing empire is breaking the bank, that privatizing the commons and public interests is economically unsound, that allowing the market to regulate itself is like asking two football teams to play a fair game without the ref, and that depressed wages are the quickest path the economic insolvency for our nation which relies now on over 70% consumer spending.

"Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say question the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated." ---Martin Luther King Jr



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





There's lots of socialist countries, very few if any free-market countries.


There are no countries that have free markets, only countries the claim to adhere to "free market principles", and by this they mean some form of Keynesian economics where regulations are in place. While I most assuredly agree with Project on adhering to Constitutional principles, even the Constitution for the United States of America granted Congress the authority to regulate commerce, and in doing so assured that there would not be a free market...unless you want to count the black market which is about as close as you can get to a free market.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





There's lots of socialist countries, very few if any free-market countries.


There are no countries that have free markets, only countries the claim to adhere to "free market principles", and by this they mean some form of Keynesian economics where regulations are in place. While I most assuredly agree with Project on adhering to Constitutional principles, even the Constitution for the United States of America granted Congress the authority to regulate commerce, and in doing so assured that there would not be a free market...unless you want to count the black market which is about as close as you can get to a free market.



We have to look at dictionaries and other texts of the time for the meaning of the word "Regulate". If you've read the recent decision by the SCOTUS on the 2nd Amendment they refer to meanings and intent in history. Regulate back then meant to remove roadblocks to interstate business, and standardize certain aspects of it so that States aren't charging ridiculous inspection fees and other non-sense, or calling for and instituting boycotts of other states and cities. The interstate commerce clause was intended to be used as a means by which to facilitate between states, not restrict or mandate the individual. It was created to level the playing field so that the deck couldn't be stacked against the people. That interpretation was changed early this century by people like Wilson and FDR. 'Regulate' now means control.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDork
 


Nice political spin there. Somalia is in the shape it is because it has suffered under colonialism, feudalism, and now most of the country is in ruins, the people are poor, and their own 'leaders' facilitated all of it. There IS NO CAPITALISM in Somalia. What little government exists in Mogadishu is a kleptocracy that does nothing but kill and rob their own people.

history is your friend dear sir or madam, I recommend brushing up on it.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Exactly, one needs only look where the military subsidies and the American socialist military state has gotten us. Unimaginable violence against the world in pursuit of the empire required to pay the price to be the world's police force. While billions are used making planes which will never leave the ground millions go hungry. Millions of American tax dollars are paid to big corn to keep our food products cheap, which means that in Africa our shipped products are actually cheaper than their home made ones. So their consumers buy our corn and grain while their farmers go out of business, creating more homeless impoverish poor around the world that end up receiving aid from Americans! And they're forced to accept our products without being allowed to place protective tariffs on these goods because the IMF has imposed strict sanctions on these nations for the money they've been lent to invest in their infrastructure. What are they supposed to invest in when multinational corporations move in and begin siphoning money out of their countries and displacing any possible small business owners? It's pretty damn obvious that rich people and corporations love socialism, they just don't like welfare.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join