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: 13
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I believe you mean, "The residents of Somalia that aren't involved in government run militia groups, devastated by the recent civil war, paying weekly favors to local Islamic factions, or starving to death from poverty." This thread has already been over this, I think.




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magnus47
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I believe you mean, "The residents of Somalia that aren't involved in government run militia groups, devastated by the recent civil war, paying weekly favors to local Islamic factions, or starving to death from poverty." This thread has already been over this, I think.


Yeah, government caused the war, governments continue to fund the war, and the people are faced with State funded piracy as a result of this.

THREE count them THREE governments are in there destroying peoples lives.

That is not anarchy.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The westward expansion of America was conducted under anarchy.

There was no government, yet peace was maintained and contracts were honored.

A system of private law was established and communities self-organized private courts, security, and arbitration.

The crime rate of the "wild west" was far far below that of a modern city.


You have got to be kidding me. What about all the natives? They maintained the peace and contracts with them?

Also private law systems and community based organization isn't anarchy either it's just tiny government where everybody knowing everybody makes it hard to screw somebody over. The same can be said about a socialist government of this size.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
THREE count them THREE governments are in there destroying peoples lives.

That is not anarchy.


Here are some dictionary definitions of "anarchy"...

1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.



1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the absence or lack of government
3. the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the theory or practice of political anarchism

Source

I'm pretty sure that having multiple political groups fighting each other for control of a country qualifies as anarchy. The country of Somalia has no "government" because there is no political entity which oversees the whole country. It's like when a King was murdered in medieval Europe, and various families fought for the crown. What do they call that in the history books? Anarchy!

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Magnus47]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The westward expansion of America was conducted under anarchy.

There was no government, yet peace was maintained and contracts were honored.

A system of private law was established and communities self-organized private courts, security, and arbitration.

The crime rate of the "wild west" was far far below that of a modern city.


You have got to be kidding me. What about all the natives? They maintained the peace and contracts with them?

Also private law systems and community based organization isn't anarchy either it's just tiny government where everybody knowing everybody makes it hard to screw somebody over. The same can be said about a socialist government of this size.


Yes, peace was maintained with the natives.

It wasn't until government decided to kick them off their land that war ensued. The indian's dealt peaceably with the settlers for the most part. It wasn't until the settlers decided they wanted to encroach on tribal land that fights broke out.

The government was entirely responsible for the escalation of violence because they did not respect the tribes property rights. They could have negotiated and bought off the tribal lands at fair market, but instead they found it more convenient to use deceit and force to get the land.

And yes, a system of private law is anarchy.

If no taxes are forcibly collected to enforce "law" - the system is voluntary and private.

In fact, the Indians operated under a system of anarchy as well with tribal law.

They did not collect taxes or have police forces running around locking other Indians up for jay-walking.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Magnus47
 


That is the statist definition of anarchy.

It is useless as a definition.

Anarchy can simply be described as a lack of official government.

Anarchy does not equate to chaos.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Ok. Let me see if I have your proposed economic system right. And let me also say this has been a long and interesting thread, and thank you for not entering the realm of personal insults as many people tend to do... I hope I haven't done so myself, though I don't think I have. As far as I can tell, you are proposing:

1) A nation in which no elected government is upheld, or at least none which has any power over the nation's economy
2) A completely unregulated free market economy
3) The abolition of guns owned by any government employees, including police and military personnel, allowing only private citizens to bear arms
4) The institution of unregulated private security firms to take the place of the nation's armed forces
5) The notion that this purely capitalist system will somehow ultimately drive these private firms to self-regulate in favor of the common people

Is that about right?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yes, peace was maintained with the natives.

It wasn't until government decided to kick them off their land that war ensued. The indian's dealt peaceably with the settlers for the most part. It wasn't until the settlers decided they wanted to encroach on tribal land that fights broke out.

The government was entirely responsible for the escalation of violence because they did not respect the tribes property rights. They could have negotiated and bought off the tribal lands at fair market, but instead they found it more convenient to use deceit and force to get the land.

And yes, a system of private law is anarchy.

If no taxes are forcibly collected to enforce "law" - the system is voluntary and private.


Good point about the natives but I find it hard to believe that not one settler fought or broke his word to a native.

From your example I would say that it's just easier to point at a government than an individual when they do something like this.

Also what would you say of someone buying a decision in a system of private law? Would this mean that anarchy can be corrupt or that a system of private law really isn't anarchy?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magnus47
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Ok. Let me see if I have your proposed economic system right. And let me also say this has been a long and interesting thread, and thank you for not entering the realm of personal insults as many people tend to do... I hope I haven't done so myself, though I don't think I have. As far as I can tell, you are proposing:

1) A nation in which no elected government is upheld, or at least none which has any power over the nation's economy
2) A completely unregulated free market economy
3) The abolition of guns owned by any government employees, including police and military personnel, allowing only private citizens to bear arms
4) The institution of unregulated private security firms to take the place of the nation's armed forces
5) The notion that this purely capitalist system will somehow ultimately drive these private firms to self-regulate in favor of the common people

Is that about right?


I'm proposing an absence of government.

I'm saying that police forces should not be funded by tax dollars, they should be private security guards.

I'm saying courts should not be funded by tax dollars, they should be a private "loser-pays" system of arbitration.

I'm saying the people should be armed.

I'm saying people should be free to voluntarily trade their resources, money, and labor without a government there to loot them of their hard earned work or tell them what they can and can not do.

And yes, a purely capitalist system will self-regulate in favor of the people. That is what made our country into what it is today.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Ok. Very interesting. I still think it's a terrible idea; I've already said most of my reasons why. But it is an interesting proposition.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Anarchy is not a Utopian paradise where all crime ceases and everyone lives happily ever after.

There will be theft.

There will be fights.

There will be conflict.

However, the prosperity that ensues from the productivity that is unleashed by free-markets absent of government will reduce crime down to near zero.

Fights are almost always over some scarce resource.

When a society is wildly prosperous and resources become abundant, crime drops dramatically.

Take the drug war for example. Crime is incredibly high because government has decided what people can and can not put into their body. This makes the resources scarce and prevents a peaceful means of disputes from taking place in a courtroom instead of in the streets.

Nearly all crime is caused by government.

Simply legalizing drugs would cut our current crime rates down 80%.




[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It has been my experience that where there is lack of government you will usually have a/a few powerful groups that run the place. I'm not talking about Somalian militia type of situation but more of a old time town situation.

The main thing is that it isn't voluntary. If you live in such and such town then you will do what is expected or there will be trouble. Now this doesn't mean that you are going to be taken advantage of. It's mostly about following the towns rules so in a way kinda like a legal system but the ones on top get away with stuff that poorer, less connected people can't. They also seem to prosper much more than the rest.

This is the start of government and it only grows from there. I believe that this existed in different parts of the old west and it grew until it was able to apply for statehood. In other parts of the world it led to royal families.

I'd say that anarchy can't exist because there will always be those that trick or force others into doing things a certain way that benefits them and/or their family.

ETA - This may not tecnically be a government but it can bring with it some of governments worst traits into human co-existence like manipulation in the marketplace, infringment on individuals rights and impunity before the law and before you know it, it is government.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by daskakik]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


I could not have put that better myself. GREAT POST.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 01:55 AM
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.


Wow where to begin. That professor is 100% right. The ultimate expression for a pure capitalistic system is either a monopoly or a cartel. That is the end product of capitalism, you will hear time and time again "grow or die". You cannot run a business without a plan for growth and the end game is, you grow large enough to swallow your competition or work in collusion with them. See in the real world, you get enough money you can influence the government to set up laws and regulations in your favour to create hurdles for new business to enter into your industry/market (i.e. One of Porter's five forces, the threat of new entrants). So yeah you can work hard, but most likely your business will be bled dry by licenses, taxes, fees, regulatory compliance before it actually makes it anywhere, and if your a real threat and the above doesn't stop you, well frivolous lawsuits, hostile takeovers, or a good old fashion buyout can bump you out of the game.

The only thing that prevents America's form of capitalism from degenerating into monopolies is anti-monopoly regulation. That's right they need regulations to prevent the natural expressions of capitalism. Doesn't really do much against cartels though...



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by taskforce4256
 


Maybe you have the word "contribute" confused with "consume". If everyone doesn't consume then capitalism will fail. We are all caught in a never ending spiral of buying trash we don't need to impress people we don't like.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Well, thank you for breaking it down for me. That does make a lot of sense. I see But I think that a problem with this is that when someone does get ahead then they begin to start making rules. We know politicians are wealthy before they even enter into the running for any office, therefore if they have money they want to horde than they will likely pass laws in favor of other money horders.

Because what you are stating is pretty much how we started off here in America, is it not?
I don't know it sounds like a good fix, but where humanity has not changed their greeding and hording, there will always be that mentality, then we move back to square one where it is allowed to flourish, whereas if you did this in true natural selection, well, one day either someone would steal the stuff you have, or the next time around your harvest wouldn't be as great, and nobody would help you, or worse yet, one was exiled or put to death for such hording.
So I think that the poster who said it would take either a human spiritual evolution, or very strict enforcement of an ethical society is right. And that would mean two things, the government themselves would have to be trusted to be uncorruptible(Highly doubtful), and that they'd look out for everyone's interest, not just theirs or their buddies.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by ldyserenity]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
I have never seen a better example...


An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class, minus one person. That class had insisted that capitalism worked and that most would be poor and one would be rich, a great way to motivate people. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on capitalism.

Since the class only dealt with one subject, the person with the highest score would get an A, the next best score would get a B, the following score would get a C, so on and so forth. After the first test the grades were given out. No matter how hard someone studied there could only be one person with an A, one person with a B, one person with a C, and one person with a D. All other students were given the lowest grades, as some the top students already had an advantage knowing the subject material.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who received an F on the the previous test knew even if they got an A on this test their average would still be a C; so they studied less than what they had previously. The second test the person who had an A on the first test got a A. Previous test takers who had a B,C,D now got an F. No one was happy, except the guy who got an A. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F for everyone except the guy who got an A on the previous test.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of themselves. All failed, except the guy who got A's, and the professor told them that capitalism would also ultimately fail because when only one person can get the reward, the effort to succeed is hampered; but when government takes all the rewards and gives them to a few; no one else can or will succeed.



It really speaks truth about the fallacy of capitalism. On paper it sounds great, but in reality, when a few control the plight of many, it will inevitably fail.

Source: Why Capitalism Fails.




[edit on 13-7-2010 by ExPostFacto]


REPLY: You have misconstrued what the teacher did. He was giving his students an example of Socialism, IE: the redistribution of grades. Capitalism, when implemented with minimum government intrusion, works better than any other form of economic policy. The current economic recession was caused by government forcing banks to give money to those who could not pay it back. Capitalism is nothing more than the free exchange of goods and services of a free people.

40% of Americans pay no taxes whatsoever, and places a burden on the rest. In 37 years, over 40 million humans have been aborted, which means we have 40 million less taxpayers and producers of wealth (plus the deadbeats who pay no taxes. Do the math.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 




We actually dont have that system. We have a partial version of that system that is being eroded further year by year. We got lucky when America was first founded, that people JUST HAPPENED TO BE on an equal footing, because of the newness of the continent to exploitation, the people who were here being roughly equal due to the roughness, etc. Our system worked so well for 100 or so years because we lucked into the circumstances we wanted to create, but didnt really know how to. Our description was not quite it, but because our circumstances were it, naturally, we did not notice the errors with our system as the initial imbalance took years to develop from a small shimmy to a violent wobble.


I'm sorry but I am going to have to disagree with you here, we did start off on equal footing, but we did it by killing almost an entire group of peoples; native americans when they would not bend to our will. Isn't this indicative of the intent of these settlers, their greed, their self righteousness? Yes the natives didn't beleive in land ownership, but it was yet again another nation we enforced our greed and our self entitlement on. We never did start off on the right foot and this is why we are where we are today, that's KARMA and it is what it is. We didn't start totally on an equal playing field, we exploited the natives raped them of their land and killed them off if they tried to fight, and it's what we're still doing today, except now they are attacking even their own, the rest of the 750,000,000 people of the "lower" classes because they ran out of places to go pillaging and burning down, we're next.


I am sorry, I see others posted the same thing, oh well great minds ya know.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by ldyserenity]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


You should read Plato's "Republic" someday.

He knew how impossible it was to get the people already ahead to agree to something like this. He confesses in it that the only way it was likely to ever actually happen would be if you had some horrible event that broke down society to the point that people were desperate enough to try something radical, or, if you could get a bunch of young people not already corrupted by the status quo and raise them in that type of society all along.

For those already in an advantageous position it would be too much to give up. One would think that because the majority will never see the benefits of the 'warped' version, they would be willing to force it, but they all hope against hope that someday they too will be able to be in the advantaged position and will be able to be the ones taking advantage of the inequity. And our society (in America) has been incredibly good at spreading the meme that what we have CAN work for anyone willing to work hard, and thus perpetuates that hope. (And makes those who are doomed to fail look responsible for their own failure and thus not the object of sympathy to anyone)

Personally, I dont even mind so much that our system is designed to be inequitable. It just irks me to no end that we persist in trying to call it a free market. Call things what they are. Stop pretending it is something it isnt, and can never be. At least that way the people on the bottom would (could) realize it for what it is, and then perhaps stop trying to win by playing by rules designed in such a way to ensure they never win.

I dont personally mind a knock down drag out survival of the fittest battle for resources. It is what nature intended, after all. What disturbs me is that the people who are losing dont even know they should be fighting against those who are winning, (while those at the top are very clear on what they are doing) and that the only reason they ARE losing is because they dont realize that they are in a fight. All they would have to do is realize the game for what it is, and those currently holding the upper hand would get knocked back so fast their heads would spin.

Much like what happened in America, when we became an independent nation.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity


I'm sorry but I am going to have to disagree with you here, we did start off on equal footing, but we did it by killing almost an entire group of peoples; native americans when they would not bend to our will.


I do not disagree that what happened to the native Americans was unjust. Please, dont take that away from what I said. When I said "we" I meant as a nation, not as white Americans vs the natives. Our rise to the top of the economic food chain in the recent past is held up as proof of the perfection of our system. I am merely trying to point out that even as originally designed, it was imperfect, and we lucked into a continent without an existing aristocracy or wealthy class of people, and so the founders of this nation, (who were white) were on relatively equal footing, and could benefit from a "free market" that was almost ideal. Accidentally. Not by design.

Native Americans, slaves and women obviously were not included in the pool of "competitors," and not surprisingly were not incredibly successful in that system. Just the fact of slave labor, (and land stealing) is contrary to free markets, another indication that as designed our system failed to meet the ideal. We THINK it was ideal, because all these people (white, mostly) were able to raise themselves from humble beginnings, and make a mighty economic power. Proof, some say, of the wonderful design. My point is only that the design, though better than what it was modeled after, was far from perfect, and the fact that the circumstances of that initial group just happened to mimic a free market (for them, not for the people being exploited or excluded) they were allowed to delude themselves into thinking they had gotten it right.


Originally posted by ldyserenity
Isn't this indicative of the intent of these settlers, their greed, their self righteousness?


Absolutely it was. But we do have to put ourselves in their mindset. Many of them genuinely believed, wrongly, of course, that blacks and natives were something slightly less than full people. (And women too) Their belief that all men are created equal was real, but who they thought was a "man" was a product of their times. We can do better now. But someday, who knows, animals may be looked upon as more than they are today. We are all limited, to some degree, by the general shared understanding of the time we live in. It doesnt mean our descendants should limit themselves to our limitations, however. Which is why I say they had a grand vision, implement imperfectly and incompletely, and we could do better.


Originally posted by ldyserenity
We didn't start totally on an equal playing field, we exploited the natives raped them of their land and killed them off if they tried to fight, and it's what we're still doing today, except now they are attacking even their own....


"They" are now "us." "They" arent doing it. We are. We could say "they" when it was an aristocracy. Which was a very obvious line drawn saying "we are one type of human, and we are competing against another type of human." Very much so survival of the fittest. Lets not forget that the various tribes both in Africa and the Americas also played this game of "lets exploit or drive extinct those who are not us." All humans, all animals, will happily do it. It is the game nature has created us to play, and we all play it.

The trick is not to get us to stop playing the game. I dont even know if that is possible as biological things. It IS the game of life. The trick is to play the game so that excellence in the species is propagated, not excellence in one ethnic group, or one country even, eventually. At some point we will have to stop killing off the people in other nations indiscriminately as well. But we need to get it right one step at a time, and actually implement a working system at home before we try to make humanity all join hands and sing Kum Bah Yah together, and expand the definition of "us" to all humans.

We have still not even figured out how to make it work for a single nation, much less the world. And until we do, we will continue to have economies and political systems that do well for a time and then go into a death spiral and crash. Then rinse, and repeat. You have to build the generational reset into the system or you just have cycle that you have no way to control, no matter how many economists think they can with monetary policy or partial deregulation of the system, and specifically not with deregulation that makes the inequity that cause the crash in the first place greater.

But, you are not wrong. It was unfair from the start. Blocks of people were left out of the competition from the start, but everyone knows that. I was merely addressing the claim that America had done so well and "pulled the world into modernity singlehandedly because of our fantastic political and economic system" by pointing out that even for that group of white men, the only reason it worked was because they started off on a fairly level playing field with one another. And that was not by design, obviously, because that level playing field has vanished and began to vanish almost as soon as the ink was dry and we had kicked the last aristocracy out.

I was pointing out that that level playing field, "perfect competition" is essential for promoting excellence within the group. I did not mean to imply that is was somehow ok, or moral that that initial group only consisted of white men. I do not believe that, personally. I do disagree that it is karma in the sense of "punishment for moral wrongs," that we are in this position. But I will agree with the purest version of karma (as cause and effect) that we are in this position because of karma.

Edit to add;

Plato is the only one that I know of, who has addressed this issue you bring up in a realistic and possibly workable way.


Originally posted by ldyserenity

So I think that the poster who said it would take either a human spiritual evolution, or very strict enforcement of an ethical society is right. And that would mean two things, the government themselves would have to be trusted to be uncorruptible(Highly doubtful), and that they'd look out for everyone's interest, not just theirs or their buddies.


Yet another reason to read the "Republic" if you are ever so inclined. You have to bear in mind that some of the things we recoil at, that we necessary in his time frame, with their technology, would not need to be dealt with precisely the same way now. He is one of the most brilliant human beings who has ever lived, astute politically, economically, and one of the true masters of human behavior. His solution could work, and we actually nearly have the technology to ensure that we did indeed get impartial leadership, due to our increasing ability to image brains, which will someday soon eliminate the need for subjective assessment of peoples motives.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join