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: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I think you are confusing communism with socialism. They are not they same.




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

A 5th grader should be able to understand these simple concepts as you point out.




And since we cant move on from simplistic 5th grade reasoning we will just stop here.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


I know a very wealthy person who makes over $10 million a year. He does not work hard. He comes into the office around 11:00 a.m. and leaves about 3:00 p.m. He never works weekends and he takes several vacations a year.

He inherited a lot of money and properties from his parents. He makes his living collecting rent from properties he owns. He has a staff of people do all the grunt work and he only drops in the office once a day just to keep an eye on people.

In the capitalist system, there are very wealthy people who do not work for their money...their money works for them. If capitalism's virtue is that it rewards the hard working and punishes the lazy, it fails in this regard.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


It did reward the hard working, his parents.

He is just taking advantage of their hard work. It sounds like you are jealous, so am I.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


The horrors of rich people.

God forbid someone have a nice life because their parents worked hard.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


When people make money its rarely by themselves. When Bill Gates wrote DOS and successfully marketed it he created several millionaires. Its estimated That by the year 2000 there were over 10000 millionaires created by Microsoft and there stock options for there employees. I could go into a history lesson here about how capitalism was started in the 1300.Could even argue earlier by Arabs. This system has run far longer then any other system on the planet but yet it doesn't work huh.

Heres my favorite explanation of capitalism note it doesn't say only 1 person can be on top that is called a monarchy.


Capitalism as a way of thinking is fundamentally individualistic, that is, that the individual is the center of capitalist endeavor. This idea draws on all the Enlightenment concepts of individuality: that all individuals are different, that society is composed of individuals who pursue their own interests, that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests (this, in capitalism, is called "economic freedom"), and that, in a democratic sense, individuals pursuing their own interests will guarantee the interests of society as a whole.

Capitalism allows each person to strive for there goals and takes effort not everything is handed to you. But there is no limit to how far you can go.If you have the drive and determination you will make money on anything you do its been proven time and again. People who remain poor sorry to say is by choice its just easier to continue doing what theyve all ways done.

And to attempt to argue it doesnt work is quite frankly stupid. You all ways hear illegal immigrants coming to this country for a better life (standard argument as to why we should let them in).But wait how can that be if only a few can have all the money.Well the illegals figured it out unfortunately most Americans have not. The illegals come here to make money and they know if they work hard they will get money. By the way capitalism causes immigration communism and socialism hinders it. The Berlin wall wasn't built to keep people out it was built to keep people in!


[edit on 7/13/10 by dragonridr]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


This is the stupidest example of capitalism I've ever seen. A system by which resources (in this case good grades) are distributed by a centralized power based on the whim of a dictator is not capitalism. Talk about an embarrassing failure of an experiment.

The most obvious measure of capitalism is government spending as a percent of GDP. As government spending has gone up over the last few decades (and by definition capitalism has been reduced), people have gotten poorer and poorer in the USA. Therefore, capitalism is proven to work in the USA. Meanwhile, socialism and fascism are in the process of destroying the US economy into a pile of rubble just like in Russia and now a large number of other places.

All the facts are in support of capitalism. All of them. Capitalism does not hurt poor people. The most capitalist countries in the world seem to have eliminated death by starvation entirely. Singapore and Hong Kong are generally the most capitalist places. Now show me pictures of starving people in Singapore or Hong Kong. So congratulations capitalism, for curing starvation entirely even when not even close to being fully implemented.

Again, my congratulations to capitalism for apparently curing starvation entirely in Singapore and Hong Kong.

And I think people will soon begin starving to death in the USA and other places due to anti-capitalist government programs, just like US anti-capitalist policies in 1913 caused people to starve to death during the 1930's.

I don't claim capitalism is perfect, just that it seems leaps out bounds better by every measure than all the alternatives.

And just to clear up the most common misconception: There are no corporations under complete capitalism. Corporations are designed for the purpose of giving a group of people extra rights and privileges that other people do not have in return for a large sum of cash. Corporations therefore cannot be considered capitalist and are in fact most certainly fascist entities.

Taking without asking is stealing. I wish socialist would learn about how taking people's property without permission is wrong.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I didn't say that, unless you are agreeing with me that is. Am I not allowed to be jealous?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenBicMan


He is just taking advantage of their hard work. It sounds like you are jealous, so am I.


For me it has nothing to do with jealousy. Its just that in a system with inherited wealth you can never have anything approaching a free market. It just isnt possible to maintain the many competitors on a fairly even playing field that free markets require.

The free market was unknowingly modeled after natural selection. It was an idea being formulated at that time, in that part of the world. Adam Smith adopted the principles to markets, Darwin later elaborated them further as natural selection. It is the same underlying mechanism in both cases. Smiths theory is brilliant because it attempts to recreate in markets what nature has perfected over millions of years.

There has to be a generational reset. Or it cannot work. It will always end up a mockery of itself as those advantages in wealth are passed down and regulation HAS to be written to enforce peoples respect for those holdings. What we have necessitates regulation. It depends on it. It cannot exist without it, and it isnt a free market.

For the markets to actually be the beautiful thing that everyone oooo's and ahhh's about, certain conditions, (the same conditions nature works with) have to be in place. To the degree we regulate around those conditions, by providing unnatural protections for some individuals or groups, we will not have a free market, and hence not reap the benefits.

Some of the richest men in the world have understood this. Buffet, Carnegie, and also some of the most brilliant, Plato. It is not so big a stretch of the understanding. What it does require is a true dedication to excellence in general, (which is what a free market should produce) rather than the creation of a class that exists outside the reach of the unseen hand of natural selection.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


See, here is where you are wrong. Let me provide a real world example.

During the 90's tech boom my father was an officer at one of the fortune 500 companies that produced computers. During this time I saw unlimited wealth in the hands of many in the form of stock after the company went public.

Now comes 2001. Billions lost... Might as well have hit the reset button with 95% of these guys. Company goes bankrupt, right before that a Taiwanese POS company buys everything out. What a joke..

Little did we know all these people are in debt up to eyeballs, huge and I mean massive amounts of money in the hole. Planes, drivers, country club memberships in every state of the country.. houses in multiple countries...

So you see, dumb people always lose the money. Maybe they aren't dumb, they are just bad with money.

Why would you seek to penalize the people that are smart? I don't really see a reason. Anyone in this country at anytime can be anything they want. But for someone to tell you that you gotta give it back because it "isn't fair"? Laughable.

Why would anyone work hard in this country anymore then? Don't you want a better life for your children? You see, there would be no reason to create a Fortune 500 company, if you knew you had to give it all back in the end and your children can not benefit. You would just be productive up to a certain point, then you would just say F'it because everything is going back into the coffers.

There are far too many holes in your utopia. It just doesn't make sense.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You speak nothing but the truth, and I agree with you completely on all points.

The problem with todays society is that everyone believes their own work is worth more than others, when in reality, they are easily expendable.

Did all of you see what happened when minimum wage was increased? Prices of the most basic food items increased.

Lets not forget how much the food industry is subsidized.

People want to eat expensive items. People want the internet. People want cell phones. People want a house. People want new toys, vacations, non essential items.

And when the people do not make enough money to have all of their toys, the system is broke and they demand to get paid more.

Well guess what? There is someone else who will happily work for you, for less money.

The only things I am forced to do in this capitalist country is stuff non-related, such as car insurance. Yuck. Not physically forced, but I will be punished financially by the GOVERNMENT otherwise.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


if capitalism only existed in the form of purely free enterprise, i.e. the government is not involved AT all in trade and finance, then it might actually work.

but the problem is the government's interference. it started off innocently enough, i am sure - trying to protect the consumer from unscrupulous and dishonest merchants as well as trying to make sure business deals were always conducted on the up-and-up...

but just like every other man-made set of laws, it soon grew into a monster that is bigger even than those who created it.

if enterprise was left solely up to supply and demand, it would work. i do think so.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


We would have monopolies ruling everything.

Government intervention is necessary.

Checks and balances...always needed.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenBicMan

Why would you seek to penalize the people that are smart? I don't really see a reason. Anyone in this country at anytime can be anything they want. But for someone to tell you that you gotta give it back because it "isn't fair"? Laughable.


You dont penalize people who are smart. Smart people will always rise to the level of their ability. You just dont allow the dumb progeny of smart people to have advantages they dont deserve, havent earned, and you dont lock out the smart children of dumb parents.

You also overlook the fact that the current way of doing things necessitates that poor people, (all people in a group or nation) pay in essence to regulate and enforce the regulations that do prop up the dumb children of smart parents and hold back the smart children of dumb parents.

And if "it isnt fair" is such a laughable idea, why do "capitalists" get their undies in a twist when labor organizes, or when democratically elected politicians make rules that benefit the poor? Its equally laughable when they cry how unfair it is, when the rules dont favor them, and how concerned they are with fairness when majority rules rules against them. Which isnt often, because of the golden rule. This bastardized version of "capitalism" is also death to democracy or anything pretending to be similar to it as well.


Originally posted by GreenBicMan
Why would anyone work hard in this country anymore then? Don't you want a better life for your children? You see, there would be no reason to create a Fortune 500 company, if you knew you had to give it all back in the end and your children can not benefit.


You children would benefit. In your lifetime. From your experience and tutelage. (And of course your physical genes as well as the memes you pass on) But just like physically you cannot pass on the benefits of YOUR exercise regime to them, they have to actually do the work themselves. And your stupid or lazy children will fail, and your smart hardworking children will not.

You act as if in a system where there was no inheritence there is no benefit to be transferred to your children. Thats preposterous. Almost not worth even addressing, because it displays no thought on your own. But because I do know you are not unintelligent, but rather programmed, consider mate selection. Do you not think that you will get a better mate or mother for your children if you do well in your lifetime? I bet you would. Every other social animal benefits from status in that regard. So your work buys you better genes. Your work buys you the best schools, the best tutors, your work buys you the best medicine, and anything else that child needs. It just doesnt buy them a totally free ride. And it doesnt lock out the worthy and deserving who are more distantly related to you. It promotes excellence, and it also promotes balance. Because in a system where you cant leave your money you better spend some time cultivating your children if you want them to do well.

And why do people who know they will never rise to the ranks of CEO of a fortune 500 company (either for lack of talent or lack of opportunity) work hard? Often much much harder than those who do? Dont be disingenuous. You may not be the child of a very rich parent, but you have led a very odd and sheltered life if you have never seen the poor work their asses off, and if you really believe that only the lazy dont do well in America.


Originally posted by GreenBicMan
You would just be productive up to a certain point, then you would just say F'it because everything is going back into the coffers.

There are far too many holes in your utopia. It just doesn't make sense.


There are no holes in it. It does work. It makes perfect sense. It has worked for millions of years. It isnt my fault if you lack the breadth of vision to see that. And even economists are starting to realize there is something wrong with the idea that money produces excellence.



You cant wrap your head around it because you, like everyone, want a system that isnt a free market. You like the word, it sounds nice, and you like to invoke the concept when someone seeks to restrict your movements, but you dont really want a system where excellence rises to the top. No one does.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
You are making a LOT of assumptions.

I know a lot of rich people, none are mad when laws are made to help poor people.

Most of these people are very caring and understand hardships, as they have endured them as well. That is what makes people try hard in the first place. Everyone can't be rich. Sorry, tough ****.

If you don't like money that is fine. The government already imposes a hefty estate tax as well. If you do not plan well, the government will indeed be taking most of your money at death.

You don't make any sense at all, sorry man, it just doesn't make sense in the end to reward the wasteful and punish the smart. And that is exactly what you would be doing.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
One problem with "hypercapitalism" or "pure capitalism" is that it gives you only two options: mega-success or abysmal failure.

Notice I excluded "capitalism in general" from my critique above. It is possible to come up with a more nuanced form of capitalism, and in fact the "golden years" of the mid-20th-century were capitalist, but not "hypercapitalist" in the Ayn-Rand-ian sense.

See, there are millions and millions of people who just want to do something like run a small shop, or be a librarian, or keep a farm that's been in the family for five generations. They don't care about being Bill Gates, but they'd prefer not to be homeless. We used to call these people "the middle class." They defined happiness and "a better life" not by the size of one's plasma-screen TV but by other values: integrity, pride in a job well done, a good family life, maybe time to go fishing or whatever once in a while, general job stability so planning more than a month ahead a time would be possible, and vibrant neighborhoods and communities.

"Capitalism 2.0" as currently construed has no room for these people. Either they become pinstripe Wall Street warriors (the 0.00000001% of them that are able to) or they are simply "lazy" and can go curl up in a gutter and die.

I consider myself a "capitalist." But the above paragraph doesn't describe
the kind of world I was born into. Those weren't the kinds of values I was raised with. And that's not the world I want to die in.

[edit on 7/13/10 by silent thunder]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Wow, this is a heavily flawed argument. At least in the class where people have to compete to get better grades, the people with A's actually have more intellectual worth than those with A's in the communist classroom. Even those with C's in the capitolist classroom have more intellectual "worth" than those with C's in the communist classroom. That's the first argument.

The second argument is that if you do not reward those who work harder, then there will be no motivation to work harder. In fact, peer pressure might keep people from working harder.

The third argument is that, in a capitolist society, those that are making money with businesses are going to be increasing the amount of money in the country for everyone. If they are doing their job correctly, they are creating instead of just rationing.

Also, in a communist society, you end up with the ruling class and the people, who usually are not very well off.

I am not a proponent of a society where the poor are left in the dust, however I think that a society where people are ridiculed and hated for achieving is extremely doomed.

I will not lie, I am a little conflicted, because I cannot stand people who make money by hosing others. But at the same time, I just graduated college and I'm entering into an economy that is dead and struggling to survive without work.

And also, I still don't like professors who grade on a curve. Haven't had one in a while, either.

If it's time for capitolism to fall, at least tell me what the other option is.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


I am more than used to having to give up the fight without conceding victory. People can only see what they choose to, and self interest wins over intelligence almost always. It is no accident that we do not have a free market, we do not because no one wants one.

It doesnt make a free market any less desirable. Or workable. It just means that whenever there exists the possibility of having an unfree market we (collectively) will choose that over one that is free. To all of our, collective, detriment.

I dont even mind that. I just loathe hypocrisy, and I am tired of people popping off about free markets when they havent the vaguest conceptual understanding of what one would have to look like to function as intended. Instead, we have a bunch of people who wont look at the problem themselves parroting other people who dont understand it, standing around scratching their heads in disbelief when their willfully ignorant understanding of it drives the economy into the ground.

And I find it even more annoying because it just isnt that complicated. It is just invisible to those who cant see past their own self interest.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


So just define a "free market" for me in today's terms.

I am trying to see it from your view, but I cannot grasp a "free market" where we forced against our will to give away everything at death. That just doesn't seem free to me.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I don't even know where to start with this, but its just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If anything you can associate capitalism with a normal environment that is not rigged by the professor. The harder you work towards something the better off you are...how is this person a professor...for a university... You can't have very good credentials with that line of thought.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join