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: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


YES ... even if there are flaw in the system (and you theory of how works your system) : tax is not the solution.

USA ( and other country ) need to keep in mind their values ! they MUST evolve : or the future will be a big facism empire.

And even if you cannot accept it : this will be totalitarism and corporatism where single people : are like jews in concentration CAMP !

SOMEONE AT least should have tell you.




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 30_seconds
In capitalism, there is a generally fixed money supply. A worker is born into this world with NO money at all, and he has to compete and fight with other laborers to try and gain this money from someone who already has it. The person who has the money has an advantage over the money-less, and this advantage is exploited: the person without the money works for the person with the money so they can get some. The person with the money is assumed to have worked for their money too, but this isn't usually the case with the wealthy. They always only pay people for doing the things that increase their wealth. In other words, the value of the money they dish out to their labor force will always be less than the value of the money they bring in from that labor. It's pimping workers.

So this fixed money supply enables those who have wealth to further consolidate wealth, and by this process the working class gets more desperate over time, until after a number of decades the vast majority of people are poor, and there is nothing left but a very few very very wealthy people left in the world.

Interesting! I'm inclined to agree with you.


The problem is how money comes into existence, or I should say how it doesn't come into existence. It doesn't come into existence whenever value is produced. If it did, a worker wouldn't have to go to work for a master who has money... they could go to work for themselves. As soon as you create something of value, you put it on the market, and then the market decides how much money should come into existence for it. By this system, there would be almost no unemployment, and it would put an end to the stranglehold the wealthy have always exercised over the poor. No longer would we be forced to run the world the way the rich want us to because we need their money or we starve. In a way, we enslave ourselves by always doing what they want, because they have the money to tell us what to do.

What you're talking about, it seems to me, already exists in the form of the stock exchange and sponsorships, public corporations and so forth. You "go to work for yourself" by starting your own company with some other people who have the same vision you have. Then you get a loan of money according to how valuable people perceive your product as being. The loan can come from a sponsor, a bank, or from the stock market, but the principle is the same. Then, if you are successful thanks to the loaned money, you can pay it back and start to make a profit. Thus the value of what you have created adds money to the system. The problems which you discuss below then occur after you expand your company and start to bring in disgruntled workers who are feeling caged in and unable to get a good raise... which, I agree, is a very real problem.


In a publicly traded corporation, the people – including the CEO – are all employees of the institution with few if any individual rights. They are paid to serve the institution at its pleasure. The people are required by law to leave their personal values at the door, and are subject to dismissal without recourse at a moment’s notice. It is the institution, not individuals, that count here. And all these people, who could be spending their life’s energy doing something worthwhile, are instead spending eight hours a day, five days a week (sometimes more) doing what the corporation wants done, because the people have been told that they require the corporation’s money so that they may live.

Are you suggesting that corporations be dissolved somehow? Lately I've been tossing around the idea that all corporations should remain private (instead of public), but I don't know if that's in line with what you're proposing.


This is an institution of enormous power governed by absentee owners and unaccountable managers for the business of converting the life energy of people and nature into short-term financial gain for already-wealthy shareholders, without regard to human or natural consequences.
The publicly traded corporation is a gigantic pool of money with an artificial personality required by law to behave like a sociopath. It is the modern equivalent of unaccountable and sociopathic kings of the past.
...


Interesting things you're talking about. I also agree that socialism is not the answer. Maybe the market needs to be more individualized, somehow. I almost think inheritance should be outlawed, forcing everyone to make a living on their own merit, but that doesn't seem feasible given the family structure of our culture.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
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.


Thank you for this post. I believe in Capitalism, but not what is currently in play in the United States. That said as author of this thread, I also believe conversely that socialism could exist without government making rules about who gives and who gets something. The key to true socialism is that everyone gets equal access to life sustaining products, or materials equally without regard to income. Government as it exists today disparages the rich as much as the poor. They have split us apart. I do not believe it is right for the government to take from the rich to give to the poor, as much as I believe the poor should be lackey's to the rich. The balance is somewhere in between.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
There's no such thing as a "perfect model" of Capitalism, or of Socialism, or of a Democratic Republic, for that matter.


Technically there are perfect models, but they have never been implemented perfectly and so we have no perfect examples.


Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Only in the perfect sense is Capitalism a failure. But, if Capitalism is a failure, then Socialism is a torture device, and a Democratic Republic is a vaudeville routine performed for the distraction and amusement of the masses.

All of which is true, by the way.


It would be nice if people all meant the same thing when they said "Capitalism," "Socialism," etc., but they dont. Its one of the problems with having a coherent argument is that those words have been so heavily propagandized, in so many ways, in different time frames, you can never tell what someone means by them when they actually say them. And we end up fighting "straw men" in essence.

One person may be discussing the "pure model" and someone else is arguing the TV propaganda version, and has never been exposed to the pure model, and can only repeat hearsay about what it is they think they are arguing for or against.

"Perfection" may not be necessary for some things to work, and "Perfection" may be a pipe dream, but if you want something to work, you do have to have key elements even in an imperfect instance. Humans work without arms, and legs, but remove one little heart or brain, and the whole thing stops working. Some elements HAVE to be in place for these economic systems to perform as intended, and removing the heart or brain from one of them and then arguing that the whole system could never work is a little silly.

Our Capitalism doesnt work because the brain has been removed. It appeared to work because we happened into circumstances remarkably similar to the circumstances necessary for it to work. Not because our original model here in America was a complete success. We "lucked" (and fought our way) into a level playing field, which allowed competition to produce excellence, as it should, as it will. But every thing we have been doing since has been to make that pretty even playing field incredibly uneven. Which is why we have been steadily losing our splendor.

Its not because we do not have the potential for excellence, its because it can no longer freely rise to the top.

Keeping the barriers to entry into competition low is crucial to free market capitalism producing excellence. It is the brain. Without this feature, none of the expected outcomes manifest.

For those who argue Jobs and Gates as examples of capitalism working, I will remind you, they did not enter a field with high barriers to entry. They created new fields. Which is fine, if your personal excellence is as a creator of something new. But what if your area of excellence is in an existing field, like medicine, or something already established? Professional organizations exist to keep raising the bar to entry into the field to keep competitors out. (Keep supply of said professional low, to keep salaries high) Thats what they do. (Though they do so under the guise of making sure people are "qualified" they ignore that those who came before them, and often they themselves, did not have as many hoops to jump through to enter the field.)


And I will also remind you that for every Jobs or Gates, there are examples of creators, innovators, who have their work stolen and litigated out of their control by existing economic giants, who never benefit from their own excellence.











[edit on 14-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
The discussion should end with this unless everyone still has the need to be right after the truth has been given.

Capitalism deals with attaining temporal wealth and freedom to accumulate as much as one wants, equal opportunity at what is considered (the good life) . However everything temporal fails eventually

fails:
6. To cease functioning properly
To give way or be made otherwise useless as a result of excessive strain
To become bankrupt or insolvent:
To prove insufficient in quantity or duration; give out:

Temporal
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to time.
2.
pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly: temporal joys.
3.
enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory ( opposed to eternal).

1 Defend territory
2 Feed Fight Flight Fornicate,
(other common characteristics)
I got mine, screw you.
take take give if it benefits me.


However that (need to be right) using the reptilian side of your brain is a real killer and all the ones around you that refuse to play or cannot play from this position die and fall by the wayside and the justification for the ones that don't make it or cannot make it are hit with the "survival of the fittest" argument.

We are no better than the wild side of the animal kingdom, however...there is some differences.

A lion will chase down a weak prey because it hasn't eaten in several days and cant afford to miss food by chasing a stronger prey because it will probably get away. It is a logical choice regarding physical survival. After all...it hasn't eaten for 3 days nor has it cubs eaten.

A human will chase down a weak prey because it is somewhat entertaining and that feel of domination just feels good. The "I need more" position of being.

I have a 32 inch tv but now I(want) need a 50 inch plasma or lcd tv

I have a 50 inch plasma tv but now I (want) need a 60 inch 3d tv

I have a 60 inch 3d tv with a nice theater sound system but now I (want) need a media (movie theater room) with a bigger screen. Maybe some of those cool curtains that open up like in some of the old theaters we use to go see movies at


I have a DVD player that plays movies in my cool media theater room but now I (want) need a bluray dvd to really bring it to life and maybe one of those curved movie screens

I have a 17,000 dollar vehicle that runs just fine but now I (want) need a 27,000 dollar vehicle.

I have a 27,000 dollar vehicle that is just fine but now I (want) need a 50,000 vehicle because my friends have one.

I live in a nice house out in Steiner Ranch but all the cool people live out in Lakeway and Rob Roy. I (want) need to live in Rob Roy or Lakeway.

I have a 500,000 dollar house but now I (want) need a Million dollar house.

I have a nice Cessna Jet that gets me where I want to go but now I (want) need a bigger Gulf Stream jet.

I have a nice Gulf Stream Jet that is awesome but now I (want) need a 737 that is corporately customized with a hot tub on board.


I
Self
Me

In
Search for
More

ISM isn't limited to just the alcoholic(ism) but to much of the human race. Now I said much,, not all. Namely those that find themselves in democracies, aristocracies, plutocracies, technocracies also in socialism communism , and fascism forms of Government.


The argument that immigrants from Africa and Mexico are grateful for the opportunity a democracy and capitalism offers and they are running with open arms to the USA in droves. We are the GREATEST MOST POWERFUL

Eventually these immigrants start waking up a bit. Those poor immigrants that were once grateful begin to get down with us complainers when they realize how it "REALLY" works. Takes a little time but eventually they begin waking up.

Quit complaining and do something about it you say?
Seems many have been trying to do something about it but notice what good it does. (hahaha)
What does this have to do with Capital(ism) and the topic you say?

Everything my dear Watson...Everything....

Final Analysis and good news
Everything associated with man (mainly human) crumbles into failure and soon it will be on a mass level. Not a matter of if but when.

You simply cannot see it because you are intoxicated by the temporal
(your 5 senses) and the false self.

Truth is spiritual fact
Fact is fallible logic.
We see what logic has produced so be my guest... deny truth and defend argue your logic.

The train stop is ahead unfortunately the train wreck occurs first.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by superluminal11]

[edit on 14-7-2010 by superluminal11]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Great post, Illusions.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
For those who argue Jobs and Gates as examples of capitalism working, I will remind you, they did not enter a field with high barriers to entry. They created new fields. Which is fine, if your personal excellence is as a creator of something new. But what if your area of excellence is in an existing field, like medicine, or something already established? Professional organizations exist to keep raising the bar to entry into the field to keep competitors out. (Keep supply of said professional low, to keep salaries high) Thats what they do. (Though they do so under the guise of making sure people are "qualified" they ignore that those who came before them, and often they themselves, did not have as many hoops to jump through to enter the field.)

So, what solution would you propose? Is it not true that these problematic institutions that make it more and more difficult to compete against established corporations are not themselves a product of the capitalist system of supply and demand? At the turn of the 20th century, my impression is that it was fairly easy to start your own successful company. How do we bring that back?


And I will also remind you that for every Jobs or Gates, there are examples of creators, innovators, who have their work stolen and litigated out of their control by existing economic giants, who never benefit from their own excellence.


These cases seem like a failure of copyright and intellectual property protection laws.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
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]


I so totally agree with you. Reading this thread, I felt overwhelmed by all the "isms" being discussed. Also, the word "excellence" was brought up numerous times by the capitalist proponents.

What's missing here, I think, is the moral -- or I should say, ethical -- side. I think we can all agree that capitalism, as well as other forms of economy, don't work because of negative traits like greed, envy, selfishness, etc. These kinds of things lead to situations like the Gulf oil spill -- corporations cutting corners and basically not giving a damn about the rest of the world, just in the name of mammon and satisfying their shareholders.

Also, the typical American consumerism ("More is better") is putting a enormous strain on our resources, leads us to going to war with oil-rich nations, and, and, and.

I think if capitalism were to work (without much regulation from the government), we'd have to live in a society with very strict ethics and taboos that would keep people in line... otherwise there will always be uncaring assh***s who will have the upper hand on "nice" people, just because they're willing to do whatever it takes, whereas the nice people aren't.

I've been thinking about this -- the ideal society -- a lot, and I think that small tribal-type communities like those many indigenous people had would work best. In traditional Native American tribes, everyone worked for the greater good of the community and tribe members were freely exchanging goods and services. Children and elders would be cared for by the whole tribe. If someone stepped out of line -- i.e., being lazy and not wanting to work -- there'd be consequences. Other, more severe trespassings, like being a wife beater or molesting a child, could be punished by exile or even death.

If you combined those small independent tribes with a benevolent central government whose only function would be to keep the peace between the different tribes, so that no tribe could just go and make war or steal from other tribes instead of producing its own necessities, that might work rather well, IMO.

Thoughts?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by superluminal11
 


I feel like you are pointing out the selfish nature of capitalism, which is the pursuit of personal gain. I agree that true happiness comes from selfless contribution to the world around you and seeking peace and humility. However, as a governmental or economic system it does not seem practical, at least not for our species.

Historically speaking, when people begin to listen to somebody that is proposing that we abandon our worldly material desires, you end up with one or maybe a few wise or "enlightened" teachers of this philosophy (who, admittedly, are probably very peaceful and content people), but you also get a big crowd of followers who don't fully understand what those people are really trying to say.

Then you get some guy who comes along and murders the original teacher of this peaceful philosophy. "Hey, look at me!" the killer says. "I just killed the all-mighty scholar that you guys seem to think is so great!"

Then, because (once again) the masses of followers didn't quite grasp the true concepts of what he was teaching, they either get furious with the man who killed him and erupt into violence, or else they bow down to him as a leader who is clearly more "powerful" than their former teacher. Either way, the true teachings of this person quickly fade away.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, that's all well and nice, but you can't make a Gandhi out of everyone.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by superluminal11
 


You arent wrong, but you do make a leap at the end by suggesting that the only way out is for humans to transcend what millions of years of evolution has built into us. (That selfishness and need/desire for "more for me."

Plato and Smith did not rely on humans making this quantum leap in consciousness. We might wait for a very long time for that to happen. Clearly, when you look around you, it is not happening. Instead, they looked at systems where those selfish elements existed in harmony. Nature. And they designed systems that worked with the materials at hand, rather than hoping for some evolutionary leap that has not yet occurred.

There have always been moral or spiritual "outliers" much like there have always been intellectual "outliers." Those that are way above and beyond the bulk of humanity in their capacity for intellectual or spiritual action and reasoning. But is it realistic to expect that somehow the whole of humanity is going to evolve into that one percent overnight? No. It isnt.

First of all, because we dont "adapt into." Its not how evolution works. You dont notice a need for a longer neck and stretch your neck to get the higher leaves. Those who just happen to have longer necks outperform those who dont, and those who dont die out over time.

It has been thousands of years since the Buddha or Christ. We have no objective evidence to suggest that the bulk of humanity is evolving into something more collectively minded, and Oneness oriented. We are in roughly the same position they were, and any system we design needs to take into consideration what people actually are, how they actually think, feel, what they do, rather than require "a miracle" (some quantum leap to homo sapiens spiritualis)at the outset. It might happen. It might also happen that we find a magic switch somewhere and learn to fly under our own power. But it is highly unlikely either WILL happen.

It simply doesnt make sense to invent a perfect system that requires a miracle to work and pretend it is the solution to all our ills. Its like saying "I have invented a cure for cancer that is guaranteed to work, and all that has to happen is that the cancer cells need to become aware that what they are doing is wrong and choose to stop it." Good luck with that.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Magnus47
At the turn of the 20th century, my impression is that it was fairly easy to start your own successful company. How do we bring that back?


It was easier to start up in the earlier days of America. On all levels. And what you need to do to restore that feature is to have a "generational reset." Its highly unpopular, it has been for thousands of years, but there needs to be a way to force each generation of players back onto a fairly level playing field so that in each generation, the selective forces push the best to the top. The simplest way to do this is with a 100% (or nearly so) death tax. And disallow companies that are "eternal" or survive their creators. It aint popular, but it is what would have to happen to force our human self interest to work on keeping the playing field level.

The only reason someones self interest will drive them to want a level playing field is if they know they cannot legislate in any advantage for themselves or their progeny. If you know your offspring have to start off in the same position everyones children do, (aside from your genetic or memetic inputs) you fight and work for a system that gives the most even starting point, and you work to make sure you children are the best they can be. (By choosing good genes in a partner, by teaching and nurturing them well so that they can out compete their peers.)

If you can legislate in unfairness that benefits you, your own self interest will necessitate that you do so. Which is what we see.


Originally posted by Magnus47
These cases seem like a failure of copyright and intellectual property protection laws.


Its a failure of the way our whole legal system works, where those with wealth can drag cases out endlessly, bankrupting their opponents if they are not similarly wealthy, and forcing the poorer innovator to stop the battle in favor of eating. The laws might work just fine, but the process can be made to act as a barrier to entry for access to those laws and their protections.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:51 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.


If you dont get how people can have a different point of view, who is really the idiot here?

In my opinion, the professor was right. Capitalism makes people step on each other, hurt each other, kill each other, to become number one. If you like living in that kind of society, feel free, but you should really check out how other more civilized countries are doing it.

Western Europe are not communists, and maybe you would notice if you bothered to check.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by Copernicus]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


What you're talking about seems to be something I've also thought about: To outlaw or otherwise reduce inheritance. But if you imposed a 100% death tax, you're still not preventing people from giving most of their wealth to their children while they are still alive. If you set up legislation that dissolves a company when the founder dies, the companies would simply introduce a clause in their contracts for all their workers that says, "If the founder of this company dies and this company is terminated, and the vice president then chooses to form a company with the same name and mission statement as the former company, I agree to become hired into a position with the new company which is the same as my position in the old company." In other words, the same company would just instantly reform itself.

I agree that without inherited money, the market would be forced to consider each person based solely upon their own merits. But I wonder if the problem is with the uncontrolled exchange of wealth. You can't stop somebody from handing a wad of cash or the keys to a new car to their son or daughter. Also, in a 100% death tax, why would the government deserve that money more than the people who worked for the dead person? The money has to go somewhere... how do you decide who deserves it more?

What I'm thinking of is a new form of currency made possible by the digital age: Digital money. Everybody has a card - similar to a debit card - which they must use for any purchases they make. The idea would be to basically link your personal money to your own identity. Perhaps the amount of money you have is confidential... but you can't just hand your card off to your kid, because your kid's name is not the name on the card. This would also help to fight the trade of drugs and other illegal items.

Of course, you'd have to worry about hackers and identity theft. But even these would not be much of a threat if you set up the system properly. Also, I don't think these cards should come from the banks, which would undoubtedly start charging you massive fees for no reason at all. It would still need to be a free exchange of money with no fees attached... it's just that now, that money would be accountable.

As for where the money would go when you die... I'm not sure, to be honest.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I don't agree with taking inheritances out of play completely...ok ok yeah I am looking at an inheritance, I'm being straightforward and upfront from the get go...HOWEVER I do beleive that you should be given say 12 months or maybe 24 months to put that money to work for society by either, opening a business and employing people with FAIR wages or starting a fund, or opening a hospital, or investing in a doctor's office, or starting a farm producing more than what your family needs to put it on the market, which is what I am going to do, something that would benefit society as a whole...I think you understand here what I am trying to say? Anyway, if you do not meet the criteria, after the deadline the money should be taken and invested in someone who will use it for a purpose that would benefit society.

I hope you can see what I am trying to say. If not I can answer questions.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
See the thing about Capitalism is there isn't a set of specific rules. As many people can succeed in capitalism as want. In capitalism you can succeed at doing whatever it is you want and can make money with.

The "pie analogy" mentioned earlier in the thread fails because of the inverse of the above logic. It implies several things:
A. There is only one (1) pie.
B. Oligarchy is Capitalism.
C. If you can't get a piece of the singular world "pie" you're screwed.

These are all fallacies.

In capitalism, if you can't get your hands into a certain "pie" you're free to bake yourself another pie of your own. If your pie is better, then you succeed and can sell said pie for a better profit than your competitors' pie.

In capitalism the world isn't a single pie from which people draw sustenence, instead, every individual person has his or her own pie to work with. Now, this pie requires work and skill, and if you refuse to work/ hone your skill you're probably going to starve unless somebody is going to give you something.

Of course the people whom are unwilling to bake their own pie are going to starve, I have no problem with this. I may help some of them by giving them slices of my pie. Other people may choose to do this as well. This is called charity and is generally regarded as a good idea. When someone tells you at gunpoint, however, to be charitable it is no longer charity (nor capitalism).

The question a person must ask their self in a capitalism system is simple. "Can I take care of myself?" If the answer is yes, you can be a capitalist and do very well for yourself. If not, then you will starve.

Now, I hear people talking about how people DO work very hard and get nowhere.

Back to the pie analogy.

Say you're making the crust and it's time to knead the dough. If you knead the dough, and knead the dough, and knead the dough, and never do anything else then you're not doing it right. Similarly, if you work at a job which is going nowhere for someone who just sees you as a tool, you're doing capitalism wrong.

Capitalism promises nothing, if you get into a bad job and stay there it's your fault. Capitalism, instead, requires you to innovate. It rewards those who have something special to offer.

The problem is that people, very often, get capitalism and oligarchy confused. In capitalism there should be no monopoly. Wal-Mart does not have a monopoly, other stores exist. Wal-Mart is just successful with what they do.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
There is absolutely NOTHING about "capitalism" that assures the wealth will end up in a few hands, or that the system REQUIRES a poverty class.
Who allows our congress to pass laws that benefit the privileged? Who allows our congress to live like kings and queens? Who keeps voting them in?
WE DO! That is not capitalism, that is stupidity. That is laziness. That is apathy.
Who EXPECTS a job just because you went to school? Who EXPECTS to be treated with the finest medical care, but on the cheap? Who EXPECTS to be paid whether you work or not?
They are not called "capitalists", they are apathetic, stupid, lazy people who feel like THEY are the ENTITLED class.
Blaming capitalism is just the latest blame game, where we can blame someone else for our troubles.


Actually there is. In a perfect world, like you are imagining, our representatives would actually represent us and vote for things in our favor. However congressional votes are not cast in the name of the people anymore. Corporate lobbying has taken care of that. Congress now and forever will always act in the best interests of the rich, because it is only they who can afford to bribe our congressmen.

I believe this is an inherit and fundamental flaw of representative governments. The rich will always be able to bribe our representatives, and then the people effectively become powerless. It will happen every time. The only way around this is pure democracy, where the people represent the people. While this method of governance has been historically difficult to create, as the votes and opinions of large numbers of people are difficult to count, the electronic age has given us a new tool to count votes and hear the voice of the people instantaneously (such as forums like this one).



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Some of you have quoted the saying "I have never received a job from a poor man". This implies to me that the only way you see a system working is when the majority of the worker class is employed by a richer class of citizens.

As stated in my first post, on page 5, employment to a richer person is only required when the rich control all methods of production in a society, like they do now. If the workers controlled all methods of production employment would actually be optional - as workers could get by making most of the things they needed themselves.

When America was first colonized the workers needed to be self-sufficient, trips between europe and america took many months and they needed to grow their own food, make their own clothes, manufacture their own tools, anjd build their own buildings, and they did. There were no bureaucrats or laws in place at that time to stop them from doing what they needed to do to survive, like there are now.

Interestingly however, the king still wanted to control the colonies, which is why I think most of the pioneers came over here as indentured servants. Since they were being sent to a society with much more legal leniency, where they could function in a much more independent manner, they had to control their workers through perceived debt. The workers would have to work for years to their masters before they would actually be considered "free".

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.

Think about it.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magnus47

As for where the money would go when you die... I'm not sure, to be honest.


You are right that there would need to be constraints put in place to prevent cheating. But that is true of anything humans do. From sports, to research, to tests, you mechanic is a good starting point.

And what happens to the money is, it pays for all the public goods that economics recognizes that a free market will not provide. Those things that by their very nature are not profitable. You could eliminate any form of taxation on living humans by having a 100% tax on the dead. Its hard to get more fair than that.

Your military, your governance and legal systems, your infrastructure, public health, (inoculations or whatever the free market would not provide) your public education systems could all be funded from the death tax, and competition could be enacted within each of those systems. (like the voucher system) to ensure excellence rather than mediocrity in those areas.

Which doesnt mean you set up welfare, and reward the lazy or incompetent, it merely means that you recognize as everyone from Smith on has done, that free markets fail to provide for some things, and public funds must somehow be used to do so.

The details of such as system would need to be worked through. And finding impassive and incorruptible leadership is also a problem that Plato and others considered, and would have to be addressed. But we dont have to pretend that two straw men are all we have as options, which is my basic point, and nature works. It is a simple fact that it does. Any system which takes advantage of this fact will be better than one that does not. Millions of strategies have tried and failed, and one is so dominant on this planet that biologically it is a universal. It is hard to argue its "stoopid and wont work" when clearly it does. (not that you have, but trust me, Ive heard it) We just need to refine how to implement it consciously.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

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]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Capitalism will only work for everyone when Capitalists decide to adopt a Socialist mindset...

In other words, SHARE the wealth instead of hoarding it.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy


Capitalism will only work for everyone when Capitalists decide to adopt a Socialist mindset...

In other words, SHARE the wealth instead of hoarding it.


They already do. It's called employment. The only thing standing in the way of job growth in this economy is the government. The more government expands to cover private losses the more private loss at the bottom of the economic latter there will be. This is Econ 101.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join