It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Capitalism =Greed

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:47 PM
Capitalism = Greed

Capitalism, like Communisim, is an unrealistic philosophy. The people who invest take a risk, so they deserve to profit from their investments. But do people have to have so much money, at the expense of paying a living wage, to the people that produce what makes them wealthy? And then the very people who produce the things that makes investors obscenely wealthy, can't even afford to buy the essentials they make, such as life saving medication, medical care and provide service for!

Investors and naive asleep people believe society has to have successful businesses to employ people. So to hell with the average families! Who cares if they are healthy, have health care, have a living wage, and education! The successful wealthy will have enough money for their family with profit margins that are extortion, to buy fifi the dog a diamond collar!(I know many people personally like this) And a fortress in South America to protect them from "the have nots.(Bushes)

Capitalism, is fine, and the people who invest take a risk, so they deserve to profit from their investments, but do people have to have so much money, at the expense of paying a living wage, to the employees?

Where is my flaw in this reasoning? Greedy people who run the politicians Do Not Care! So cry to these people in power and believe me they Don't give a Damn! Our words fall on deaf ears!

[edit on 14-7-2010 by hypattia]

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by hypattia

Capitalism, is fine, and the people who invest take a risk, so they deserve to profit from their investments, but do people have to have so much money, at the expense of paying a living wage, to the employees?

Do you have a proposal for a new system, or a proposal for re-structuring the current system? Something you'd like to share that may mean a solution to those ills you've outlined?

[edit on 13-7-2010 by LadySkadi]

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:17 PM
The aggregate market i.e. the "economy" is an amalgamation of individuals turning their energy into something of value. Most people specialize in one type of outlay of energy (often called a profession or vocation) in which they produce goods and services far in excess of their own needs. Consequently, they trade their energy to a business or individual that considers it of value in the interest of getting other things that consider valuable that they can't/won't produce themselves. Money is used as a symbol of energy to facilitate these exchanges.

The fly in the ointment is ethics, or lack thereof. Those that accumulate mass sums of money are not inherently bad; they simply sold their energy and other people and individuals considered it to be of substantial value to themselves. The problem is that one can unethically fool others into thinking that their energy is of value when in truth it is not.

This is the vendor of faulty products, so-called toxic assets, any exageration of product/service quality, and the like. Unfortunately, this goes on everyday at every level of the economy. Fortunately, the solution is easy.

People must become much more responsible for what they're buying, whether it's a wheelbarrow, or car, or home, or treasury bond, or an account at a bank. If it's clear that the ultimate effects of the purchase may not benefit you, then don't buy it!

Expand your attention to all the effects.

Examine thoroughly all those effects.

Don't make assumptions about the effect, especially based on what the seller says.

The is our defense against and ultimate solution for greed.

Greed in inherent in any economic system, but capitalism is the only one that allows individuals the freedom to "weed it out". No country on Earth practices strict capitalism, because of the ethical pitfalls, but to the degree that they deviate from capitalism there is more force and coercion involved in exchanges (and less choice).

Freedom comes with responsibility. In this context, that responsibility is to evaluate one's decisions intelligently to act your own best interest.

If that's too much for you to handle, I'm sure there's a government out there willing to make those decisions for you.

Just don't expect to keep much freedom.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by randolrs1]

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by hypattia

I understand what you are saying...

You may be interested in this thread i started a while back...

The illusion that is the free market...

Democracy is an illusion... we are controlled and enslaved by the corporate world.


posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:48 PM
Capitalism is what makes this country great. There has been nearly 100 million people slaughtered under the name of Communism ( Find anyone that has lived under a communist regime and has also lived here and ask them where they would rather live.

People being allowed to make as much as they want is what leads to great ideas, inventions and services. Why has nearly every technological revolutions come from America... because we allow our people grow businesses uninhibited. When you remove unlimited gain, than you restrict advancement.

One thing I have learned is to not argue with people about religion or politics, because you can never "win". One thing I will ask you is to look at the unintended consequences of communism. It may "sound" good but communism leads to total control by the government. Capitalism may have large companies that seemingly always get their way, but in the end they are TOTALLY controlled by the people.

If a company does not act as you want them to act, you have the control over your dollars to not buy what the are selling. Under communism you don't have that control. If you don't like what the government is doing, there is nothing you can do about it.

Personally I would rather have the control.

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:53 PM
Greed is a sin.

Capitalism is a form of social control based in part on merit and individualism.

I do not think the comparison is accurate.

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by mike365

I don’t think that the OP was advocating communism as a replacement...

Capitalism, like Communisim, is an unrealistic philosophy.

You are correct about millions being murdered in the name of communism... But you will also find that millions have been murdered in the name of capitalism...

The only difference is this...

Communism often kills millions of its own people as a means of controlling the population.

Capitalism often kills millions of other people as a mean of controlling wealth.


posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:08 PM
reply to post by hypattia

I think Marx had it nailed. Communism is supposed to be pure democracy from the grass roots up. There is the story that after WW1 and the fall of the Tzars of Russia, Lenin got his hands on a Communist Manifesto and thought it may be an answer for his home that was at that time in shambles. He contacted Marx to ask what he thought about Russia adopting this philosophy and Marx replied: Your attempt will never develop past Socialism (the first stage) due to the fact it must remain centralized to fight off Capitalist influence on the society. As we have seen, no country that has claimed to be Communist has been able to become a decentralized Democracy just like Marx said. As long as there are greedy people offering payoffs and greedy people taking them, we have a problem.
edit: Real communism like Marx intended can't exist in competition with Capitalism which is a system that will destroy itself on it's own.
People hoard for the sake of hoarding. the productive capacity of our resources and efforts are wasted.

[edit on 07/17/2009 by Mumbotron]

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:21 PM
@Muckster You cannot point to any instance of mass extermination of people under a republic/ capitalistic country. In what instance has millions been killed for the control wealth?

For as much as you say "big companies" profit off the "under paid" the government "profits" while contributing nothing. They simply tax their people for the purpose of retaining power by "buying" votes.

A free people with a limited government is best. More people live better in America than in any other country. I don't know of anyone willing to die to break into Mexico or China. You simply have to go to the Mexican/ American border and see 1,000s of people that will & have DIED to escape total governmental control to come to America.

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by mike365

No, not direct mass exterminations... But millions of deaths caused by the hundreds of, secretly funded, CIA wars in third world country’s...

And most recently... Iraq!!

All about oil and other resources regardless of what the mass media tell us!


[edit on 13-7-2010 by Muckster]

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:38 PM
It all based on being born ignorant and innocent, when you condition children to follow ideals you condition them, when the child gives up or surrenders and accepts they lose there innocence and still remain ignorant and will develope ingorances based on secondhand ignorances.

The ignorant village will raise ignorant children, takes a village to raise a child

The ignorant children will ignorantly advance the village.
takes a child to raise the village

It's an old paradigm that begins at the root, address the root and everything else will fall naturally into place.

We live on a living learning curve, eventually you have to get off the curve
evolutuion, the curve is just a concept, a relationship, curves have critial points collaspes in math.

The point of evolution is to excell of the living learning curve before collaspe

Capitalism, like Communisim, is an unrealistic philosophy these are concepts and are also living learning curves, as the ice age, bronze age, iron age, tecno age, etc...

[edit on 13-7-2010 by mr20121221]

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 08:56 PM
Are you comparing the killing of the Taiban in Iraq to something like Cambodian genocide with 1.7million people EXTERMINATED We are in Iraq to git rid of an oppressive government.

I, again, don't the thought process. Do you realize America is one of the, if not THE only country that will
1. Invade a country
2. Kill off the oppressive government
3. FREE the people
4. REBUILD the country to better than pre-war conditions
5. And then leave without asking for anything in return.

In every other war in history it goes this way.
1. Invade the country
2. Kill off all of the government
3. ENSLAVE the people
4. Steal all of the resources
5. and then tax the people of that country to pay for the war

America is THE only country that fights, truly FIGHTS, for peace. If you believe that the US fights wars in other countries to take over, then why do we not control every country in the world? Why have we not taken every barrel of oil in Iraq and left by now?

It would have been easy to go to Iraq, steal every barrel of oil, take every well and nuke the country. We could have done that and no other country could have done anything about it.

Instead our solderer have done their best to not kill the innocent, and at the same time rebuild the country and FREE the people.

Again, find ANY country that has ever done that... especially a communist/ socialist country.

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:25 PM

Originally posted by mike365
@Muckster You cannot point to any instance of mass extermination of people under a republic/ capitalistic country. In what instance has millions been killed for the control wealth?

I am shocked that anyone could actually believe what you have just posted. You obviously have never heard of Panama, Viet Nam, Iraq.

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:49 PM
@aching_knuckles ok, again.

Panama: We were there to
1. Safeguarding the lives of U.S. citizens in Panama
2. Defend democracy and human rights
3. Combat the drug trafficking
4. Noriega threatened the neutrality of the Panama Canal and that the United States had the right under the treaties to intervene militarily to protect the Panama canal.

Viet Nam:
We were there to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam. We tried to halt the advance of communism.

Iraq... already explained.

All of those combined don't touch the 94+ million slaughtered under communist regime.

Communists exterminate or starve their own people for the purpose of control. The USA fights to free people from these types of governments.

Again, keep in mind that those countries are not run by the US. In most other instances of war the victor country controls/ takes over that country. The US has not done that.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by mike365]

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:19 AM
reply to post by mike365

You are not listening to what I’m saying... Your picking the rapist over the murderer... i’m saying they are both bad... however, if i had a choice between living in a communist country or a democratic one i would pick the democratic... But do not be fooled into thinking of America (or any other nation) as this holier-than-thou defender of freedom... America has its Large share of wrong doings...

If the man across the road is an axe murderer... does that mean your rapist brother is ok??

Patriotism is ok, but do not be blinded by it.

Watch the video...

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Muckster]

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:43 AM
reply to post by randolrs1

Quite well said!

Now, back to the OP...

Originally posted by hypattia
Capitalism, is fine, and the people who invest take a risk, so they deserve to profit from their investments, but do people have to have so much money, at the expense of paying a living wage, to the employees?

I never figured out where this concept of a living wage came from. Not that I don't understand the definition of a living wage, but when or where the idea that someone should be paid this 'living wage' amount for doing xyz.

Work has a certain value. In business, the idea is to make a profit, and you do that by getting x for the lowest price you can get it for, and selling the result at the highest price you can get for it. This translates to labor in so much that if the position is widget maker, whatever that minimum salary a person will work for is the wage. If they work for $1 a day, then that is the wage. If everyone says they can't get by on that or their time/efforts are worth more, the position remains vacant, the employer isn't producing widget assembly's, thus no money. Employer then has to offer more money until someone accepts the job. That is fair, because both parties agree its fair, and above all, that is FREEDOM.

Now, with a good employer/boss, they recognize value (craftsmanship, loyalty, skills etc) and when able will almost always pay more.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 07:33 AM
reply to post by Wolf321

So it is just that wealthy investors have enough profit for their disposal income , to spend $52k and

Street Dogs: How the super rich spend
their money
ON AVERAGE, American private jet owners have a yearly income of $9,2m, net worth of $89,3m,
are 57 years old and 70% of them are men.
Researchers Hannah Grove and Russ Prince surveyed the group last year to find out who they
are, what makes them tick and how they spend their money.
Their findings: the average jet-setter spends nearly $30000 a year on alcohol, $147000 on
watches, $117000 on clothes and $248000 on jewellery.
They have more than two principal residences worth at least $2m each, and spend $542000 a
year in home improvements.
They also spend $226000 a year on cars, $404000 on boats together with $98000 on
“experiential travel”, $224000 on hotels and $107000 on spas.
They spend the most money on art, $1,75m a year on average.
And just 34% of jet owners open their own mail, while only 19% pay their own bills

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 07:53 AM
reply to post by Muckster

I am by no means saying America is perfect. Just as there are corrupt individuals in any businesses, there are corrupt people in the any government. But I think that capitalism is the best model for the most people to have success.

There is no perfect government model, because people are not perfect. But at the end of the day, with all of the different types of government theology, a capitalistic republic wins hands down.

Again, just look at what is real (no theory). There is nobody breaking into communist China, there is no American's sneaking their family into Mexico to seek a new life. Nobody is willing to DIE to immigrate to a Communist or Socialist country, its just not real.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by mike365]

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:17 AM
reply to post by randolrs1
"If that's too much for you to handle, I'm sure there's a government out there willing to make those decisions for you".

Working 2 jobs just to make enough money to have a roof over our head, and caring for a family, I really have a lot of time to research everything my family needs, which I do try to do. Sifting thru all the agenda's of all the different researchers, I must then decide, can my children who needs shoes, go without since I would not be able to find shoes made in the U.S. that are quality without having to forgo the clothes, backpack, etc.
Of course this is one small daily dilemma of many financial dilemmas.

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:57 AM
Sometimes by thinking something wrong one doesn't actually mean that it can't work, only that in some instances the problem of collusion of government and capitalists leads to a variety of outcomes, usually to benefit only the parties involved. Capitalism by itself doesn't seem so bad, but add to the mix democracy and nationalism and you have a seriously dicey mix that can distort outcomes, especially with regard to how the media can be used to distort the facts one way or the other. I tend to think maybe socialism seems worse than capitalism, it seems like capitalism works better for everyone while socialism only works for those that have already accumulated capital and can ride out the economic consequences, capitalism seems to help everyone cause the wealthy become actually more generous when they feel comfortable with doing so.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in