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.

 

What are your thoughts on capitalism?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Capitalism:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production that should be "PRIVATELY" owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets. There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category. There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism. The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.

The F.E.D:

The Federal Reserve System is a "PRIVATE" bank, and can make decisions without the permission of Congress or the President of the U.S. The System does not require public funding, and derives its authority and purpose from the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress in 1913.

About 1913:

President at the time - Woodrow Wilson

Woodrow Wilson said...

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
~ Woodrow Wilson.

Simply put…

There are many variants of capitalism in existence. All these forms of capitalism are based on production for profit, at least a moderate degree of market allocation and capital accumulation. One of the dominant forms of capitalism is called:

Free market capitalism

Free market capitalism consists of a free-price system where supply and demand are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by the government. Productive enterprises are privately owned, and the role of the state is limited to protecting property rights.

Ask yourself, is this the system we use in 2011?

If you go back to the beginning of this article you will notice the following.

If we use capitalism "PRIVATELY" owned and operated for profit. and the F.E.D is a "PRIVATELY" owned bank which prints our money at interest we can never afford to pay back. Then we must think that in a free and equal society were any man or woman can compete in this free market equally amongst their peers. That if one "PRIVATE" party is the one that controls all of the money, and the other "PRIVATE" parties do not control it. Then common sense will show you that this is not a free market, this is a rigged market, Not equal at all.

I propose we start "Thinking" a lot more. I see that the occupy wall street protesting is being funneled down the "End Capitalism" road, Take warning this is not the right target of focus, This is the hijacking and misleading of masses of confused people who know something is wrong with what is going on around them, They might not know what it is, but then again they were educated by the government, by our public education system. I am currently working on a documentary about our education system, entitled ".edu-caution". and I will definitely be covering these issues. It is so easy to confuse an uneducated public. A good example is the placing of the word "federal" in the name of a privately owned bank. 80% of the public thinks this is a government agency. Goes to show how easy it is to fool people. The Zeitgeist movement is a great example of this also.

Some of the other variants of Capitalism include:

Mercantilism

A nationalist form of early capitalism where national business interests are tied to state interests, and consequently, the state apparatus is utilized to advance national business interests abroad. Mercantilism holds that the wealth of a nation is increased through a positive balance of trade with other nations.

Social market economy

A social market economy is a nominally free-market system where government intervention in price formation is kept to a minimum, but the state provides for moderate to extensive provision of social security, unemployment benefits and recognition of labor rights through national collective bargaining schemes. The social market is based on private ownership of businesses.

State capitalism

State capitalism consists of state ownership of profit-seeking enterprises that operate in a capitalist manner in a market economy. Examples include corporatized government agencies or partial state ownership of shares in publicly listed firms. The term state capitalism has also been used to refer to an economy consisting of mainly private enterprises that are subjected to comprehensive national economic planning by the government, wherein the state intervenes in the economy to protect specific capitalist businesses (although this is usually referred to as state monopoly capitalism or corporate capitalism). Many socialists and anti-Stalinist leftists argue that the Soviet Union was state capitalist instead of socialist, since the state owned all the means of production, functioned as an enormous corporation, and exploited the working class.

Corporate capitalism

Corporate capitalism is a free or mixed market characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic corporations, which are legally required to pursue profit. State monopoly capitalism refers to a form of corporate capitalism where the state is used to benefit, protect from competition and promote the interests of dominant or established corporations.

Mixed economy

A largely market-based economy consisting of both public ownership and private ownership of the means of production. In practice, a mixed economy will be heavily slanted toward one extreme; most capitalist economies are defined as "mixed economies" to some degree and are characterized by the dominance of private ownership.

Free market capitalism, is my choice.

What do you think your alternatives are?

Socialism? Communism? Fascism? Whats your solution? If I were to choose an alternative I would have to say lets adopt realism and Minimalism. Otherwise, Lets get back to some good old "Free market capitalism" make some money, get back to work, privacy and prosperity. Don't throw capitalism in one category, The powers that be are pushing for the confusion and end of capitalism so they can further the "police state". Remember the word "Privacy" because the only thing private that will exist will be the lies and manipulation that brought us here in the first place.

All we need is to arm ourselves with the truth, its a one way road.

End the FED, not capitalism.
edit on 22-12-2011 by NeillieN because: Changed title.

edit on 22-12-2011 by NeillieN because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
For me the alternative is communism. I personally don't believe any capitalist society is stable nor good for the majority
Every capitalist society is born on the same premise, the private ownership of both property and production.

Personally I don't believe free-market capitalism is the answer. People cite the progressive era of America as this great moment in capitalist history while in reality under the surface of monopolies thriving you had poverty, terrible working conditions and hardly any rights for the worker. That's to name but a few problems.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NeillieN
 


Nice OP

I like it. Anything that means we should think more has to be a good thing.

I think your idea could work, it's not entirely the way I would go...

I've personally always liked the idea of, Capping prosperity, and putting excesses into the government, like a "Profits Tax", there is simply no need for people to amass wealth and assets as they do.

Create a Wealthy mentality of give back to the system that allowed you to "prosper" in the first place.

Your right about the misunderstandings though, most people only see the failures of a specific style of capitalism, and place the stereotype " it does not work full stop " however a society based on wealth generation is probably not going to see much in the way of long term stability, sustainability and balance. But, as long as we're thinking....

Now... Central Banking on a fiat Currency system though is destined to fail, it would have to be first on the chopping block for sure. It's not designed to create Balance, Stability or sustainability, it is GREED at it's most evil.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by NeillieN
 


Good op, but it's flawed.

If you end the FED and attempt to rely solely on a free market, the US is doomed as the US produces next to nothing, free market works because of the exchange of goods and services, the US has outsourced all of this to foreign countries and any actual manufacturing and producing still operating within the US is teetering on the brink.

Capitalism can work, so can socialism and communism. It's the damn people that don't work, the people corrupt the system from the top down and it fails



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
For me the alternative is communism. I personally don't believe any capitalist society is stable nor good for the majority
Every capitalist society is born on the same premise, the private ownership of both property and production.

Personally I don't believe free-market capitalism is the answer. People cite the progressive era of America as this great moment in capitalist history while in reality under the surface of monopolies thriving you had poverty, terrible working conditions and hardly any rights for the worker. That's to name but a few problems.


By chance are you a zeitgeist movement follower? just wondering.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NeillieN
 


Partly, if that makes sense. I believe it's a great idea that could work eventually. I just don't think people at this moment of time would handle the transition from a monetary system to a non-monetary system.

Why?

edit on 22-12-2011 by Tea4One because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by NeillieN
 


Privacy leads to distrust, period. Any kind of ism is a fallacy IMO. Currently its about the haves and the have nots.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
The reason Communism does not work is the reason you have different layers of success and wealth in capitalism...some people work harder than others, some people do not work at all, some people like to ride the clock...some ride the system. That's people being people...

I like good ol' capitalism. I make something or sell something, you pay me for it. I provide a service, you pay me for it and for my time. The harder I work, the more I make... the less I work, the less I make. It's really quite simple.

The greater or more profitable the skill, the greater the pay for providing the time to perform the skill. Flip a burger... make 7-8.00 an hour. Weld and service and repair a bull dozer...make about 30-50.00 an hour.

Now, as Americans, we have the right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. We are not guarenteed happiness. We have the right to pursue it. So, if happiness is kicking back with a bag of Doritos, a color TV, and a 2 liter drink... go for it. If happiness is learning some philosophical idea and social theory...go for it.

But don't hold it against me because I learned a trade, work 10-15 hours a day, went to night class at a community college and learned investing in real estate and stocks... carried egg sandwiches with me to work for lunch and had beans and rice for dinner, do odd jobs on the side, sell firewood, pigs, goats, turnip greens, ...

and at the end of the day...I have more money than you and a place at the coast, and a nice pickup and a retirement account...do NOT get mad at me at all. Go back watch a little more Tv...I might even buy you another bag of Doritos.

Communism is where evrybody is equal...equal pay, equal effort, equal housing, equal opportunity decided by the state...equal everything. The problem is everybody does not put in equal effort.

Bob works really hard during his shift...Joe doesn't. At the end of the week...Bob makes exactly what Joe does.

Bob, at night tinkers, and figures out a better mouse trap. He shows it to the state. The state says good idea...thanks Bob. Next week, Bob and Joe get a better mouse trap in the mail. Bob and Joe end up with exactly the same thing, except Bob got a nice letter to frame saying Thank You.

After awhile, Bob stops trying so hard...Why not. he gets exactly what Joe gets and Joe does nothing. Bob stops innovating and creating. Why not. He will get nothing for his efforts, and Joe will reap the benefit of Bob's hard work.

After awhile, the whole country has figured this out, and innovation stops...production declines... everybody makes the same no matter what, so why do anymore?

This is what happened to the USSR...the Soviet Union and the end result back in the 1970s and 1980s... anybody here remember the cars that were jokes in Moscow? remember the long lines in their "stores" just to get food, clothes, material goods...not excess, but for survival?

Nope, give me good ol' capitalism anyday. Right now, the US is border line corporatism/ fascism...pretty scary. To access the true capitalist markets in the US, go to the black market or "under the table" cash markets..that's where the old style American ideals still live.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by NeillieN
 


Partly, if that makes sense. I believe it's a great idea that could work eventually. I just don't think people at this moment of time would handle the transition from a monetary system to a non-monetary system.


It would never work without a complete restart and worldly agreement of every person on the planet, which is impossible. there will always be opposites and opposing factors/factions. Dont get me wrong I would love to live in a star fleet command like earth. but thats for dreams man. Plus it would have just as many flaws as the society we currently have, not to mention the compartmentalized secret ones. you could not achieve such a world with out authority or something controlling it. I like the voting idea... you know the one of the people choosing who that would be... should be based in localized state regions based upon common living preference. but honestly we all know we thats not how it currently works. our votes count for nothing. my choice is minimalism and realism is the world i wanna live in. where its not illegal to grow organic heirloom foods.
edit on 22-12-2011 by NeillieN because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-12-2011 by NeillieN because: Typos



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I understand why we created capitalism. The human race did not always have resources in such abundance as we have in the western world today, and therefore we had to compete to survive, and through competition we were also able to recognize mates, leaders and losers, something which surely must have accelerated our social evolution. But this is not the case any more. There is infact enough for everyone, every one can contribute and the time and resources spent on competing is nothing but a shameful waste.

Humans are scared - not greedy.
We are curious, and the smartest people on earth do not make the biggest bugs - cause they do not care. They wish to have enough to do their experiments, but the discoveries they make are reward enough. My personal favorit example is Nikola Tesla or that guy who invented penicillin (but seriously, take anybody!).

The biggest problem with capitalism is the distribution of wealth, and even though most hardworking people do earn their own money, few are born into riches and most are born into poverty - and the latter will never accept it. So it will never work.

I don't know if I have any great alternative. I am personally a big fan of socialism - but see flaws there as well. Either way, I do not think that any system forced upon people will ever work. It has to be a choice.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

every one can contribute and the time and resources spent on competing is nothing but a shameful waste.



every one can contribute

They could, if they "wanted" to, but not everyone will "want" to... not everyone agrees bro. you would have many countries (bands of people who agree all over again). the people who "want" it "this way", and the people "want" it "that way".
edit on 22-12-2011 by NeillieN because: Typos



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
The reason Communism does not work is the reason you have different layers of success and wealth in capitalism...some people work harder than others, some people do not work at all, some people like to ride the clock...some ride the system. That's people being people...


There has never been a single shred of scientific evidence to that statement. People are NOT born lazy, they are made that way by a flawed system.
You should read up on nature vs. nurture.

Do you think poverty is a choice?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mads1987

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
The reason Communism does not work is the reason you have different layers of success and wealth in capitalism...some people work harder than others, some people do not work at all, some people like to ride the clock...some ride the system. That's people being people...


There has never been a single shred of scientific evidence to that statement. People are NOT born lazy, they are made that way by a flawed system.
You should read up on nature vs. nurture.

Do you think poverty is a choice?


"Do you think poverty is a choice?" Nope

In a free market society privately owned? YUP! To bad we dont have one.
edit on 22-12-2011 by NeillieN because: Added something



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 


I disagre totally with you. There are people that work very hard at doing nothing. They work hard in figuring out ways to ride the system.

My wife and I are both managers and she has a woman that will be off for Xmas out on medical leave for a very simple injury...ironically, she gets hurt every year about this time... and is out at Xmas on leave. Imagine that.

And anybody here that has worked a job or managed people knows of a similar circumstance.

There are all sorts of people and everybody acts and reacts differently...some is social conditioning, some is cultural, some is even genetic.

No... as long as you have people...you will get different results everytime... there are books and classes and social theorists that have been and still are debating this idea since time began.

"Only the strong survive"...a principle of nature... the one that drags along gets eaten. the one that doesn't hunt hard and successfully starves... It is also a principle of life for humans that is ancient.

" A folding of hands, a little slumber, and poverty will come upon you like a thief in the night."

"Look upon the ants.. see how they gather, for they know winter is nigh."
edit on 22-12-2011 by AlreadyGone because: spelling



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NeillieN
 


True capitalism can work, when there are balances in place. But, we no longer live under a true capitalist system. This ended when the first business was bailed out. Capitalism only functions as capitalism when those who fail are allowed to fail.

First off, we need to remove corporate interests from government. No corporation or business should be able to lobby in support of or against anything.
Also, no person holding any position in government should be permitted to profit from investments with any company. If a politician or other has investments, what is to stop them making a critical decision for the benefit of their investment rather than the benefit of those who have elected them? In this case, all investments should be stated and be on public record, and all such investments should be frozen. For the duration of their time in that position they should not be able to make a private profit from any investments, and therefore no decisions will be made for personal gain.
There should also be a public panel to provide scrutiny of any and all employment that person accepts or is offered after leaving office. In the UK we see this regularly, members of the House of Lords and MP's often have involvement with large corporations either while in office or immediately after, and this reeks of corruption.

When it comes to excess pay and wealth, I would personally support the idea of a maximum wage. The highest paid employee of any company should only earn 20 x that of the lowest paid company employee. This would help level the field, and if a senior employee wants to take home millions, they will be forced to increase the wages of their lowest paid employees. Everyone wins.

In my opinion the problems we have stem from a polluted idea of what capitalism is. We think we live in a capitalist system, but in reality it's capitalism for us, but socialism or communism for the most wealthy, and even elements of fascism for the state.

I hate all of the "isms", they allow people to have very narrow opinions and are actually more about being able to throw an insult. Those who call others capitalists, communists, socialists or whatever often haven't spent more than ten minutes actually thinking about it. The right-wing are the funniest bunch for screaming the word "commie" at anyone who challenges their warped view of capitalism, conveniently forgetting that capitalism is dead.

Ultimately, there is no democratic system when the government is influenced or controlled primarily by the wealthiest in a society.
There is no capitalism when that government uses the wealth of the citizens to support a corporation.
There are no noble and right decisions for the benefit of the nation when your elected officials are making decisions based on their investments and the investments of their "secret gentleman's clubs".



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
reply to post by Mads1987
 

There are all sorts of people and everybody acts and reacts differently...some is social conditioning, some is cultural, some is even genetic.

No... as long as you have people...you will get different results everytime... there are books and classes and social theorists that have been and still are debating this idea since time began.

"Only the strong survive"...a principle of nature... the one that drags along gets eaten. the one that doesn't hunt hard and successfully starves... It is also a principle of life for humans that is ancient.


I have to agree. In a previous management role we had several people who were notoriously unreliable. It became almost a joke to see if they would arrive for the start of their shift, or if we would be running around trying to cover it. It was always the same people, always different excuses. But it doesn't matter how unlucky a person is, it becomes clear that some people simply do not want to work.

One of my own nephews is like this. He's arrogant, lazy, selfish and thinks he should have the right to sit on his ass playing on his console for 12 hours a day while everyone else serves him. He's 18 years old, and started his first job two months ago. Already he's had more than 7 days off, and my sister has to get up at 5am and spend an hour waking him up. Needless to say I don't like him very much. I don't care if he is family, I view him as a waste of skin and will do so until he sorts his life out.

But there are people like him everywhere, and in a truly natural environment they wouldn't survive. It's a fact of nature.

However, we don't live in the purely natural world, we live in a system which we created for the betterment of mankind, and that system has to be used to help everyone, whether you or I like it or not.

If there were no social support systems in place, these people would become an even greater burden on society. Think we have high crime rates now? Wait until there is no social system to help them and see how long you have that nice TV on your wall or can walk along the street without being beaten to death.

In nations where the social systems are far weaker, there is massive terrorism, criminality on a gigantic scale, disease outbreaks on a regular basis, terrible religious and tribal turmoil...

There are plenty of people in our nations who would do away with all forms of social welfare entirely. They're extremely dangerous, and when you ask any of them what they would do about all those people left without any assistance they have no answer. They don't want to admit that there would be labor camps, slums, dangerous disease outbreaks (which don't only kill the poor)...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mads1987

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
The reason Communism does not work is the reason you have different layers of success and wealth in capitalism...some people work harder than others, some people do not work at all, some people like to ride the clock...some ride the system. That's people being people...


There has never been a single shred of scientific evidence to that statement. People are NOT born lazy, they are made that way by a flawed system.
You should read up on nature vs. nurture.

Do you think poverty is a choice?


Out of curiosity, do you have children? I used to favor nurture over nature, until I had my 2 boys. They were BORN with their personalities, and therefore I do believe lazy people could have simply been born lazy. One of my boys was so active in utero that the doctor had a hard time finding his heartbeat because he wouldn't be still...he hasn't stopped moving SINCE. Nothing I can do to change his personality...I just have to try and harness it toward good rather than mischief. Here is support of my statements...from YOUR own nature vs. nurture link:

most traits are thought to be at least partially heritable. In this context, the "nature" component of the variance is generally thought to be more important than that ascribed to the influence of family upbringing.


You may think that everyone is born with some kind of drive to succeed, but I am convinced that is not true. I've been a teacher for 22 years, having taught hundreds of kids, and I've met with concerned middle class parents who are at their wits' end about how to get their child to work to his/her potential. I used to blame the parents: if they would just _______, then the kids would do what they were supposed to. Now I see it from the other side, as a parent. It is really hard to change a child's basic personality. There are some kids who just don't CARE about working hard. They are absolutely fine with coasting by with as little effort as possible. They may have a sibling who is completely driven to succeed. It's amazing how different kids can be, even when from the same family.

To apply that to the topic of communism, I believe your comments about a flawed system would show WHY communism, a flawed system itself, can't help but fail. In communism, the kid I described above who is fine with coasting by with as little effort as possible has NO incentive to work harder. The kid who DOES care about working hard, who is driven to succeed, ALSO has no incentive to work harder...why bother, when you aren't going to get any benefit from it?

Back to nature vs. nurture...One of my favorite quotes, as a parent, is "Nature or Nurture? Who cares! Either way, it is the parents' fault!" You can't argue with that one...

Edit to add: I don't think poverty is ALWAYS a choice, but I have seen people choose it. My mother, for example. She is college educated, extremely intelligent, and skipped a grade in elementary school. She was raised upper middle class, and had a successful business (a dance school) as a teenager. She made enough money to buy herself a car at the age of 16. I actually think, though, that her mother, my grandmother, was the driving force behind the business. In the 70s, my mother embraced the idea of being a hippie, and from that point on, never cared about making money (and NEVER did again). Since the late 80s she has done as little as possible, always on her terms, and has lived in poverty. Her choice. And now she gets a free cell phone and free healthcare from the government because she is so poor. As long as I can remember, she has been happy to let others take care of her as much as possible. So yes, she has chosen and embraced poverty. Poverty has worked for her, as a matter of fact.
edit on 22-12-2011 by GeorgiaGirl because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-12-2011 by GeorgiaGirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 




True capitalism can work, when there are balances in place.


When you add balances to capitalism you cease to have true capitalism. True capitalism can work but it would end us all.

Capitalism is a top-down approach the opposite is the Communism a bottom-up approach.

Capitalism and Communism have never been truly implemented, the basic reason why they haven't is because they can not coexist and compete in the same social and economical environment, and so adaptations are made to the systems in an attempt to make them viable, the end result, even if perfect modifications were made in both, would still be is self evident simply because of those distinctive approaches.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


The examples you gave have no specific application to demonstrate the validity of the economical systems.

A kid that does not do more than that what he is required is doing system optimization (the same for the other examples given to people attempting to avoid work), people do not want to work, ever, regardless of the system.

A smart individual is the one that learns how to game every situation to his benefit, this is pure natural selection, all animals work toward this ultimate goal.

The over-archiver is running after a carrot, he may or may not get to eat it (it depends not only on his capabilities but on competition for that resource and the system rules he is operating, given all this factors today chances of success are few and will continue to decrease).



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


The examples you gave have no specific application to demonstrate the validity of the economical systems.

A kid that does not do more than that what he is required is doing system optimization (the same for the other examples given to people attempting to avoid work), people do not want to work, ever, regardless of the system.

A smart individual is the one that learns how to game every situation to his benefit, this is pure natural selection, all animals work toward this ultimate goal.

The over-archiver is running after a carrot, he may or may not get to eat it (it depends not only on his capabilities but on competition for that resource and the system rules he is operating, given all this factors today chances of success are few and will continue to decrease).


I believe they do. In my opinion, they represent the one of the flaws of Communism. Both the slacker and the hard worker would lack incentive to produce; or am I misunderstanding Communism in some way?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join