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 my mind is closing towards Capitalism

page: 11
92
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bitsforbytes
The use of MONEY is what is holding back humans.


Money is merely a symbol of exchange. In old days I gave you a desk and you gave me a cow. Money was invented because we sometimes did not have what they other needed at the time (such a a cow), so it was a means to give something in exchange and then spend it on what they prefer at a later date.

Exchange is very basic to life, community, social relations and humankind. Giving money is an expression of nurture and trust. That is why the word "Trust" is put on the Dollar Bill.




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 



Somebody always goes hungry; and Capitalist advocates are ok with that.



Isn't that better than the alternative where EVERYbody goes hungry? (Except the ruling elite)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Really? Everybody? That's what you see? JESUS.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by KTATS
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Really? Everybody? That's what you see? JESUS.


China, USSR, RNK...

Starving citizens, fat government leaders.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by bitsforbytes
The use of MONEY is what is holding back humans.


Money is merely a symbol of exchange.
At least your right about this much. I used to believe that money was unnecessary, and we would be better off if we could just forget about the silly stuff. I have wised up since then, it's obvious to me that humans will never (well not for a very long time) decide to simply throw away all their money and start operating in a resource-based economy or something like that - it just wont happen, people are simply too self involved. As such, it's important that we can have some sort of easy way to exchange items of value. The problem is that when a currency can be manipulated and inflated at the whim of quasi-government entities such as the FED, the currency in question may as well be toilet paper in my opinion. It's absolutely worthless trash controlled by psychopaths trying to rig the system to benefit a few elite bankers.

In comes Bitcoin, a fully decentralized digital currency with no central bank and no way for anyone to manipulate or control the issuance of bitcoins. Now you might be thinking "bitcoins are worthless fake virtual money with no real world value". The fact is, all 'real world notes' are stamped with numbers that are saved on computers. In fact the majority of money is only on computers and not in the form of physical notes. The numbers on it can be checked against the numbers saved on the computers to check if your money note is counterfeited. What we must understand, is that Bitcoin is merely a symbol of exchange as you put it. The difference is, that we don't need to trust our Government or a private company to handle the production of the currency properly.


Socialism and Capitalism strongly differ on the causes why someone goes hungry. We capitalists believe it is not because of the capitalist that someone goes hungry. If anything, the capitalist creates jobs, opportunities and infrastructure that elevates society as a whole so that you have less hungry people. According to us, the person goes hungry not because of successful people but because either lack of education, bad circumstances, lack of goals or bad luck.
Obviously you are ignoring the fact that capitalism is based upon the idea of competition. In a competition there are always winners and losers. It can't be helped. The number one problem with capitalism is that some of the 'players' in this competition eventually win so many times, and become so large, that they obtain a virtual monopoly over the market and can easily squash any and all competitors. Usually they achieve this status through a number of questionable tactics - think WalMart - these large conglomerates build empires based on low quality, cheap products produced by low paid, overworked employees, meanwhile the shareholders make an absolute fortune. Let me quote something from one of my old threads:


In fact a corporation has no reason to make sure it's profit is fairly distributed between employees, a business is considered to be succeeding when shareholders are increasing their profit whilst minimizing all other costs, including the cost of paying employees fairly. That means shipping the work offshore and a range of other cost cutting techniques.

It comes down to the fact that you either have ownership of a business or the business owns you. As an employee you are literally an asset to the business. Cutting costs can include liquidating assets which are too expensive or a burden to the business. It can also include minimizing employee payouts until the wages are verging on slave labor.

It promotes massive inequality where the rich keep getting richer and poor keep getting poorer. You need to be in it to win it...as it were. A dog eat dog world. That's capitalism. Anyone can make it big but few ever do. Most people are simply working for the dogs. And this is where the true problem is. The elite business people aren't playing a fair game in my books.

Contribution Factor Theory


Obviously, as we can clearly see, Bitcoin only fixes one part of the problem, but the system in which we trade Bitcoin must also be fair, it must not be easy to manipulate or take advantage of, it must have some sort of grounding in morality, and most of all it must result in a reasonable degree of equality - for that is the ultimate goal. Anyone who prefers extreme inequality is simply a psychopath in my book. I don't think communism is the answer (my proposed answer would be based on a variation of Capitalism that takes into account my Contribution Factor Theory), but I don't think communism is always doomed to fail - because once again, if a system is put in place which ensures fair distribution of money, instead of being stolen by the Government, it could work.
edit on 2-2-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Obviously you are ignoring the fact that capitalism is based upon the idea of competition. In a competition there are always winners and losers. It can't be helped.


And it shouldnt be helped. I am not ignoring competition, I embrace it. Competition and Loosing helps you grow. You need these spurs to grow. Otherwise your back at Pyonyang where there is no drive, no competition, no meaning, no value, no levels.

Otherwise you're back to "total equality" as in Pyonyang, where everything looks the same and everyone is on the same low level:



What a horrible idea!

Competition is creative. Conflict (without violence) is creative. Differing opinions are creative. Hierarchy is creative.
Differing approaches are creative.



The number one problem with capitalism is that some of the 'players' in this competition eventually win so many times, and become so large, that they obtain a virtual monopoly over the market and can easily squash any and all competitors


The better it gets, the better it gets. The worse it gets, the worse it gets. This appears to be a metaphysical law, not the result of successful people oppressing weaker people. Once educated about how the world is run, the poor get better. Education is the solution, not vilifying successful people.

A socialist will always - without exception - look to blame others for their situation. They`ll blame anything and anyone from Walmart to Bill Gates. And that is precisely why the socialist not only keeps himself poor but drags others down with him. Walmart and Bill Gates have done more for the employment and charity of the less priveledged than one can even begin to imagine.



I don't think communism is always doomed to fail


It has been tested since more than a hundred years (actually since thousands of years under different names) and has yet to produce a society in which the life expectancy, happiness and richness are above average for the majority of its citizens.

We explain why Communism failed and why it will fail again, but all we get back is: "Lets try it again, it will work next time". It cannot work, because its built on the false empasis that you have to control and regulate others actions instead of your own.
edit on 2-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
Somebody always goes hungry

You're operating under the (false) presumptions that markets work as a zero-sum game (which they do not), and that no one goes hungry in a socialist society.

While capitalism by itself doesn't constitute freedom, you can't have freedom without capitalism. The fatal flaw of socialism is that it implies that one central authority can have all of the knowledge in a given situation to determine what is 'fair'. No one person, or group of people, can possibly know everything. It also implies the need for a powerful and overbearing central bureaucratic government, which will inevitably become corrupt, as history has shown time and again.

I hear talk about 'evil corporations' all the time (which admittedly, some of them are), but can you provide me statistics on how many people Walmart killed last year? I can provide you endless statistics on the thousands upon thousands of lives the US government (and other governments) have taken.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


You have cherry picked my points, and your picture is verging on propaganda. Also, I was not saying communism is the answer, I was simply saying your argument that it is always doomed to fail is based on previous nations that had corrupt Government. There is absolutely no reason it should be impossible to create a more robust and trustworthy system of handling the money.
edit on 2-2-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


After seeing that image describing capitalism, I just had to 'correct' it a little:


Not saying socialism is the way to go, just that capitalism hasn't been all roses either especially with the way things have been going lately.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Jason Paul
 


lol, that gave me a real good laugh. Nice picture dude.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I agree with the OP,this is why I advocate that humanity as a hole adopt a more sustainable approach to the world,where we all have access to resources,since that's what's important not money,and which in the lack of thereof it causes needless suffering in the world.That system is a Resource Based Economy.

Today we have the technologies to build a system that actually takes care of the hole of humanity and not just a few like in capitalism.

I'd like to recommend anyone interested in such a system to check out the following videos:

www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com... - A great presentation of the flaws of today's system and the bad influence it has in our values,society and education as a hole.

While this following video brings a good summary of what a Resource Based Economy is all about.


As well as this one:



These videos offer a basic education of the problems of our world and how we may have a choice to change all that.

Also a brief presentation of what education in a Resource Based Economy would be like:

tzmeducation.org...



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I read the OP with interest and a majority of the responses and the conclusion is that the OP and most responders are uneducated in what the differences are between Capitalism, Corporatism, Socialism, and Communism.

John D. Rockefeller and David Rockefeller are NOT Capitalist. Stating that they are is proof that an understanding of the difference between economic systems is lacking. This is very understandable because many are deliberately “dumb-down” though the educational system, and many have been instructed with false information in order to “steer” their passions in the wrong direction.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for a Corporation to practice Capitalism.

Can’t happen !

If you are one who thinks that Corporations are engaged in Capitalism, you have identified yourself as one who has been mis-informed.

This mis-information is perpetrated by the Corporations and their partner, the Government and many have been convinced that Corporatism and Capitalism is the very same economic system.

Nothing can be farther from the real truth.

Capitalism only encompasses sole proprietorships and partnerships. No LLC’s, no “S”’s, no “C”’s , nothing but sole proprietorships and partnerships…nothing else.

I realize that the definition of Capitalism has been changed over the years by those who labor to control our economic system and have convinced most that Capitalism is not what it really is, and that Corporatism is not what it really is as well.

Capitalism as an economic system is best described as a three legged stool in which any of the three legs of the foundation are weaken, shorten, or removed the system collapses.

The first leg of the stool is Personal Morality, second leg is Personal Responsibility, third is Personal Liberty.

Moral Conduct, Personal Responsibility, Liberty, these may seem to be outdated terms to the World today, but at one time this was the measure of a man’s character.

The move to empower corporations with the “Rights” of an individual was the same movement that removed the constraints of Capitalism.

As you see Capitalism has more to do with who a person is, than the transfer of capital. At one time if a man was not honest in is dealings, or if he did not stand personally responsible for his business, and the Government stayed out of his business, the “Market” would judge and decide if the business succeeded or not.

No longer is this true now that the Government has removed liberty, responsibility, and morality from the business World.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Historically, capitalism has ensured the highest average living standard than any other system.

So why are people on the streets without jobs in record numbers? Because we're not in a capitalist society. We're in a heavily socialised society.

Scenario
Let's say I sold hats. I sell cheap low-quality hats; That's my market. Then, let's say the government passes a bill that ensures that I must sell my hats at high-quality prices. What would happen? I wouldn't sell any hats! I'd then lack the investment capacity to produce hats that justify the enforced price. This is exactly what's happening to the labour market! The unskilled are on the streets in droves because they can't justify the minimum wage.

Today's problems are a direct result of the creep of socialism and government intervention in free markets.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical


There is nothing hypothetical about China or the Soviet Union - look into their history.

If anything, the IDEAL socialism - the one that is sold by people like Obama - is the hypothetical. Notice they never really come out and say what it is they want to achieve? Why is that? If it's so great, why don't they just say it... "We want a socialist country". They can't say it because socialism is the LAST thing we want to move toward.


I think he can't come out and say it because the media has convinced everyone what a terrible word it is. I think everyone agrees that a more utopian economic structure would be beneficial. there main argument against is that it won't work. i think it will work once people are educated to exactly what it means instead of being scared off by beer glasses.


I think it WON'T work. I KNOW it won't. Look at the power concentrated in Washington and Wall Street right NOW. Do you actually think that politicians and bankers and heads of industry are going to suddenly step aside and turn over their power to the people under socialism?

I don't know what you're smoking, but I don't want any of it.


Those would be the psychopaths we identified earlier. The very ones that have to go.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

You have cherry picked my points,


I have provided a detailed and fair rebuttal to the main points you brought up.



and your picture is verging on propaganda. A


I could post similar pictures of dozens of other "socialist planning" cities scattered all over the former Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Ive travelled these places, thats what they look like. Go travel and discover how the world really works.




There is absolutely no reason it should be impossible to create a more robust and trustworthy system of handling the money


Why are you compelled to decide, control and regulate how other peoples money is handled?
edit on 2-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
As much as would like for humanity to move forward in a way that benefits all of man kind, I find that concept somewhat bleak in this day and age. Americans being the worst of them all, we just can’t seem to walk away from the intoxicating me first, last and always mentality. We are a self-destructive society. It’s been going on since man first picked up a stick and figured out that it could be used as a weapon. I have no hope for humanity. We will destroy ourselves in the end. And G-d knows we have the very tools to do it....



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Why are you compelled to decide, control and regulate how other peoples money is handled?
Once again, I am not advocating communism, I actually stated in my first post that I would prefer a variation of Capitalism which is designed to pay workers more fairly based on their contributions, and not on their position within the business. As for communism, I just don't think your counter-argument is valid. You are basing your concept of communism on systems which were operated under corrupt Governments. But ultimately I agree with you, no one should be able to control everyone's income, communism is not the best option. Neither is this vile form of capitalism (corporatism) however - and in fact it's probably much worse than the 'ideal' communist nation.
edit on 2-2-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I feel I have to explain the rationale behind true, free market capitalism. A lot of people, to varying degrees, blame capitalism as being the problem, when it is government regulations and socialist policies that are to blame. Allow me to elaborate.

In a free market minarchist society, the government would only have the power to defend the nation with a military, protect the citizenry from crimes where there are actually victims(theft or damages to another person or their property, essentially), and a court system to essentially mediate between citizens when other options fail.

By keeping them out of the economic regulation business, you have instantly disarmed lobbyists, and things like the joke of an election that we are currently seeing.

Companies will be forced by the market forces of supply and demand to compete both for consumers and workers. Companies(or banks
) that fail to do their job properly and fail, will not be bailed out by taxpayer expense, and will fail as they should, and all of the capital they have will be put in to more capable hands who can make them productive.

Big business will no longer be protected by government regulations, bailouts, and thus the only monopolies that can form are those that legitimately have the best product for the price.

With more money for investement, and less governmental red tape to starting businesses, competition and thus the need for improvement, fair pricing, and not doing things the populace sees to be in bad taste, will be perpetual.

By removing tariffs, you raise the quality of life for the consumer; tariffs remove access to the cheaper product for the consumer, allowing the local businesses to remain over priced, and the government to collect more taxes.

With drastically lowered taxes, the need for businesses to appear 'good natured' to the consumer, and more capital in productive hands, and lowered prices, there are on one hand more jobs available, meaning less poor/unemployed people, more fair wages, and more donated to chairy; all without government intervention, impedement of freedom.

Where are there faults to this?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Capitalism is a disaster. It is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. It is ending (which is why so many are screaming) but is going to take some time to vanish.

We are about the destruction of the disaster that is capitalism.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FeatherofMaat

Capitalism is a disaster. It is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.


Factually, socialism is responsible for the starvation (North Korea) and murder (Zimbabwe, Soviet Union) of tens of Millions of people. I hope that enough people are educated and fair-minded enough to put socialism to its grave once and for all.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join