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: 12
92
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
pay workers more fairly based on their contributions, and not on their position within the business.


So if a worker agrees to work for $10 an hour, you want to step in and impose on the agreement made between me and the worker?




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


What if your worker is inclined to agree to $1 an hour. Then yes THAT is why SOME regulation is important. I think most are just looking for a little fairness, not going extreme in one direction or the other.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
You're right in saying that contemporary "capitalism" isn't real capitalism. Contemporary capitalism is a capitalist dictatorship; basically, wealthy corporations bait our government into passing laws which benefit them and hurt us.

Capitalism doesn't work, neither does socialism, nor communism. But this may be because it fails when attempted on large societies of millions, if not tens or hundreds of millions, of people. All of these systems work in small groups, and they work rather well.

~350,000,000 people cannot be governed, yet alone pleased, by ~500 people. We do need a central government, but we should really divide the US into 50 countries each with their own smaller governments which dictate the laws and regulations of each state, then have something like a unified parliamentary government and a unified military between the 50 countries to deal with foreign threats.

Each state could then settle its own hot-button issues, such as abortion, drug prohibition, marriage rights, etc. Having a parliamentary state-union system would allow for a much more democratic process than the circus act we have going on now.

Also, if you want jobs in America, the easiest, most logical way of bringing them back is through prohibiting corporations that outsource jobs to places like China, Taiwan, and India, from lobbying in government.

Currently, corporations lobby for more power and less regulations, while throwing jobs overseas. Make them choose between the two and I think we'd see many more jobs in America very quickly. But, of course, logic need not apply in our government circus show. Profit>People.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paschar0
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


What if your worker is inclined to agree to $1 an hour. Then yes THAT is why SOME regulation is important. I think most are just looking for a little fairness, not going extreme in one direction or the other.


Okay, so again, what if that worker agrees to work for $1? Can he not agree to work for that?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 



Also, if you want jobs in America, the easiest, most logical way of bringing them back is through prohibiting corporations that outsource jobs to places like China, Taiwan, and India, from lobbying in government.


No. The "easiest" way is to make conditions more profitable here in the US than it would be for them overseas. That means less regulation and less taxes.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
MMM is right... although we don't border on fascism... by definition, our government is controlled by corporations, so we ARE a fascist state.

So far as capitalism... I think it's important to consider real definitions versus the "co-opting" of those definitions by the controlling power structures.

Corporatism, is NOT capitalism.

Mom and Pop scraping together their money, and opening a mom and pop store IS capitalism. They gathered private capital, and started a business, and all the risk that goes with it. In fact, look at this very scenario, and how many immigrants, now citizens, that still do this exact thing. (although I'm gonna bet they are shocked at how many stupid ass laws they have to contend with just to stay in business)

Even corporations, that are well run, and have good ethics and moral actions as guiding principals, are simple capitalist enterprises.

On a side note... you have the left screaming "more regulations" and the right saying "we need to get rid of regulations". Again... this is just theater.

With all the regulations we already have on the books... a specific "business sector" managed to loot the U.S. public, and cause more than 17 Trillion dollars to disappear out of the economy in the course of 2 or 3 years.

How is that possible? Simple. While "professionals" in Washington tout the need for "more regulations of the financial (or any other) sector", the big corporate players write the regulations, and get their cronies in washington to vote for them. They even put language in them that sounds like companies better not break these rules... but alas... they are only "suggestions on what is ethical behavior".

In fact, the very things that would clearly be crimes in a 0% regulations society, are now codified as "legal, although immoral behavior." As most folks know by now... banksters don't care if actions are unethical. They could care less.

But again... semantics and the co-opting of language are used to snow what ever small part of the public might be paying attention.

Yeah, maybe it sounds "Libertarian". Most folks who claim to be libertarians, aren't really. In fact, one of Ron Paul's biggest challenges, is his belief that when he talks about "liberty and FREEDOM" that people actually know what he's talking about. Most don't. Even most Libertarian "arch conservatives."

Folks who think we need a big government, don't trust the moral content of their neighbors, but also tend to object to creating the kind of personal freedom and exchange of ideas that allow people to take care of themselves and their families, and then reach out, congruent with their moral character, to help others who are in need around them.

Right now, despite a MASSIVE influx of government money over the last 2 to 3 decades, there are more poor or working poor than at any time since the Great Depression.

The traditional morality and good nature of Americans, would take care of most of the poor... if the government would just get the hell out of the way.

If you don't believe that... just talk to some other food related businesses in your home town, about the laws against them giving perfectly good food to those in need. Thousands of tons of it, thrown away every day in the U.S. There are THOUSANDS of laws in the U.S., that prevent people and businesses, from helping the poorest among us.

Okay... sorry... end of screed :-)






reply to post by mnmcandiez
 



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 
I am not going to try to say what others have said best, except to say that if you are a Marxist Communist or Socialist you had better be ready to fight.

Ayn Rand - What is Capitalism






AYN RAND PREDICTS OBAMAS END TO THE REPUBLIC


John Birch Society - Overview of America





The Fountainhead


If you don't get it and don't agree, you are in the wrong country.
edit on 2-2-2012 by MajorKarma because: Typos and expanded comment



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What if the game is rigged as in so many slave labor countries? If that's an ideal world for you, that's great, it's not what I envision.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paschar0
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What if the game is rigged as in so many slave labor countries? If that's an ideal world for you, that's great, it's not what I envision.



You didn't answer my question. What if that worker agrees to work for $1. What if to him that $1 per hour is great and he'd gladly do the work?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by theubermensch

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by theubermensch

Imperialism Pyonyang's problem.


This blaming socialists economical problems on others only increases a socialists problems. Thats what is flawed about socialism from the onset: Playing on Blame instead of playing the Game.



I dont think its wrong to blame the cause. And the cause is capitalism.

How long can you defend capitalism? Til the bitter end?


Longer than you can defend socialism, you narrow-minded koolaid drinker.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
pay workers more fairly based on their contributions, and not on their position within the business.


So if a worker agrees to work for $10 an hour, you want to step in and impose on the agreement made between me and the worker?


No, but I don't want entire sectors to shift and normalize to the biggest competitor CHINA.

Do you think Americas should have to work for $10 a day, due to little other option???



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorKarma
 



Rand = psycho



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Well, Petrus, I suppose you could live in Cuba under their Communist rule and have the govt give you permission just to change jobs. Sounds like a plan eh? I can just see you now racing to make your plans to move there to support communism.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
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)


Skyfloating is correct, as I am correct - see my post on page one. You are incorrect. You are hanging your argument on what "should be" theoretically possible, but has been proven time and time again to be impossible. The facts back that up. History backs that up. Fact.

Wake up to the facts and stop daydreaming.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
pay workers more fairly based on their contributions, and not on their position within the business.


So if a worker agrees to work for $10 an hour, you want to step in and impose on the agreement made between me and the worker?


No, but I don't want entire sectors to shift and normalize to the biggest competitor CHINA.

Do you think Americas should have to work for $10 a day, due to little other option???


Obviously you don't. That's such an unrealistic argument anyway. You and all the other OWS hippies think that you should just get paid for being an American and you deserve the same standard of living that the people who worked for it have.

Incidentally, there is a shift happening that, if nurtured by our government, will knock China's economy down a few notches and bring manufacturing back to this country. But I'm quite sure the socialists in Washington (Romney if he gets elected) will make sure that doesn't happen.



edit on 2-2-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MonteroReal

Originally posted by AzureSky


Global Space Program for example, that would set humanity on a course of peace and of the stars. Think star trek, and think what kind of system they live in. And now apply that same system to ourselves. I believe star trek has a meritocratic government.


Boring, really boring, Star Trek is fun because of the klingons and borgs!


I WANT THE FOOD REPLICATOR!

Nanotech, a whole bunch of atoms and energy (from the Sun or squeezed out of zero point) et voilà! Then we need blue prints for what ever the replicator needs to replicate. How super this would be! I am talking making what ever we need or want.

PS And what do I just seat on the tv? Nayonaise! Nanotech mayo, where the fat is just a water droplet covered with oil. Taste of oil but less calories.
edit on 2-2-2012 by QueenofWeird because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paschar0
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


What if your worker is inclined to agree to $1 an hour. Then yes THAT is why SOME regulation is important. I think most are just looking for a little fairness, not going extreme in one direction or the other.



That may happen in Third World countries like China and Mexico because their governments keep wages artificially low. That is not how real competition works. But you know that when wages rise, the cost of the products rise. That is just how the wage-price spiral works. Competition in the market keeps prices down, but keeps businesses profitable unless they severely mismanage. Remember that when cost of production goes up, the customer pays.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
reply to post by MajorKarma
 



Rand = psycho


There is no point in debating with you because you didn't even listen to Ayn Rand or any of the other videos. So come on, be honest, you're a two legged bug who still lives at home, never held down a job of any consequence and no body wants you except others like you. I bet you do want Socialism and to live off what others produce but all you are destined for is a FEMA CAMP.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

You didn't answer my question. What if that worker agrees to work for $1. What if to him that $1 per hour is great and he'd gladly do the work?


you can believe the right of workers to humane wages is less important than your right to hire whoever you find most profitable, but child labor was justified with a very similar argument.
edit on 2-2-2012 by fuchow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


It's not that people are too self-involved, it's that we can't always exchange cows for gasoline, or chickens for rent. It's just not practical. But even barter can be utilized in addition to cash.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join