The socialism argument (I Love Capitalism)

Let's say I'm an awesome web developer or an awesome teacher and have been doing it for years. Assume I make 50k a year. Now look at Romney making 22 Million a year...good for him, he's a bright guy who worked super hard.(not the argument)

It would take me roughly 480 years of my web development or teaching in this example to make one years pay for him. That means it would take me almost 1,000 years... a millenia to make what he makes in 2 years even though I'm very good at what I do and work very hard. No one is worth that much more than anyone else. I'm not a socialist...I'm a realist and capitalism wasn't meant to work like that. Assume I work for a more gracious company where I'm making twice as much and you can still see that it would take me almost 1,000 years to make what he makes in 4 years. Huge gap there.

The problem isn't capitalism, the problem is the greedy controlling the wealth and recognizing the advantages they have access to through that wealth which they use to exploit it.... to make further gains with the power they have in order to get more and squash anything which may compete and innovate(threaten their gains). Capitalism supports innovation and growth but when few control money it hinders those things and that's where we are so our situation doesn't resemble capitalism...it resembles capitalism injected with corruption. I love capitalism...I just wish we could actually practice it. Stop calling arguments against our current system "socialist" as they are not.

the problem is that capitalism is founded on greed. So you cant complain about greed as long as the rules are being followed. unfortunately when there is greed there is a motive to break the rules

reply to post by Epirus

The problem isn't capitalism

But the inequality you explained (massive difference in incomes) is actually what one would expect to happen in a capitalistic society. Capitalism is supposed to work exactly like that.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Epirus

 

The problem isn't capitalism

But the inequality you explained (massive difference in incomes) is actually what one would expect to happen in a capitalistic society. Capitalism is supposed to work exactly like that.

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

No it's not, I think you need to go back to school. Not "MASSIVE" but yes there is certainly accepted and expected inequality in regards to creators in capitalism.

Corruption and massive inequalities ... I think your thinking of a feudalism or kinship corporatism.

The wealthy, once such wealth is acquired (by whatever means), enter government and then use legislation to shut out their competition. That's not capitalism. It's monopolistic corporatism, facism, put whatever label you want on it to that affect. But it isn't capitalism.

reply to post by Epirus

Not "MASSIVE" but yes there is certainly accepted and expected inequality

Normal capitalism does not define any type of 'inequality limit' as far as I am aware. The world is yours for the taking, or so the saying goes. The minimum wage is a Government regulation forced upon businesses, one of the only regulations meant to limit inequality, and many business owners don't even think the Government should have the power to tell them how much they can and cannot pay their employees, because that's not what pure capitalism or a free-market is supposed to be.

reply to post by Epirus


Dear Epirus,

Love your Avatar, wish I knew how to create one. The issue should not be about capitalism, the issue is one of Democracy. The purpose of Democracy is that the majority make laws to benefit the majority and clearly the laws benefit an oligarchy rather than the majority. I don't care what the form of economics is if it does not benefit the majority, that is oligarchy, it is the rule of law to benefit the few. I ask people, what is more important, that we have Democracy or Capitalism. That is the nature of the social contract. Peace.

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
the problem is that capitalism is founded on greed. So you cant complain about greed as long as the rules are being followed. unfortunately when there is greed there is a motive to break the rules

That is not true. Yes, there are greedy people in the world, and they thrive and do their greed thing in both the communist system and the free market system. Greed is a human condition. We cannot do much about that. But as for the free market, capitalism, I love it! I love how it is all about being intelligent and trusting Your Self and the whole 'buyer beware" thing is pretty cool. The free market regulates itself pretty much; if you have a lousy rapport with your customers and you rip them off, they will soon not shop at your place anymore! If there is competition between products, it means we all get better products. and It's all about freedom from the government telling any of us what we can and cannot do. I love freedom, and I do not like government regulations and government stealing our hard earned money and then using it for their fame and fortune and furthering their own security. Less government the better, in all ways. and Less government is connected to capitalism.

Not the kind of capitalism where the government steals our money and gives it to the big corporations and monopolies, but the real kind of Free Market that spurs us upward through the freedom of creativity, and risk takers who dream of things and put their inspirations to work for everyone.

Look at what the government is doing to farmers now; and they are trying to mandate that Whole Foods must sell GMO foods. Government is intentionally edging out the small farms, the organic farms. We cannot even raise tomatoes or chickens in our back yard. And lord help us if we tried to sell any of our home made veggies. They want to restrict sugar products, the government has its hands in everything now. No more incandescent light bulbs, just to make some government folks rich-- and Monsanto is going to rule the world, Monsanto and the government are the same operations. There are no real businesses let that are functioning fully in a free market system. If they are, they are really held back and restricted by an enormous controlling power of government, including all the laws that make is so difficult to even hire people to work for us now.

Your banks are owned by government, Insurance companies cannot compete outside of the state they are in. Its all rigged, the way it is. Housing got all screwed up the by government interference with Fanny Mae loans and all that. I could go on and on--- I doubt if we have had a genuine Free Market Capitalistic system for many many years.

I'd sure love to try the Real Thing! I am sad we have already for a long time been socialistic and communistic, there has not been a free market system for at least 75 years. Certainly, most here have not seen anything close to how it would, could, and should really work. You would Love it, I know you would! and you would make money and be happy too and live morally with integrity and without greed and true to your higher vision, you'd Love It!

Here is how I see it, that just means its my observation and not necissarily the truth.

Capitalism, in a vacuum is a wonderful idea. In practice, it has proven to be a wonderful motivator for many but inherently concentrates power in the form of wealth into the hands of an ever increasing few.

Socialism or Communism or Marxism or however you want to define it, in a vacuum is also a wonderful idea. Marx actually was very accurate when he pointed out all of the flaws of capitalism and predicted the mess it would create. Unfortunately, his solutions for those problems were not complete ideas and leave plenty of room for improvement.

Neither system, nor any economic system, is sustainable as long as one thing continues to hold true. ANYTHING that can corrupt justice be it money or personal relationships or coersive power, etc...will destroy EVERY possible economic and social system man has or ever will devise.

Mankind should only strive for HAPPINESS and that cannot be easily defined as it is different for everyone. However, JUSTICE is its most vital component....and there is no justice in America or the former Soviet Union or any other place on the globe right now. The prime reason for that is that the TRUTH is hidden or corrupted by greed and ignorance. If EVERYONE was ALWAYS required to be TRUTHFUL, and JUSTICE was ALWAYS pursued, then the world would be a very different place where it didn't matter how much money you had. Teach the children not to lie, punish the liars and criminals equally no matter how much money or influence they have...and we can find HAPPINESS.

reply to post by Epirus
How much money do you think Romney should be allowed to have?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Epirus

 

How much money do you think Romney should be allowed to have?

wtf it's his money? Shouldn't he be "allowed" to have all of it? just like you should be allowed to have all of yous?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Epirus

 

How much money do you think Romney should be allowed to have?

It isn't about stopping a few elite rich people from having 'too much' money, it's about stopping the vast majority of people on Earth from having 'not enough' money.

But the OP stated he had too much.

How much money should he (or any other successful person) be allowed to have?

reply to post by beezzer

How much money should he (or any other successful person) be allowed to have?

They should be allowed to have enough so that it doesn't cause the majority of people to live in poverty. There is a cost to having a world full of elite bankers who make enough in a day to feed a family for their entire lives; and that cost is scarcity and poverty for the masses. There are always two sides to a story. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by beezzer

 

How much money should he (or any other successful person) be allowed to have?

They should be allowed to have enough so that it doesn't cause the majority of people to live in poverty. There is a cost to having a world full of elite bankers who make enough in a day to feed a family for their entire lives; and that cost is scarcity and poverty for the masses. There are always two sides to a story. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

edit on 3-2-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

So how much (give me a dollar figure) would you allow him to keep?

reply to post by beezzer

So how much (give me a dollar figure) would you allow him to keep?

You are hopeless. Try reading and understanding my words. It's impossible to give an exact figure, and my answer would most certainly not be to limit their income or take away their wealth, it would be to distribute the income more fairly to start with. See this thread.

Originally posted by beezzer
But the OP stated he had too much.

How much money should he (or any other successful person) be allowed to have?

When did I say that? You're missing the point. Read again. Allowed as much as they want...how much was B. Madoff "allowed" to have? Quite a lot as I recall...until the con was up that is. Capitalism defeats many but with the goal being a positive outcome and a better product or service through competition. Methodology is important as well as the goal of the economic model of capitalism. The method doesn't fit the model in Romney's case.

PS.) I respect your posts on most threads and I'm not trying to be defiant/argumentative but that wasn't my message.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by beezzer

 

So how much (give me a dollar figure) would you allow him to keep?

You are hopeless. Try reading and understanding my words. It's impossible to give an exact figure, and my answer would most certainly not be to limit their income, it would be to distribute the income more fairly to start with. See this thread.

edit on 3-2-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

So you wouldn't limit their income.

How do you distribute income more fairly to start with?

What if someone ends up making more after that?

Take it away and start over again?

Originally posted by Epirus
Let's say I'm an awesome web developer or an awesome teacher and have been doing it for years. Assume I make 50k a year. Now look at Romney making 22 Million a year...good for him, he's a bright guy who worked super hard.(not the argument)

It would take me roughly 480 years of my web development or teaching in this example to make one years pay for him. That means it would take me almost 1,000 years... a millenia to make what he makes in 2 years even though I'm very good at what I do and work very hard. No one is worth that much more than anyone else. I'm not a socialist...I'm a realist and capitalism wasn't meant to work like that. Assume I work for a more gracious company where I'm making twice as much and you can still see that it would take me almost 1,000 years to make what he makes in 4 years. Huge gap there.

The problem isn't capitalism, the problem is the greedy controlling the wealth and recognizing the advantages they have access to through that wealth which they use to exploit it.... to make further gains with the power they have in order to get more and squash anything which may compete and innovate(threaten their gains). Capitalism supports innovation and growth but when few control money it hinders those things and that's where we are so our situation doesn't resemble capitalism...it resembles capitalism injected with corruption. I love capitalism...I just wish we could actually practice it. Stop calling arguments against our current system "socialist" as they are not.

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

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

You state

No one is worth that much more than anyone else.

If someone ends up earning more than others, is it because the world is unfair? Or is it because they worked harder?

Any dictate, however benign, is an inhibition towards innovation, success, freedom.

reply to post by beezzer

How do you distribute income more fairly to start with?

Why don't you try reading my thread. I am not suggesting any type of regulation, in that thread I simply suggest a logical mathematical model for paying employees based on their contributions to the business and not their position within it; it would be up to the business in question to employ those methods. However, I doubt many businesses are going to implement such ideas any time soon, because it obviously means that the shareholders wont be able to rake in ridiculous amounts of money. So the bottom line is greed, only really ethical business owners that actually care deeply for their employees would ever dare trying it out.