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.

 

The socialism argument (I Love Capitalism)

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

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.


Still missing the point.
I'll try yo clarify tomorrow after work because I respect you.




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Let's check what the theory of the original inventor of Socialism would say (because a lot of people use the word Socialism without adequate definition).

The most fundamental distinction Marx made is between personal property and private property. Without reference to this, whatever people talk about is not Socialism, just plain old sharing and taxes and simple social services (most of which were formed under classical capitalism).

Marx would define your house, your car, even your vacation home AND your family grocery store that you operate with an uncle as personal property. No one is supposed to take that away or tax it superfluously.

If you own five factories where thousands make their living, that is private property on the other hand.

Where you draw the line varies from place to place and from era of history to history but the above is an obvious example.

A small business can thrive and even employ quite a few people under a classical Socialist system. Trade unions are encouraged but they are not all-powerful. Competition comes naturally at this level.

Instead of buying up governments and staging coups d'état in foreign countries as corporations are wont to do, or changing the laws that apply to them, as a Socialist entrepreneur, you would be competitive with prices and good services. The best solution for a borderline would be progressive as to the value geenrated by the employees. A company growing really really big would gradually have more and more state control and interest as it grows bigger. The family that started it could still remain rich until the end of their lives.

Basically a sound idea.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


lol, looking back, you actually posted in my Contribution Factor Thread when I first created it. You didn't seem to be so against the idea then... what has changed?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by beezzer
 


lol, looking back, you actually posted in my Contribution Factor Thread when I first created it. You didn't seem to be so against the idea then... what has changed?
I remember.

Here's my post.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


An incentive-based program would be interesting.

Your OP had math. Math scares people. Hence the lack of replies.

Lemme ponder on your thread, before I wholy endorse it, but interesting nontheless.



If it were a voluntary system, then I wouldn't see an issue with it. But any imposition, no matter the intent, is wrong.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
You can't really dictate pay rates. What it comes down to is a matter of conscience. Largely the problems we have stem from overeducated business people running things based on flawed principles and ethics. All most people learn about Henry Ford is he created the assembly line, and that is not the most important part of what he did. He and other welfare capitalists understood high wages and good benefits for his employees and taking less profit for himself was better for everyone all around. And he did this at a time when labor unions were rising and economic conditions were much the way they are now.

The larger problem we have now is a bunch of what he would call bad managers increasing their pay, at the expense of the workers. And this is because they were taught to look at near future gains and have adopted a parasitic existence. Instead of being productive and looking at how their decisions effect the whole economy. It is also a problem with what the stock market has turned into. Investors have went from investing for long term stable growth, to an I need to get rich quick casino. And right now the only two ways out of the mess is the working class accept going back a hundred years in living conditions and wages. Or the Government stepping in leave the WTO and start resetting trade policy especially as it concerns China and India.

Those are your two choices. Because I don't seriously see the corporations growing a conscience and doing the right thing. And really at this point they would just simply choke the next Henry Ford right out of the market. Because he wouldn't be able to compete with the advantages the Chinese Government lavishes on business.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Epirus
 


Here's the problem, the printing press. Very few people understand the point of money. People think the purpose of money is to buy stuff. But it's not. It's to STOP you from buying MORE stuff. When you run out of money you can no longer have more stuff. Get it? Good because the Government doesn't.

There are only so many resources. Money works backwards from how most people think. People think, oooh I got paid, I can buy MORE stuff! But that's not what money does. What it really does is it forces you to buy LESS stuff because if you don't, you'll go broke.

But there's a problem. There's still only a limited number of resources. That's why we have money. To STOP you from using up all the resources. You can't use more than you can buy. But that's us, we're the little guys.

Okay, so what's the problem? The problem is that the Government and the Banks used up all their money! They've been broke for decades! So, what's SUPPOSED to happen? What's supposed to happen is that the banks go broke and the Government goes WITHOUT until they catch back up. Just like if I ran out of money, I couldn't just keep buying food. I'd have to go hungry for a while and then maybe I'd learn my lesson right?

But that's not what happens! Instead the Government borrows on credit and prints MORE money so they can keep funding their wars, and so they can keep feeding people on food stamps/welfare because if they DON'T there would be riots in the street. They just keep spending and spending and spending using more than their fair share of resources. Then when the banks went broke they gave them our money!

That's why Capitalism isn't working right now. Because the little guy can't compete with the big guys anymore. The little guy has a limited amount of money. But if he uses it wisely he can still out compete a big guy. Like if the big guy gives INSANELY large bonuses to his employees or CEOs. That corporation might just go broke doing stupid stuff like that.

But NOT when the big guy has an infinite amount of money. The big guy can never lose. It's just like playing poker. Nobody with a limited amount of chips can compete against a player with an unlimited amount of chips. Nor can the little guy win if the big guy keeps stealing from his stash. The whole system breaks down. The whole idea is based around the fact that BOTH can lose.

That's why we don't have Socialism. Because the Government is corrupt. They'd spend all resources on their wars, instead of distributing the resources evenly like they're supposed to. But guess what? They're still spending all our resources on wars anyway! Socialism or Capitalism, the game you play doesn't matter if the other guy is cheating and printing worthless money and giving it away to the bank you're competing with.

But eventually it catches it up to if you do that too long. If you give away more money than you have product, well at first everything is fine, nobody notices. Everyone is happy and drinking and partying and they just think they have a lot of money. And they do stupid stuff like buy houses for three times as much as they're worth, and create housing bubbles and tech bubbles and things like that. Big great party!

But then eventually the store runs out of food (or worse, oil), and people keep bringing in money and food stamps and social security checks to buy stuff. But there's no more stuff. After that riots break out.

Right now we're getting really close to the bottom of that bottle if the Government keeps spending money it doesn't have. The party is almost over, we're all a little sleepy, and our heads are starting to hurt. What will happen tomorrow if the people ever wake up and realize what the Hell just happened?
edit on 3-2-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Epirus
 

I opened a thread on this (Revolution), it got closed.
Amazing how words get censored.
Amazin that in this day and age, you cannot mention revolution without being censored.
Says a lot, and has NOTHING to do with CAPITALISM (or SOCIALISM) for that matter.
People.
Greed.
Corruption.
But most of all: PLATOS FALLACY OF THINKING. Our inheritance.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
The trouble with capitalism is that it empowers to few people and subjugates the majority, it gives the impression of freedom but in fact it creates dependency and enslaves people.People here clamour for free markets, and it makes me wonder why? I mean how many here are actually industrialists, owning factories and mega corporations? None I would say, yet people here are rallying to their cause even though those same corporations are destroying countries.

I will give you an example of what I mean, lets look at a true capitalist success story, Apple. Apple makes billions upon billion of profit every year, its stock continually rises and its annual turnover and net profits rise at an incredible rate year after year. The are an innovative company, a high tech, manufacturing industry, an ideal company placed to help the US out of recession, or so you would think. Yet does Apple help the US in reality? No, it does not employ people in America to make its products, it outsources its labour costs to China, it manufactures all of its products in the cheapest way possible, and why does it do this? To pay shareholders, shareholders who in the majority were born into money, who had family wealth in the first place. It is not like Apple cannot afford to pay American workers, it can, it made well over 20 Billion dollars profit in 2011, but it wont because the shareholders only care about getting as much out of the company that they can.

To me the solution is fairly straightforward, although it will never be adopted or used. When a company comes to the end of its financial year, and creates it dividends to be paid out to share holders, that money should be split in half, one half divided equally between the workers, ie they all get a share, the exact same no matter what their role within a company, the other 50% paid out to the share holders. That way the people who actually do the work benefit, and those that just sit back creaming in the money with no effort, still get a piece of the pie, after all investment is needed, but the wealth is shared in an equitable way, of course you have to ensure this is only done with corporations that are stable and large enough, otherwise you choke start ups and small enterprises, something you will find most actual investors want to do, to reduce competition.

Capitalism fails, not because of individuals making it good, but because of the leeches in the background sucking everything dry, taking without contributing, trying to force down labour costs, to make people work for crap wages so that some rich twat gets richer without doing a days honest work



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 

What you describe here is second-stage capitalism. Classic capitalism had had its heyday, and later we had trade unions, strikes and collective bargaining to counterbalance unbridled inhumanity and exploitation by the top hat fat guys. But it finally took a time when speculation ruined everyone's life in 1929-30 to bring tight regulation by states. Those people knew what they were doing. The result was the modern welfare state and the triumph of the free world against the Nazis (who were by the way aggressively capitalistic.)

Then came the market fundamentalism and the deregulation of Reagan and Thatcher. The ideology (Milton Friedman et al.) is free market fundamentalism, the schlagwort is 'less and less state control,' monetarism (even though in democratic countries the basis of the State is elected representatives, whereas no one elects the leaders and the owners of corporations), with its regulations and authorities.
The pressure to dismantle came from Western investors and capitalists that did not want to play by the rules any longer. Why pay the rules when you can fund think tanks and invest in elections to change those very rules?

The result is globalism, where big capital always looks for the cheapest labor force available on the planet - preferably in countries where they can support repressive governments that actively suppress labor rights. Corporate money and interests not only have an undue and undemocratic influence in the West, they also keep on meddling with the affairs of "developing" countries.

The funny thing is that although overpopulation is already a problem, the side funded by big business promotes reactionary policies and religions all across the globe, which stop or eliminate birth control and family planning, render education expensive, and also support dictators that drag back some countries to the level of Middle Ages or premodern tyrannies. All in the name of the "free market." Free market leads to active censorship and police states in many places.

But in theory and name, I would ask what is it that the "market" (personified) wants to be "free" of?

You guessed it right: big money wants to be free of control by the people of various countries, their voters, their laws, their representatives and international enforcement too.

We would have avoided the 2008 crash if New Deal regulations had not been removed by the market fundamentalists - notably if we still had had the earlier Chinese Wall between commercial banks, speculative investment banks, and insurance companies. They should have stayed under separate control, with anti-trust laws enforced. Most derivatives would not even exist without the "deregulation movement."

Market fundamentalism is a particularly deceitful ideology that keeps harping on the values of classical liberalism (which wanted to ensure the liberties of the sovereign individual against the state or rulers and not the rights of big business). What they frequently mean by a smaller state, less state interference, and lower taxes, is less "interference" in big business (while funnily enough, they usually promote more and more police control over the individuals themselves.)
Multinational corporations do have something in common with the Soviet system (which claimed to be Socialist but it clearly was not that.)

I think the current crisis will result in some wars and depopulation, after which some amount of regulation must be recovered.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

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.


Right. No one is worth that much money...we are worth more.

I wouldn't trade my life and loved ones for Romney's money.

I think "worth" is a tricky word and it is "worth" while to occasionally reflect and make sure that we don't confuse $ with what we are "worth".

Anyone remember this movie?..

Bud: No. What I see is a jealous old machinist who can't stand the fact that his son has become more successful than he has!

Carl: What you see is a guy who never measured a man's success by the size of his wallet!




I wouldn't want his life for all the money in the world....He smells of desperate greed and ambition.

edit on 3-2-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

If it were a voluntary system, then I wouldn't see an issue with it. But any imposition, no matter the intent, is wrong.


You mean like the over 19% of his income Romney made in charitable donations, in 2011? Which I might add is a tremendously greater percentage than than the redistributor-in-chief contributed.

I'm definitely not a Romney supporter, but like you, I believe people should have the facts and acknowledge the qualities of many of these "evil rich".

Good luck getting any advocate of redistribution to quote you a figure. It's never gonna happen. Even more impossible is to get them to say how much would be enough for them to be given, in order to "feel" more "equal".
edit on 3-2-2012 by WTFover because: Corrected grammar in the 2nd line



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

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

you forgot the part where these people have enough money to pay politicians to change the rules....
can you change rules in your favor?


That's a great argument OP. you hit the nail on the head.

a couple things you didn't mention: (my response to biggmoneyme.), and now the super rich have changed the rules so much that they now pay the same, if not lower, taxes than the middle class. Sure, there tax rate is higher, but with all the loopholes and discounts, they wind up paying less. a monetary system where the money enters the market through the super rich, and it trickles down to us(like a pyramid or something!).
edit on 3-2-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

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)



i appluad you, and agree and dont begrude anyone who has earned that much money, the issue is if anyone has worked it big business, its about being in the right place at the right time, the right words at the right time, alot of it comes down to luck, not essentially earned, i bet theres a million guys who have worked a trillion times harder in a day than romney has in a year, anyway not the point, capatilism is good if it was for everyone its not, if i made money of the system i would want more, because taxes get higher i want more, i shut down companys keep mine running with less staff than i can maximsise profits to the brink, offset them in investments off shore, any too shorten it down, capatilism was great at industrilizing the world, but now due to greed mark my words, it needs to stop, our governments arnt great but if it wasnt for them the capatilits would essentially be communist, because if they could you would all work for 10p an hour, i mean heres one few how many billionaires do you actually think the world can have at any given time, not counting familys, that save for dynastys sake. im talkin new companies becoming billionaires?

anyway

are discussed below.

1. Inequality
There tends to be a rise in inequality as benefits of capitalism are not equitably distributed. As wealth tends to redound to a small percentage of the population, the demand for luxury goods is often limited to a small percentage of the workforce, one of the main capitalism disadvantages.

2. Irrational Behavior
People tend to get caught up in hypothetical bubbles but ignore economic fundamentals, leading tom irrational behavior.

3. Monopoly Behavior
Another disadvantage of capitalism is that firms gain monopoly over power in a free market allows and exploit customers by charging higher prices. They often pay lower wages to workers.

4. Immobility
One of the main problems of capitalism is that a free market is supposed to be able to easily move factors of from an unprofitable sector to a new profitable industry. However, this is much more difficult practically.

Because of the inequality of wealth in a truly Capitalist society with no Government welfare great poverty is bound to occur. Leading to homelessness, slums, disease, etc; this will further lead to forced migration. This will expand the problem to bigger cities too. Another disadvantage of capitalism is that there is limited government control



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


Glass–Steagall Act

Bingo!

Financial lobbyists in Washington outnumber all other lobbyists 25 to 1. The repeal of Glass-Steagall contributed heavily to the banking crisis in 2008. The Banking Industry owns the US government, period.

The Senator who predicted the banking crisis:
Glass-Steagall Act: The Senators And Economists Who Got It Right



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
...and now the super rich have changed the rules so much that they now pay the same, if not lower, taxes than the middle class. Sure, there tax rate is higher, but with all the loopholes and discounts, they wind up paying less...


Less? How do you determine that? Actually, the facts (according to the IRS) prove quite the opposite

ntu.org...

The top 10% pay over 70% of all income taxes collected.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Too me this whole money at the top thing - is like a game of marbles. Only the rules are not the same for every one. Only the rules are not the same for all the players. One player starts with 100 times the marbles that all the other players have. The player with the 100 x marbles also takes any marble he wins he puts in a pot and that marble is out of play, to the other players. The other players take the marbles they win and keep playing - eventually the 100x player has all the marbles and the game is over. That is where we are headed with the wealth inequity that we are experiencing -- not bogus it has happened before in the US at the turn of the last century -

We now have more and more people trying to get along on fewer and fewer dollars.

As far as government payments to the poor and unemployed. If the government gives 10.oo to a wealthy person it goes into a trust fund and is never heard of again -- it may even take a trip to Switzerland or the Caribbean. On the other hand if the government gives 10.oo to a homeless alcoholic the 10.oo is immediately spent on beer cigarettes fast food -- what ever, but is dropped back into the economy through the bodega that sells the beer and cigs and the Bodega employs a couple of people and sends money to beer and cigarette makers who buy machinery and raw materials to make beer and cigarettes and they send the money to the companies that make the machinery and the people who grow the raw materials.

So who is the job creator -- the trust fund with its money over seas - or the homeless alcoholic. And you know maybe just maybe the help the poor guy gets might put him on the road to getting a job at the bodega or at the very least makes him less prone to mugging you to get money for bear and cigarettes, even if he does do the crime and gets caught and incarcerated - there you go he is making job opportunity.

edit on 3-2-2012 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


How do you account for those thousands of successful business owners/entrepreneurs who started with nothing? Say Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard who began with less than $600.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

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


Capitalism was not founded on greed. It was founded on merit. One gets what he works for. The greed part of it was just what took over. Its not capitalisms fault that our government allows big donations from corporations. Its not capitalisms fault that CEO's are cruel towards their employees.

Its quite simple really, none of the economic systems, be it socialism, communism, capitalism, ect are inherently bad or evil. The fault lies in the people that run the system and know how to make it benefit them.

For instance, Communism is meant to make sure that the entire community is taken care of, but as we have seen in Russia, N. Korea, & China the people running the system find ways around that to make it benefit only themselves.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
They really did a number on you americans with the fear the communist. Capitalism is still right for some of you even thought you can see the parasitic behaviour. The only thing that have moved is the border on how much things cost and the concentration of the money. Capitalism was always on it's way to this point. It have been the same since even before the american revolution, moving towards this. If everybody start over from zero in a few hundred years we will be there again. I sorry if you play a game where someone can win someone has to lose. And the ones who play dirtiest and get away with it wins. Why play nice when you can change the rules. Buisness have always been about getting the profit and try to make someone else pay for it. It is an illusionary trick like a magician. Look at the shiny product not what I am doing behind the scenes. It is cheaper to pay people to build up a mask to show the public than implement the actual honest company. And honest company will not make as much as dishonest and will be bought up. Someone gets to be the parasite and someone gets to be the slave. Most do not care about Africa or Asia since it is not their problem but when they suddenly have problem with the sytem everybody should care. Karma. What I am seeding I will reap.

But don't worry, we will probably not be smart enought to create a true equal society, where everybody gets paid for their contribution and effort they put into it, without leaders (poleticians and rich people) on the telling us how we should live. We will probably keep the capitalistic system and push the border forwards and backwards a few times until finnaly we have destroyed the planet totaly and die out. Maybe the next evolutionary sentient being on this planet will be smarter and get it. Namaste



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   


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


You don't even remotely understand what "real" capitalism is...proof for this is the fact you see YOURSELF working 480 years in web development.

Your are much more a socialist than you believe - because if you were a CAPITALIST in the "purest" form, you would not work yourself. You would instead outsource your work to the cheapest laborer in India right now (believe me, those guys are awesome!)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join