The socialism argument (I Love Capitalism)

Originally posted by aravoth

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?

Let us all start from scratch. I have enought money to not work for a long while but would give it all away as long as the parasites on the top do the same. Who cares. You cannot take it with you when you leave anyway and the money I have is not worth so much since the prices is always increasing to feed the parasites ever increasing hunger.

Capitalism isn't a market policy/mechanic - it is a market philosophy. It is the idea that an individual can exchange material/informational goods and/or services for a price greater than the minimum costs to survive.

It works well in a free market economy - where people are free to make decisions as to what to buy and who to buy it from; and where people are free to undercut exorbitant prices set by others.

It doesn't work so well in 'planned,' controlled, and heavily regulated economies. In such economies, capitalism (which is exercised by individuals and cannot be reliably removed from any human economy) results in an effective oligarchy.

Capitalism in the free market is good.

Trying to get rid of capitalism in other economic models is functionally impossible and results in a collapse of those economies as it only further solidifies control.

Originally posted by WTFover

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.

Who cares about how much tax they pay? The questions is can the lowest paying worker for them live a happy life where she/he is fullfiled or will they life a poor life and feel like a economic slave after everything is payed. Will the person have to think about every penny he uses? That is the lack of freedom of poverty. If another person gets five times what should be moraly ok and I do not know where to draw the line and he pays 20 % of that in charitable things. The he still have taken 3 times more that he should have. It is not what you make or what pay or the cost that is important. It is what you can get for the money and how much effort/time you have to put in to get it. The money making money system thru rent or other measurement are parasitic. You should only be paid for what you do not what you own.

reply to post by apushforenlightment


Well we might be able to start from scratch and completely level the playing field somehow. As long as we cancelled everyone's debts too. But that's a big if and I'm not sure that'd really help.

But just taking all the rich people's money wouldn't solve anything. The big companies don't even really have that much money in the grand scheme of things. If you took all the money from the big Fortune companies and shut them down, it would only fund our Government for ALMOST a year. Seriously, that's it. That's how much our government is spending ON CREDIT! btw. But now we'd all be out of jobs cause you just shut down all the corporations.

It's the SYSTEM that has value. Money is just one small part of a system. New money is actually created all the time. Just giving money away to people will not solve the problem of poverty. It can't. That's not what money does. There is more money out there right now than there ever has been before in history. But people are still poor? Why?

Because not having enough money has never been the problem. Money we can print out of thin air. Never ever will you ever run the risk of not having enough money. If that's the country's problem, then this country is full of idiots. If so, the Government could simply declare tree leaves or rocks as legal tender and problem solved. You'd have more money.

The problem is goods. Money has no value unless there's goods to back it up. See, there's no point in construction workers building houses if there's no money right? This is why we have to print money. As people produce more goods, we have to bring the money to buy those goods into existence. If not, the goods just sit there.

But in contrast, there's no point in printing money or giving away money if there's no houses to buy either right? That's why we have to keep the two relatively in check. To make the system work, not to make the money work. We don't care about the money. It's meaningless. What we care about is the system. The relation of money to goods.

If all the rich people just gave all their money away, it wouldn't make a difference. There would still be the same amount of goods to buy on the market. All the companies would do is raise their prices and we'd be back right where we started because they would just see the big giveaway as a chance to make a little profit off their goods. Which is good, because if they didn't it would create shortages of goods.

Having more money cannot solve the problem of poverty. It is incapable of doing so because that is not what causes poverty. What causes poverty is that people do not have access to goods and food. Money acts simply as a certificate that tells each person how much they can buy and it is relative to how much is on the market.

Having twice as many certificates does nothing if there's not twice as many goods to buy with the certificates. It doesn't matter if you're a millionaire if bread costs $10,000 a loaf or worse, if the store is completely out of bread. It's all relative.

More money will not get us out of poverty. Nope, there's only one way out of poverty and there only ever has been. We have to make more goods so more people can get goods! That has always been the solution to poverty. The more goods you have, the richer we become. The more money you have, the longer it takes to count it, but you're still hungry.

Originally posted by WTFover
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.

No problem with them -- but it is getting harder and harder and harder to do that. Romney is more the norm - born into privilege capitalized on it and took advantage of a tax structure that favors the moving of money -- not the making of stuff or the providing of a service -- he makes money by investing other peoples money and ends up paying a small percentage or even deferring the payment of taxes for decades. Far different than HP or Henry ford etc. There is not nearly the opportunity now than there was as when I was way younger - and I have been doing startups most of my life. I wouldn't even attempt one now.

reply to post by Epirus


There will always be people in every society and every economic system who will exploit it for their own benefit. It has been happening to this country since its founding and there were warnings given by the founding fathers and early politicians. It is why we have never had a "free market economy". There is no such thing. There will always be market manipulation coming from the people with the most money and influence.

The rich have systematically eroded any restrictions that have held them back and created more equality. We are now seeing the damage caused from all of it. Less and less pay, no benefits, less jobs and ever increasing costs of living. We all know what the very rich want. More for them and less for the rest of us.

But dont get mad at them. They are job creators who worked so hard for what they have. Besides, you could be one of them someday!

Our smartest people do not go into engineering or education or medicine or research or mathematics - because if you have a mind that works well it is just as easy to train it to make money as a money mover.-- dont ad anything just make your own wealth.

Originally posted by apushforenlightment
If another person gets five times what should be moraly ok and I do not know where to draw the line and he pays 20 % of that in charitable things. The he still have taken 3 times more that he should have.

Morally OK??????

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by apushforenlightment
If another person gets five times what should be moraly ok and I do not know where to draw the line and he pays 20 % of that in charitable things. The he still have taken 3 times more that he should have.

Morally OK??????

Yes I say their is a limit to what amount of freedom one person is alloved to have at the cost of other peoples freedom. It is imoral to be a parasite. Even the bible that most US seem to like says it. If a person have a wealth of 1billion dollars that is 31836 times the average salary in the us for 2005 ttp://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml then the system is severly screwed up. What gives somebody the right to amass more wealth that he/she can spend in a 100000 years if he lives a normal life? If you don't think it is sick then it's up to you. But noone should have 31836 times the power of the normal person. Because money is power and power corrupts.

reply to post by apushforenlightment

Yes I say their is a limit to what amount of freedom one person is alloved to have at the cost of other peoples freedom.

. . .

How does that make any sense?

In what way does one make freedom based off of seizing the freedom of another?

The only way it is possible to force someone to give up more 'freedom' than they are willing to give up is to take said freedom away, interestingly enough.

So... in a free market... how can one justify regulatory policies based on the blatantly erroneous assertion that people are being forced to give up inordinate amounts of freedom involuntarily?

Even the bible that most US seem to like says it.

I have become fairly judgmental towards those who deal in pulpit politics. If the only argument they can make in support of what they have to say is: "God says so" - then they cannot be entrusted with the ability to communicate.

Not because I have qualms with religion and/or spirituality - but because I've grown tired of religion and spirituality (a path intended for personal growth and sense of meaning) being used as a ploy in the inherently fickle and short-sighted political agendas of those so self-important as to proclaim their vision as some god's will.

If a person have a wealth of 1billion dollars that is 31836 times the average salary in the us for 2005 then the system is severly screwed up.

It's only screwed up when you or I do not have the opportunity to make or service that person's needs for a profit of our own. Otherwise - the amounts involved are irrelevant.

What gives somebody the right to amass more wealth that he/she can spend in a 100000 years if he lives a normal life?

What gives you the right to say what is or is not reasonable for a person to spend?

I know what I would be doing with a billion dollars. A few million would go toward my dream-home designed to be a Survivalist's wet-dream, capable of surviving the apocalypse of your choosing (spare obliteration of the planet) and staging from it the recovery of civilization.

The rest would go toward starting the most advanced technological and industrial manufacturing complex imaginable with the ultimate goal of building space-borne habitats and mining/engineering platforms. A few hundred million would go toward starting the infancy of that complex (with profits to go toward the founding of a paramilitary force to be contracted out for further revenue to use for expansion - preferably 'mercing' out to drug-lords who want their competition eliminated....).

The end-goal would be governmental irrelevance. I market the technology that allows one to 'escape' and found their own little idealistic population (or attempt to - not responsible for failed/flawed ideologies).

If you don't think it is sick then it's up to you. But noone should have 31836 times the power of the normal person.

You say this as though your position in life is fixed. A poor mindset to have.

Because money is power and power corrupts.

There are some individuals who can take it. The desire to control breeds corruption. Those who have visions and dreams that do not include the "fixing" of society will likely never be tempted to attempt controlling/abusive measures.

That said - many things are power. Do you not think it is power to feel as though you are in the "99%" ... and that you are 'in power' when your group of a few thousand activists marches on the neighborhood of "wealthy" individuals?

Self-awareness is a very important thing to have at all times. Those without it are but pawns to be deluded and commanded at will.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by apushforenlightment

 

Yes I say their is a limit to what amount of freedom one person is alloved to have at the cost of other peoples freedom.

. . .

How does that make any sense?

In what way does one make freedom based off of seizing the freedom of another?

The only way it is possible to force someone to give up more 'freedom' than they are willing to give up is to take said freedom away, interestingly enough.

So... in a free market... how can one justify regulatory policies based on the blatantly erroneous assertion that people are being forced to give up inordinate amounts of freedom involuntarily?

Even the bible that most US seem to like says it.

I have become fairly judgmental towards those who deal in pulpit politics. If the only argument they can make in support of what they have to say is: "God says so" - then they cannot be entrusted with the ability to communicate.

Not because I have qualms with religion and/or spirituality - but because I've grown tired of religion and spirituality (a path intended for personal growth and sense of meaning) being used as a ploy in the inherently fickle and short-sighted political agendas of those so self-important as to proclaim their vision as some god's will.

If a person have a wealth of 1billion dollars that is 31836 times the average salary in the us for 2005 then the system is severly screwed up.

It's only screwed up when you or I do not have the opportunity to make or service that person's needs for a profit of our own. Otherwise - the amounts involved are irrelevant.

What gives somebody the right to amass more wealth that he/she can spend in a 100000 years if he lives a normal life?

What gives you the right to say what is or is not reasonable for a person to spend?

I know what I would be doing with a billion dollars. A few million would go toward my dream-home designed to be a Survivalist's wet-dream, capable of surviving the apocalypse of your choosing (spare obliteration of the planet) and staging from it the recovery of civilization.

The rest would go toward starting the most advanced technological and industrial manufacturing complex imaginable with the ultimate goal of building space-borne habitats and mining/engineering platforms. A few hundred million would go toward starting the infancy of that complex (with profits to go toward the founding of a paramilitary force to be contracted out for further revenue to use for expansion - preferably 'mercing' out to drug-lords who want their competition eliminated....).

The end-goal would be governmental irrelevance. I market the technology that allows one to 'escape' and found their own little idealistic population (or attempt to - not responsible for failed/flawed ideologies).

If you don't think it is sick then it's up to you. But noone should have 31836 times the power of the normal person.

You say this as though your position in life is fixed. A poor mindset to have.

Because money is power and power corrupts.

There are some individuals who can take it. The desire to control breeds corruption. Those who have visions and dreams that do not include the "fixing" of society will likely never be tempted to attempt controlling/abusive measures.

That said - many things are power. Do you not think it is power to feel as though you are in the "99%" ... and that you are 'in power' when your group of a few thousand activists marches on the neighborhood of "wealthy" individuals?

Self-awareness is a very important thing to have at all times. Those without it are but pawns to be deluded and commanded at will.

Demand and supply are being manipulated just like they are meant to. Capitalism is the way of competition, divide and conquerer, and is supposed to increase ego. Free market is only a marketing scheme from my point of view.

Belive what you want, but if we don't have a level system and are not equal the we just create hate, anger, ego and deserve the violence from below that it causes. If a person is being parasitic and is by taking to much of the cake is rising the cost of the goods while lowering the wages so that I cannot have my dreams why should I let him have his.

Some belive they can be uncorrupted by ego when they have power. That is an illussion. The only way to not be corrupted is to split the power. Most people are so blind to their own ego.

In this system I might be changing upwards a bit or downwards a bit but even if I go all the way up I will be a slave to the system. The system sucks and people around the world are seeing it for what it is now. Powerpyramids (pyramidschemes) do not work and will never work.

reply to post by apushforenlightment

Demand and supply are being manipulated just like they are meant to.

When one (or several) have enough influence to manipulate market supply, then you can't really say it's a free market, now can you?

Similarly - if one can manipulate demand (by, say, mandating the purchasing of insurance - a financial service) - then one is also not participating in a free market.

Those are known as command economies.

Obviously - command capitalism is not going to turn out so well for those who are not in command.

Capitalism is the way of competition, divide and conquerer, and is supposed to increase ego.

Capitalism is a philosophy. It is the idea that one has the liberty to make a profit off of an exchange of goods/services.

Free market competition seeks to gain more of the market share (have more customers). To do so - one must cater to the needs/demands of the market. Better products are not always market favorites due to low availability, high pricing, poor customer service, lack of consumer knowledge (of the product), etc. Similarly, cheaper products are not always market favorites. The exact nature of the competition will vary within market demographics (people with plenty of money are going to pay attention to quality over pricing, for example), market segment (clothing and drill bits are two substantially different markets with their own intricacies) - the list goes on. However - the idea is that businesses compete for the patronage of customers.

For this to work, customers must have choices; and businesses have to have competition.

Free market is only a marketing scheme from my point of view.

Ultimately, the free market is all there is. Governments that attempt to operate in spite of the free market will be consumed and absorbed by populations that do operate in light of the free market.

People, like myself, will never accept the restrictions of a command economy, and will eventually out-innovate and out-manufacture such simple minded constructs into collapse. When you think of what defines a nation - 90% of your criteria will directly correspond to its economy.

People will go where the exchange of goods/services is good. Thus, governments will always rise and fall on the backs of the population's economic efforts.

Belive what you want, but if we don't have a level system and are not equal the we just create hate, anger, ego and deserve the violence from below that it causes.

The free market is as equal as it gets.

If a person is being parasitic and is by taking to much of the cake is rising the cost of the goods while lowering the wages so that I cannot have my dreams why should I let him have his.

That's a selfish line of reasoning.

Why must someone employ you? If someone has a considerable amount of money - perhaps you should be dedicating those mental faculties of yours toward thinking of a good/service that will appeal to their needs/wants.

I'm more than happy to know that there are people out there with enough money to buy jet liners. I'm an electronics and avionics guy. The more people there are be-bopping around in airplanes, the more opportunity there is for me to get in on building and/or maintaining that aircraft. Perhaps I could even design one, one day, and sell them while employing a couple hundred people to help me make them.

I'm not saying it is "fair" for someone to end up with so much more money. But - in the free market, there's plenty of opportunity for them to spend that money; and for us to come up with new things they will want to spend that money on.

Some belive they can be uncorrupted by ego when they have power. That is an illussion. The only way to not be corrupted is to split the power. Most people are so blind to their own ego.

Spare for the fact that group-think is an emergent intelligence that arises within groups of individuals and allows their behavior to be described as though they are all acting under the influence of a single intelligence.

Which makes splitting the power an illusion in and of itself.

In this system I might be changing upwards a bit or downwards a bit but even if I go all the way up I will be a slave to the system. The system sucks and people around the world are seeing it for what it is now. Powerpyramids (pyramidschemes) do not work and will never work.

I hate to sound like a dick - but all I see in this is another person looking to play the victim.

You victimize yourself by asserting you are, and always will be a slave; then try and vindicate this with a "but we see what is wrong, and we will all do something about it." ... Except that still doesn't answer how you will cease being a slave. You'll simply change masters.

You lack identity and, thus, integrity.