Capitalism Is For Dummies.

Originally posted by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh
This is how I see it:

Capitalism and corporate profit are driving us away from self sustainability. We are being stripped of our ability to grow our own food, educate ourselves, and provide for own well being through regulation, laws, and advertising influence that are all designed to limit our choices, and increase the profit of the corporations helping to fund the passing of these laws and regulations.

The only ones that "profit" from that are the lawmakers being paid by the corporations to limit our abilities to provide for ourselves and the people that are willing to lay down and pay the corporate master their fee for compliance.

Capitalism is driving us towards a tyranny of corporate dependence, and not away from it, as some people seem to think.

How does that equate to freedom?

Hey hey.
I have a solution for dealing with American multinational corporatism.
When the Founding Fathers freed themselves from the British government,they were freeing themselves from the banks and corporations just as much.They knew corporations had to be kept in check.Incorperation is a privilege. Initially all corporations were selected to enable activities that benifited the public.Shareholders were only enabled to profit as a means to an end.Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy and other realms of society.They had alot of other conditions imposed on them as well,like they were not allowed to make any political or charitable donations.

Right now,the US Federal Government could preempt all 'state corporate law' under the courts current expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.You could get around the Tenth Amendment and get them all out of Delaware.Corporate Personhood mocks the Bill of Rights and could also be removed.The Founding Fathers would remove it. Its not like your leaders couldnt fix things if they tried. And it could be done within your constitution.
I tailored it to appeal to constitution lovers and everything.

Originally posted by Speckle
Capitalism worked here for 150 years. Now its not. In my opinion , capitalism is a huge Ponzi scheme. Once it works it way through the economy, you have the one percenters and even the .01% of that 1 percent sitting on a huge amount of wealth. Like the OP stated, why do anything unless theres a profit behind it. Its complete nonsense and most of the people that control this absurdly out of proportion piece of the pie care about nothing more then making that piece of pie bigger. We are at a "critical mass" in terms of our economy and our ability to govern ourselves. 2012 is a cluster[snip] and its all because we let it happen. Each day that goes by, they get stronger. Please consider your children's future. The window for opportunity in the United States will be shut in less then 20 years. The time for action is now!!!

Yeah. I was thinking the other pay how capitalism is a bit like a game of poker. It is mostly bluffing.When we are all in they hit us with a GFC. And the banks have aces up their sleeves.

It is scary when we consider that austerity and a selling off of all public assets is on the cards. Unions are looking like a thing of the past. We are gpoing backwards.

Im no fan of unions. Under a socialist government you dont need unions or charity. But unions are losing power. It is an attack on the worker, Austerity and loss of public assets are an attack on the worker. Our standard of living is looking like going down for a long time. meanwhile the mega-rich will continue to live like gods while we suffer under austerity.

Originally posted by BigBruddah
At what cost? If a capitalist society was as strong as its weakest member it would be defunct. Its a dog eat dog way of life. If you are for few wealthy and powerful people ruling a weak mass then that's your choice. While no one is going to turn down a multi-million pay packet I have to question why it came to that in the first place. This all comes back to keeping the poor down while the rich get richer. I think what Germanicus is trying to say is that rather than trying to get wealth we should be improving our societies as a whole.

Trying to get wealth and improving society is not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's the opposite. Getting money is the direct result of selling products and services to people who freely choose to buy them. The market votes on what is most valuable.

Don't believe me? Go out in the street today and try to convince strangers to give you their money. Then go to Starbucks and look at the streams of people walking in handing money over for a cup of coffee. Of the hundreds of people going into Apple stores buying phones and computers.

Want more money? Add more value. It's a simple formula.

Most importantly, there are no examples of the "benevolent socialist dictator" model ever working to make the world better place. In fact, it's just the opposite. The countries leaning the farthest left have the most poverty.

Need an example?

Look at the island in the Caribbean that is home to both Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Look at Cuba. Look at China. Russia. The Eastern Bloc countries.

Do you think anybody in Poland wants to go back to the days when "The Party" ruled over them?

What's crazy is this is even being debated. The socialist model has been tried and it failed over and over.

Why?

Because it's not about socialism. It's about freedom.

Our innate desire for freedom always wins.

You know what the biggest problem is with socialism? People. You know the biggest problem with capitolism? People. Some people are lazy, greedy, selfish and worthless. Even under socialism, there will be people who do not pull their weight, causing problems with the system. Who will regulate these people, if everyone is equal ? The government? That creates an imbalance in power right there. People were not meant to have their very existence controlled in every way. Capitolism has issues, but, I would rather have the ability to grow a company and prosper than contribute to a borg society.

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
well i have to agree and disagree, yes the government loan plan is a good idea that i guess would fall under socialism but i believe it should be private individuals budding these enterprises not governments, we havent reached the point where civil government can be efficient enough to handle every single asset of our lives. three companies manufacturing solar panels, different chain banks offer the same loan at no interest at behest of congress to citizens, the u.s. government along with the major panel manufacturers agree to a law where only energy companies may purchase panels and install and maintain them for homes and businesses. energy companies switch over to maintain renewable energy grids and fund other sources as well to deposit into the overall grid instead of their current role of power management and charge small fee's for the use of the grid to commercial businesses.As well as the department of energy setting a mandate stating only one energy company may operate within a county at said time, in cases of very populous counties dual contracts can be devised. boom, citizens get their pie, capitalism is still in effect. although not perfect, just an attempted example of mixed government.

In Australia they offered a subsidy to home owners that went to solar. You had to have the money up front though so many couldnt do it. Still,the government had to shut the scheme down early because so many took advantage and it was costing them more than they expected. I know a few people that sell energy back to the grid. Australia is the perfect place for solar. We are also a small population really. We could convert easily if it was a priority and profit was not involved. It would reduce the countries carban footprint and make environmentalists smile if nothing else. All that money we spend on energy would go back into the economy another way.

Originally posted by artnut
You know what the biggest problem is with socialism? People. You know the biggest problem with capitolism? People. Some people are lazy, greedy, selfish and worthless. Even under socialism, there will be people who do not pull their weight, causing problems with the system. Who will regulate these people, if everyone is equal ? The government? That creates an imbalance in power right there. People were not meant to have their very existence controlled in every way. Capitolism has issues, but, I would rather have the ability to grow a company and prosper than contribute to a borg society.

Hitler called them 'work shy'. He sent them to work camps. Im sure we could think of something else to do with them. The people that Hitler disagreed with were called 'undesirables'. They were also sent to camps. Hitler was a socialist and managed to run a country that became the most advanced in the world but his solution to those that disagreed was obviously flawed.

I think we must look for middle ground. Socialism can have a Free Market. But do capitalists really need to profit from basic needs? Basic needs should be met. We are advanced. We can do it. The Romans provided free grain for the people. They were a prosperous state and they wanted the people to be secure. Romans did alot for the public. Western governments are doing worse than nothing for us. They are exploiting us and wasting the tax money. Society cant go forward when the governments are working against the people.

You can grow and prosper under socialism. A free market should be seperate from basic needs is all. And profit margins must be reasonable. Wage disparity must sensible. I like National Socialism ( without the racism. One that values citizenship as opposed to nationality. ) but there a many forms of socialism. A free market is still possible. Wealth can still be created.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


Would you say the same thing about libertarian socialism ?

reply to post by Germanicus


A totalitarian state is not the answer, no matter how much you fantasize about improving Hitler's methods. It's not that they were flawed they were absolutely wrong and inhumane. If your only concern is the state's prosperity, I don't see how your vision has anything on capitalism and its greed.

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Let's ask another question:

Do we "deserve" to use the internet or a cell phone? Why? What did we do to deserve it?

Uh, how about we paid for it! Surely you don't believe that the internet and/or wireless telephone service was created by private industry, do you?

FYI, it was tax dollars that paid for the development of both of these technologies. Private industry just became a benefactor of such taxpayer funded technology upon it's release to the public realm. These technologies were originally created via taxpayer funding as a means to accomplish MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction, in the event of a nuclear war with the USSR.

Don't you remember all the flak over the "Al Gore invented the internet" statement? Truth be told, it was indeed Al Gore who was instrumental in getting this technology, previously reserved for assured implementation of MAD, released to the public realm in the form of the internet.

The same could be said for GPS navigation which is another technology originally developed and paid for by the american taxpayers for military purposes. I guess you think that private industry put all those GPS satellites in orbit so they could sell you a navigation unit for your car?

The same could also be said for MRI technology as well. You do realize that this life saving technology was not created by private industry, I hope. If not, you should be aware that it was actually developed in space via NASA, another publicly funded program. Go figure!

I know that a lot of you people believe that private industry is responsible for all the good things we enjoy today, but that's hardly the case. Actually, it's private industry that is allowed to profit from publicly funded research & technology upon it's release from exclusive military use, into the public realm.

"We" deserve it because "We" paid for it's creation.

Originally posted by sleepdealer
reply to post by Germanicus

 

A totalitarian state is not the answer, no matter how much you fantasize about improving Hitler's methods. It's not that they were flawed they were absolutely wrong and inhumane. If your only concern is the state's prosperity, I don't see how your vision has anything on capitalism and its greed.

Socialism does not have to mean totalitarianism. A dictator does not have to be a tyrant. Socialism does not have to involve a dictator anyway.

I dont like 'Hitler' or want to improve his methods. I like National Socialism. It is the opposite of 'nationalization' or 'globalisation'. National Socialism can protect a nation from multinational corporations. National Socialism protects a nation from multinational banks. National Socialism prioritizes economic independence. It is unfortunate that Hitler is the only real example of someone proving that National Socialism works. The terrible things that Hitler did have nothing to do with National Socialism in my opinion.

And the prosperity of the State should mean the prosperity of all. It is a flawless concept. I like Roman society and how they valued the common good. A good public works was 'publica magnificentia'. What is the State for if not to meet our needs?

Originally posted by Germanicus

Originally posted by artnut
You know what the biggest problem is with socialism? People. You know the biggest problem with capitolism? People. Some people are lazy, greedy, selfish and worthless. Even under socialism, there will be people who do not pull their weight, causing problems with the system. Who will regulate these people, if everyone is equal ? The government? That creates an imbalance in power right there. People were not meant to have their very existence controlled in every way. Capitolism has issues, but, I would rather have the ability to grow a company and prosper than contribute to a borg society.

Hitler called them 'work shy'. He sent them to work camps. Im sure we could think of something else to do with them. The people that Hitler disagreed with were called 'undesirables'. They were also sent to camps. Hitler was a socialist and managed to run a country that became the most advanced in the world but his solution to those that disagreed was obviously flawed.

I think we must look for middle ground. Socialism can have a Free Market. But do capitalists really need to profit from basic needs? Basic needs should be met. We are advanced. We can do it. The Romans provided free grain for the people. They were a prosperous state and they wanted the people to be secure. Romans did alot for the public. Western governments are doing worse than nothing for us. They are exploiting us and wasting the tax money. Society cant go forward when the governments are working against the people.

You can grow and prosper under socialism. A free market should be seperate from basic needs is all. And profit margins must be reasonable. Wage disparity must sensible. I like National Socialism ( without the racism. One that values citizenship as opposed to nationality. ) but there a many forms of socialism. A free market is still possible. Wealth can still be created.

I hear what you are saying, I wish people had the integrity for this to work. But do we have the right to decide "what to do with those people"? Natural consequence should take care of those people, not us.

reply to post by Flatfish


Exactly. And socialists do not have to be luddites. Neither do moderate capitalists that are against corporatism.

And Bill Gates/Steve Jobs Are no heros. It is a sad world when people worship corporatists that monopolize market share and rebrand existing technology and sell themselves as geniuses. They were great at exploiting people and making profit.

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by Germanicus

 

Capitalism is in direct opposition to democracy. Democracy tries to create a level playing field and make us all equal under the law. Capitalism creates division and grants special advantages to those who have the money.

We can do better but not sure what the solution is. People are so caught up in the promises of capitalism (greed and materialism) that they wont want to live a simpler life based on the sharing of resources.

We may be doomed.

That would be fine... IF we were a democracy. We're not! We are Constitutional Republic.

Capitalism is a fine system when permitted to function. Once external regulations and influences are introduced by governments, lobbyists and special interest groups then Capitalism no longer exists. A system of meritocracy or oligarchy begins to form - which is largely what we're seeing today. All you need to do is look at the fact that you have a few companies monopolizing every industry.

The purpose of government "Regulation" on industry was to "Make regular" business practices. The irony is that today, "Regulate" is synonomous with "Rule making". The reality is that as long as government enforces strict anti-monopoly practices and EQUAL enforcement of tarrifs, taxation and controls then Captalism would function perfectly.

What we see instead is government making attempts to level the playing field, introduce fairness through regulation and the introduction of expenses on businesses in order to comply with the numerous regulations government has placed upon it. This, in fact, creates an imbalance that generally yields someone benefitting while another is punished. That is why what we have today is even remotely close to Capitalism.

Finally, educate yourself to understand what true Capitalism is. The propaganda being espoused and disseminated by the left is for the purpose of introducing Socialism and Communism. Demonizing the "System" is the way to do it. Creating false paradigms and confusing the public is the method.

reply to post by artnut


Yeah,I think that welfare is a safety valve for society. Crime is high without welfare.

I think that the clas systems and lack of opportunity for some is the problem. I think most people want to feel like a valuable member of society deep down. The trick is making an environment that is conducive to them contributing and honouring the value of their contribution.

I think the main thing is that basic needs are very easy to meet. We produce a enough food but we waste far too much. Micro farming can produce a massive amount of food with a small amount of land. Microponics is the perfect solution to third world famine. Instead of industry and destroying their environment we should be helping them be self sufficient. It is not hard to do with circular micro farming. Economics should be secondary to basic need. Population is also an issue. You should not be able to have 5 children if you are on welfare. You should really have to prove your ability to care for children before you have them.

Finally, educate yourself to understand what true Capitalism is. The propaganda being espoused and disseminated by the left is for the purpose of introducing Socialism and Communism. Demonizing the "System" is the way to do it. Creating false paradigms and confusing the public is the method.

reply to post by kozmo


It is Crony/State Capitalism. What else can you call it?

We sure do not have socialism.

Originally posted by Germanicus

Finally, educate yourself to understand what true Capitalism is. The propaganda being espoused and disseminated by the left is for the purpose of introducing Socialism and Communism. Demonizing the "System" is the way to do it. Creating false paradigms and confusing the public is the method.

reply to post by kozmo

 

It is Crony/State Capitalism. What else can you call it?

We sure do not have socialism.

We have a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Subsidies? Compliance regulations that punish small business? Government loans? GM anyone? Solyndra? Lobyyists? Special Interest groups? Myriads of regulatory agencies?

"Crony capitalism" is a made up term. It sounds cute, but is an oxy-moron. Thank the socialists for coining it - part of their campaign to eliminate true native capitalism.

reply to post by kozmo

"Crony capitalism" is a made up term. It sounds cute, but is an oxy-moron. Thank the socialists for coining it - part of their campaign to eliminate true native capitalism.

Crony Capitalism is not a made up term. And how on earth is it an oxy-moron? State Capitalism is not a made up term. Corporatism is not made up. Imperialism is not made up.

And what do you mean "native" capitalism? Capitalism is capitalism and it is not clever to defend it.

What we need is socialism. Capitalism failed.

reply to post by Germanicus

A capitalist government prefers to sell us out to corporatists and tax us both.

There is no such thing as a capitalist government and corporations are highly socialist entities. If you are going to explain capitalism for dummies, you have to be smarter than the dummies you're explaining it to.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

If you are going to explain capitalism for dummies

No I said it was for dummies. Capitalism is for dummies. Im saying that if you like capitalism, then you are a dummy.

Im also saying that if you defend capitalism and try to say that it is not capitalism, then you are a dummy.

Im not explaining capitalism. Im just explaing that capitalists are dummies. Corporatists and Bankers should like capitalism,free market constitution lovers not so much.

Capitalism is for dummies. For them.

Originally posted by Germanicus
reply to post by kozmo

 

"Crony capitalism" is a made up term. It sounds cute, but is an oxy-moron. Thank the socialists for coining it - part of their campaign to eliminate true native capitalism.

Crony Capitalism is not a made up term. And how on earth is it an oxy-moron? State Capitalism is not a made up term. Corporatism is not made up. Imperialism is not made up.

And what do you mean "native" capitalism? Capitalism is capitalism and it is not clever to defend it.

What we need is socialism. Capitalism failed.

I haven't the time, energy nor desire to work through educating YOU on Capitalism; what it is and how it works. There is a wealth of ACADEMIC (read as non-liberal propaganda) data on Capitalism that you can research on your own. Especially to one who is so brainwashed that they continue to advocate for a system, socialism, that has FAILED everywhere is has been tried. Greece is the latest example!

As far as an oxymoron... Capitalism is the opposite of cronyism. Just because I make up a word blackwhite doesn't make it a "real" word. State Capitalism is alo a farse as state-based economics IS SOCIALISM or perhaps fascism, depending on how it is deployed and managed. Whereas Capitalism is a CONSUMER-based economic model based simply on supply and demand.

That's it for you. Do your own homework. I'll second what another poster has already stated... if you desire to author a thread making a claim that "Capitalism is for dummies" you should at least be smarter than the dummies, like me, who advocate for a system that actually works. Because if I am a "Dummy" and I actually understand Capitalism and how it works versus Socialism and how it works - what must you be who understands neither?