Capitalism Has Failed Us.

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 


I agree. We have a political faction that does what it can to spawn foster and encourage the ignorant consumer as a favor to those selling useless goods to stupid people. Imagine if that money was put to good use or toward our own responsibilities such as our health care? We would not be in the sick place we are today.

There are those who want to wise up the consumer and there are those who want to dumb him down.

There in a nutshell are your two political parties.

We have our rich, who with very few exceptions are purveyors of useless even harmful goods.

We have our poor who purchase them in ignorance and under pressure from deceitful and manipulative, subliminal and at times criminal (when the TV gets louder) advertising.

We have our medical industry professionals and insurance companies who reap the benefits of the poor people buying those useless or borderline harmful products and using them.

It is a win win for the Corporate - Medical Industry but WE THE PEOPLE are hung out to dry and be bled out by these companies selling us things we imagine we want due to creative advertising. Capitalizing on stupidity is no way to run a country. It is a good way to make a few people rich.




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Hi,
I've thought about money pretty deep lately.
What I have concluded is that no matter how much I detest the entire concept of compensating someone for their services, I realize that people just ain't motivated to help each other out...for the good of the planet.

People don't care about anything outside their little box of comfort and serenity. But there is no true comfort or serenity, unless you got bank...

The more you keep to yourself, the more people suffer.
How much money does the Vatican collect each week?

It's quite telling the suffering is OK to the Vatican...
Render unto Caesar that which is his...

Caesar has been dead a long time now, no?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 

I debunked you in your last thread, here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It wold help matters if you would just give up and fold. Stop denying the nature of things.

Until we have access to infinite cheap resources, your socialism idea won't work.

Here's how it works...

First, there's a limited supply of resources to distribute amongst the population.

Second, you must distribute them according to each individuals proven abilities.

Third, income distribution fits a power law curve. This means, for whatever reason, that income distribution will always have a few extremely rich people and a great number of poor people. This may or may not mean that actual abilities also fit a power law curve. For example, intelligence quoetient (IQ) fits a bell curve and it has been linked it income along with other things like social ability and heredity. In a bell curve, most people are middle of the line and extremes are low. But in a power law curve, most people are low(ish) and a few are high. But what's important is that income across the world fits the power law curve so your idealistic vision of a socialist world will always be plagued by a few extremely wealthy and powerful cluster of people that refuse to be "re-distributed"..

What this means is that you will never have an "equal" society. You will always be battling the wealthy to re-distribute their earnings to the commoners.

In order for socialism to work it requires a whole new nature and natural physics which do not exist presently in our reality. Perhaps in another corner of the universe? Doubtful.

But maybe in another universe.
edit on 9-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite

First, there's a limited supply of resources to distribute amongst the population.


But it's an artificial scarcity created by underproduction. The only limited to potatoes is the land and labour to grow them.


Second, you must distribute them according to each individuals proven abilities.


No, they should be distributed based on peoples needs. Why should your abilities deny someone else of their needs?


Third, income distribution fits a power law curve. This means, for whatever reason, that income distribution will always have a few extremely rich people and a great number of poor people. This may or may not mean that actual abilities also fit a power law curve. For example, intelligence quoetient (IQ) fits a bell curve and it has been linked it income along with other things like social ability and heredity. In a bell curve, most people are middle of the line and extremes are low. But in a power law curve, most people are low(ish) and a few are high. But what's important is that income across the world fits the power law curve so your idealistic vision of a socialist world will always be plagued by a few extremely wealthy and powerful cluster of people that refuse to be "re-distributed"..'


That is nonsense. Wealth is based on ownership of capital, you don't have to be smart to own capital. Most of it is inherited.


What this means is that you will never have an "equal" society. You will always be battling the wealthy to re-distribute their earnings to the commoners.


Socialism is not about complete equality and will never achieve complete equality, that is a fallacy.

Socialism makes for a more fair distribution of wealth because the producers, the workers, earn the full fruits of their labour. So instead of the surplus value of your labour going to a private owner you keep it yourself.


In order for socialism to work it requires a whole new nature and natural physics which do not exist presently in our reality. Perhaps in another corner of the universe? Doubtful.

But maybe in another universe.


No, it just takes people to learn what socialism actually is, use the grey matter god gave them, and do what is best for the good of Humanity instead of their own greed.

To try to claim capitalism is natural is complete BS. Capitalism perverts our nature. It coerces us to be overly competitive when we would naturally be cooperative. We have been around for millions of years, capitalism only started less than 300 years ago. Exploitation of labour for a privileged minority class to become extremely wealthy, compared to the majority, is not natural. It is a crime against nature.

edit on 6/9/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 




I debunked you in your last thread, here:

Ha! Nice debunking
Capitalism is the most perfect system we have you say? Well alrighty. Who could argue with that?
Sorry I missed that. I got bored with that thread.
We have the technology and resources to meet our needs. Capitalism is exploitation and waste. Capitalism is also on the brink of collapse.

Socialism this way comes.
edit on 9-6-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

First, there's a limited supply of resources to distribute amongst the population.

But it's an artificial scarcity created by underproduction. The only limited to potatoes is the land and labour to grow them.

It's not artificial. Resources available at any given moment are finite. Fact.


Originally posted by ANOK

Second, you must distribute them according to each individuals proven abilities.

No, they should be distributed based on peoples needs. Why should your abilities deny someone else of their needs?

What I meant to say was "..according to each individuals contribution." If person A feels that their contribution is greater than person B and society mostly agrees than they will be rewarded more than person B. The amount that person A is rewarded is commensurate with their perceived value versus person B. It doesn't matter whether you think person A is greedy because you only represent a single opinion, not a society of people.


Originally posted by ANOK

Third, income distribution fits a power law curve. This means, for whatever reason, that income distribution will always have a few extremely rich people and a great number of poor people. This may or may not mean that actual abilities also fit a power law curve. For example, intelligence quoetient (IQ) fits a bell curve and it has been linked it income along with other things like social ability and heredity. In a bell curve, most people are middle of the line and extremes are low. But in a power law curve, most people are low(ish) and a few are high. But what's important is that income across the world fits the power law curve so your idealistic vision of a socialist world will always be plagued by a few extremely wealthy and powerful cluster of people that refuse to be "re-distributed"..'

That is nonsense. Wealth is based on ownership of capital, you don't have to be smart to own capital. Most of it is inherited.

Income has been studied and IQ, social ability and heredity are primary contributing factors, possibly along with a few others. My point was that while income fits a power law curve and ensures that you will always be battling the wealthy to redistribute their income, this doesn't also mean that the abilities of a person also fit a power law curve. It only means that after all is said and done, income fits a power law curve.


Originally posted by ANOK

What this means is that you will never have an "equal" society. You will always be battling the wealthy to re-distribute their earnings to the commoners.

Socialism is not about complete equality and will never achieve complete equality, that is a fallacy.

Socialism makes for a more fair distribution of wealth because the producers, the workers, earn the full fruits of their labour. So instead of the surplus value of your labour going to a private owner you keep it yourself.

You say fair and I say unfair. First of all, the reason the fruits of their labor go in large amount to the wealthier is because society has agreed with the wealthier that they deserve that bonus with consideration to their greater contribution. This is a mutual agreement, not an agreement that's dictated by a tyrant.

The results of your logic could easily be an example of taking from the rich and giving to the poor with as much unfairness as any overly rich man stealing money from those below him without the agreement of the society within which he/she lives. How anybody could accept this as fair is beyond my comprehension.


Originally posted by ANOK

In order for socialism to work it requires a whole new nature and natural physics which do not exist presently in our reality. Perhaps in another corner of the universe? Doubtful.

But maybe in another universe.

No, it just takes people to learn what socialism actually is, use the grey matter god gave them, and do what is best for the good of Humanity instead of their own greed.

To try to claim capitalism is natural is complete BS. Capitalism perverts our nature. It coerces us to be overly competitive when we would naturally be cooperative. We have been around for millions of years, capitalism only started less than 300 years ago. Exploitation of labour for a privileged minority class to become extremely wealthy, compared to the majority, is not natural. It is a crime against nature.

That's what I'm doing. I'm telling you that until income distribution ceases to fit a power law curve across most populations on the planet then your socialism is doomed to fail. Another way to get around this is to have infinite cheap resources so everyone gets everything.
edit on 9-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite

It's not artificial. Resources available at any given moment are finite. Fact.


Yes it is. When the machinery and labour is available, but is not used, then the scarcity is artificial.

Artificial scarcity is what capitalism is based on, it's how profits are made. That is the fact.


Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

www.worldsocialism.org...


Whether today's global overcapacity is seen as cause or effect of the economic crisis, one thing is certain: it isn't easy to make a profit in a world awash with overproduction. Capitalism is born in conditions of scarcity and is unable to function outside of them. So it seems logical that the crisis creates a tendency to restore these conditions artificially. But how does this affect the chances of the global economy to find a way out of its present predicament?

www.metamute.org...



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
What I meant to say was "..according to each individuals contribution." If person A feels that their contribution is greater than person B and society mostly agrees than they will be rewarded more than person B. The amount that person A is rewarded is commensurate with their perceived value versus person B. It doesn't matter whether you think person A is greedy because you only represent a single opinion, not a society of people.


But that doesn't happen under capitalism. Capitalism awards those with the most money, not the most talent, or contribution. If that was the case the blacks would all be millionaires, due to their extremely hard working extremely wealthy slave ancestors.


Income has been studied and IQ, social ability and heredity are primary contributing factors, possibly along with a few others. My point was that while income fits a power law curve and ensures that you will always be battling the wealthy to redistribute their income, this doesn't also mean that the abilities of a person also fit a power law curve. It only means that after all is said and done, income fits a power law curve.


OK whatever don't see how it makes any difference to socialism.


The results of your logic could easily be an example of taking from the rich and giving to the poor with as much unfairness as any overly rich man stealing money from those below him without the agreement of the society within which he/she lives. How anybody could accept this as fair is beyond my comprehension.


Not at all. If the rich got rich from exploiting labour they are owed nothing, they have already been paid many times over. Wealth is not really the problem, a minority class owning the means to produce wealth is the problem.


That's what I'm doing. I'm telling you that until income distribution ceases to fit a power law curve across most populations on the planet then your socialism is doomed to fail. Another way to get around this is to have infinite cheap resources so everyone gets everything.


Production is only limited by the means and the labour, we have an abundance of both.

Capitalism keeps the means to produce from being used to meet needs. If the means do not make profit, its use is denied. Not because demand is not high enough, there is always demand, no its because the private owners has to make profit from the exploitation of labour, not by providing peoples needs.

Call it it what you want, claim it is doomed to failure, I don't care. Capitalism is a failure, to someone, everyday.
Capitalism kills millions by denying people their needs through artificial scarcity due to underproduction because it is based on making profit from exploitation and doesn't meet peoples needs.

Socialism just makes sure no one can monopolize the means to produce in order to redistribute wealth in their direction. It ensures a more fair distribution of the wealth that all workers create.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Nature IS capitalism. How else can I explain this to you? You say that it's natural for people to cooperate and thus to compete is unnatural. However, does a poor person really need to compete with a very rich person? Does a highschool basketball player have to compete with an NBA star player? How does being inferior to someone else suddenly lead to competition? Just because people are working hard in society to get their share and there're people making 800x more, does not mean people are not cooperating. In their own unique way, gradeschool kids that turn on the TV to watch their NBA star play his game are cooperating, aren't they? Isn't society also cooperating when it agrees to give the very rich their (much larger) share of economic worth? You make it sound like it's a crime that there're rich people and poor people. That somehow if people "cooperated" we would all be rich and satisfied. But nature didn't make humans equal and humans don't develop equally. There's stratification; there's hierarchy. You're somehow mistaking this hierarchy for competition. I'm telling you that if competition was removed that this hierarchy would remain. Nature can't be removed!

In capitalism we cooperate by recognizing each others strengths and paying appropriate dues. We give appropriate shares of the economy to each person dependent on their assessed contribution. We do this as a society. We cooperate be respecting the laws that're passed and by respecting others, no matter their talents or achievements. But the peace and goodwill end there, as we also recognize that people are not equal and so do not deserve equal rewards. Thus, we cooperate by allowing others to have more or less than we do. We never harm another without a lawful reason.

Competition is just the act of boiling the cream to the top of the mixture. From there we can judge who's who by examining the cream and correctly apportioning our resources to each individual.

Remember that this is a mutual agreement. Society AGREES with the extremely wealthy and so gives them their share of the economy. You have to prove that person A SHOULD NOT be earning 1000x or 10000x more than person B. It's you versus the whole society. How much chance do you think you have of making any difference, unless you can make most people agree with you?

It's natural for there to be extremely wealthy people that own large chunks of the world. It's the 80/20 rule. 80% of your earnings will come from 20% of your consumer base. A power law curve means that the extremely wealthy will not just have double the wealth or triple the wealth or so on (as they might if it fit a bell curve), but thousands of times or hundreds of thousands of times more! For example, height distribution fits a bell curve. Have you ever seen any human that was 1000x taller than another human? NO. That's because height distribution fits a bell curve, not a power law curve. This is the point I'm trying to get across to you. Until you can change this, you'll never be able to get them to re-distribute their wealth since it would be dramatically going against their perceived worth to society and nobody willingly compromises themselves that way.

You have to make income so it doesn't fit a power law curve or you have to somehow force the wealthy to re-distribute their wealth in favor of those less wealthy. Or you need extremely cheap infinite resources so that everyone gets everything. I really don't see any other workaround.

Here's one area where you can start: government.

Did you know that almost 50% of members of congress are millionaires? Yet in society only approximately 8% of people are millionaires? Is this representative? Maybe not in terms of population representation. But in economic terms, it kind of is. How? Well, the top 1% or so own about 30% of the worlds resources. If the goal is to represent the economy in congress then you'd expect 1 congressman to own a vote worth 30 congressman if there were in total 100 congressman. And - all things equal - 20 congressman should own approximately a vote worth 85 congressman.

Like this (100 votes in total and 100 members):
20 congress members own 85 votes (1 member owns 30 votes of these 85 votes)
80 congress members own 15 votes (approx 0.1875 each)

It would look something like that if it was modeled after the economy. Except we wouldn't be looking for the power of a vote. Instead we'd be looking at the income of each member. I told you that nearly 50% of congress members are millionaires. If you examined congress members and were to tally their total worth individually and compare it to the actual distribution of total worth in the population, would it coincide? Or would there be a discrepancy? Perhaps government doesn't always model the economy? And if this is the case, how do we tie up loose ends such that the 1% who own 30% of the worlds resources feel like their voice is heard? Should a wealthy person have a larger voice?

Do you think a person that has 10 billion dollars in total worth should have a larger voice in government? I mean, they might own 30% of the land you walk on, so shouldn't their voice be larger? How comical would it be if 30% of the country is economically owned by 1% yet their voice is equal to a homeless man? Why should a homeless man have any say if he doesn't actually own anything?

When was the last time a homeless man had any real say in anything? Most people frown on homeless people. Yet the average person earning average income is like a homeless person when they're compared to a very rich person. So the comparison here is actually not far from the truth at all.
edit on 10-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
They have intentionally screwed the system up so bad, that bad alternatives are starting to look good.

Its not about Capitalism, its the entities that exist under it have manipulated the system to their maximum advantage.

Its the lobbying power of money that has caused this.

Again people forget we wouldn't have all the advantages we do if not for Capitalism, its when the Government is Controlled by the ones who have flourished under it that the problems start.

But greed and power go hand in hand, every system has its problems.
edit on 8-6-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)


Good explained! Yes, Capitalism is actually great, TPTB purposely destroyed capitalism, so they could easily condition us into accepting alternatives such as NWO! I made a thread recently (here), but since I was bad in english I didn't know how to express myself. You should try and open your thread to open sheeple minds on ATS! Since they work so much in favor of NWO!
edit on 10/6/2012 by Fichorka because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fichorka

Good explained! Yes, Capitalism is actually great, TPTB purposely destroyed capitalism.


They haven't destroyed capitalism.

Capitalism has destroyed the state.

Private corporate interests are what drives our system. This has been done by capitalists, and those that support them, in government.

You are all just trying to make excuses for the failures of capitalists. Even though from the capitalist perspective they have succeeded. There is only one reason for a totalitarian system, to keep the people from having anyway of effecting the interest of the PTB, and the PTB are capitalist. The capitalist class is the only class that has the economic power to influence, and manipulate the system.

You are all blinded by shiny things. Capitalists promise you shiny things, but what you usually end up with is lumps of coal. What capitalists tell you about the way the economy works is not reality.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join