The problem with capitalism

page: 2
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
ALL economic systems are capitalistic.
The only difference is in who controls the capital.




posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by nOraKat
 


"The problem with capitalism"

Is government interference.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by nOraKat
 


"The problem with capitalism"

Is government interference.


A believe you are referencing Free Market Capitalism? Correct?
A world without regulations, right?

A true Global Free Market among citizens of the world would not have a military regulating the behaviors of various countries via the government.

A True Global Free Market would not have a police force regulating the behaviors of its citizens via the government.

In a true Global Free Market, everyone would be responsible for themselves and would be armed accordingly.
No need for government interference in all transactions and people should be allowed to take matters into their own hands when they are swindled.

How do you think those on Wall Street would have fared if they did not have a government that they have bought, to bail them out, nor to protect them from the masses that wanted to tear them to pieces?

As it is now, the regulations are not there to protect the people anyways, but to kill off competition.

I am all for a Free Market. Get rid of the police and government interference and let people handle it the old fashioned way.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Seemed great on the way up and was for many but the way down is hard.
Its such a typical natural system for us it seemed perfect but it was back to the wilds rules.


Every conceivable system is flawed by people. On paper great. Reality not so good.

Very difficult to find a balance of fairness whilst not imposing too many restrictions and freedom without discarding others.

I cant help feeling we should be setting targets and trying to stick by them, almost like setting yearly and long term budgets. Budgets regarding social things like suffering, access to education and essentials, environment. Of course these targets can be changed with technology or other impacts. The UN tries but it does it more of a sweetener to capitalism than anything else.

Hoping if we see a one world gov, NWO or major path change in my lifetime that it considers the future more important than the now. Goals are great for motivating people and make it easier to take changes if you understand what they are for.

What are our current goals? What are yours?

I would sacrifice my kids chance of becoming powerful so long as it meant that they could be happy, not if it meant poverty. So my goals would be about re-assessing, about restricting power, about maintaining safety and I feel suffering could easily be wiped out in this day in age.

We as a society look like a dressed up tart, some really flashy things going on but broke, smelly and diseased underneath.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   


"The problem with capitalism" Is government interference


That is just ridiculous- capitalism got terrible long before there was "big" government. In fact big government was created because capitalism was so corrupt.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:11 AM
link   

jacobe001

beezzer
reply to post by nOraKat
 


"The problem with capitalism"

Is government interference.


A believe you are referencing Free Market Capitalism? Correct?
A world without regulations, right?

A true Global Free Market among citizens of the world would not have a military regulating the behaviors of various countries via the government.

In a true Global Free Market, everyone would be responsible for themselves and would be armed accordingly.
people should be allowed to take matters into their own hands when they are swindled.

Get rid of the police and government interference and let people handle it the old fashioned way.



That would be MAD MAX..


and SLAVERY overnight..

who determines a swindle?

no thanks..



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by nOraKat
 


"The problem with capitalism"

Is government interference.


One of the shortest posts in this thread, yet it probably speaks the most truth.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

bloodreviara
I think it is the sneakiest of all forms of communism. Instead of just out and
out claiming it they make it a buy in club. Wanna buy into someones labor for
the next 10 years and take part of the money they earn? well just invest.

After all they are just unskilled labor, they don't deserve a bigger part of the
money they help earn. I just don't think this type economy can ever be sustained
for the long run.


Stock shares predate communism by hundreds of years. In England they were more like venture capitalism funded by private individuals instead of kings and queens. In Italy the system of private patronage enabled artists and musicians to pursue their talents when the central governments (kings or queens) were spending money killing each other.


I joined this site today after being a long time reader because I felt compelled to share my family's story.
My parents grew up in a communist country. Here is the essential difference between communism and capitalism.

Communism:
Generosity is forced.
Therefore free will does not exist.
Loyalty to state is a natural result.
Greed exists but without profit motive.
Thus pursuit of greed involves not out-producing but outwitting. For example, if you are jealous of your neighbor’s government job, just report them for some made up crime of disloyalty to the state and they will disappear.
"Winning" means getting the same salary for less work.
Thus efficiency drops.

Capitalism:
Generosity is optional.
(If pure capitalism) free will exists.
Loyalty to family/self is the primary force.
Greed exists with a profit motive.
Thus pursuit of greed involves not outwitting but out producing.
"Winning" means getting more salary for the same work.
Thus efficiency is at least stable.

The 99%ers whine and moan about what a sham deal they have. Excuse me, they would be the 1% of the 1% to anybody outside of the western world that was at least born of capitalism. When I think of everything from modern transportation to plumbing to refrigeration to sanitation to communication to computers, how come all of these advancements came up in at least superficially capitalist countries?

To anybody who believes communism is a good form of government, please visit Eastern Europe and look at all of the monuments there still blackened by pollution 20 years later.

People speaking of capitalism and "infinite growth" are confused. Every consumer market has "needs". "Infinite growth is only necessary if and when needs grow infinitely."
Capitalism and communism both try to meet these needs but capitalism allows those without government connections to meet them, WITHIN A FRAMEWORK OF LAW.
With communism the existence of needs is refuted until somebody with government connections has a plan to meet those needs. Then meeting those needs becomes a matter of national security and resources are diverted from other projects to meet those needs.
In capitalism the faster, less expensive, safer you do a job, the more likely you are to get the next job.
In communism you do not know if there will be another job, so the slower, more expensive, more dangerous you do a job, the more likely you are to keep it perpetually.

I have done volunteer work in a nation where the society functions very similarly to communism. Except it was not communism. The difference is that people voluntarily took care of each other. Free will to help their neighbor was the difference. Therefore in societies where capitalism does not work, communism would not work either. If people don't help each other and care for each other out of free will, no form of government or government policy will help to advance there cause. If you have a moral society, the government of the people will be moral. The problem in modern government is that the people themselves who vote for government are corrupt. No government can fix people’s hearts. If you want a better government, start by being a better neighbor.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

HanzHenry

That would be MAD MAX..


and SLAVERY overnight..

who determines a swindle?

no thanks..



Well, I'm not certain but I believe Beezer means No Government Interference for Business Only.
Everyone else would have to deal with government interference when it comes to seeking justice against exploiting and corrupt business's.

Regulations are defensive measures against business, just as laws are defensive measures against the common citizen.

If a Business was unhindered without regulations, they could dump their toxic sludge in the river if it meant more profits.
As it is now, even with regulations, they are only fined, which they pass that cost on the consumer so the one running the company can keep up his bonus.

Without government interference, people could storm the company and have the ceo's head.

Without Government interference, people could have stormed Wall Street and had a lot of bankers heads.
Instead what we got was Bankers tying up the courts for years and getting bail outs.

What we have in this country a government all for Big Business and none for the people lower on the totem pole.
Our Foreign Trade Economic Policies have been all for them at the common American's expense.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
In ANY form of profit-making venture, someone somewhere has to be "shorted". In a barter system there is equal value for equal value with no real profit made. In Capitalistic economies (and as I stated earlier, they're ALL capitalistic economies), someone has to be low man on the totem pole.
When the South allowed slavery, they could command more profit because they didn't have to pay their workers. A small investment was made to purchase slaves, house and feed them but it was no more than one would do to buy and maintain equipment necessary to run a business. The North could not compete with this system.
Today we have something similar in that we hire illegal immigrants to work for less than the minimum wage. We have prison populations who work for considerably less than illegal immigrants.
There will never be anything equating to equality in any form of capitalism but the laissez-faire form of capitalism is the best chance we have. However, the rules of the game (gambling IS a game) are being changed to favor an increasingly smaller percentage of the population-those who can afford to bribe the dungeon masters.
Communism has proven itself a failure economically and that's with American support sent to them during that 70 years experiment.
We are all slaves now with people demanding "JOBS" instead of demanding an environment conducive to making our own way; we are wage slaves.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pr1979

pr1979
No government can fix people’s hearts.


First - let's not turn this into a Communism vs Capitalism thread. I would never consider Communism in the forms that have proven themselves to be detrimental. I saw a documentary on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in it's early years.. - it was a sad, sad.. and scary sight. People having their businesses and property taken away by the government, and much worse things. American's fears were justified, I think, upon seeing these problems. On the other hand, I spoke to someone in Kerala, southern India, and he was saying how communist reform improved their living conditions significantly and saved them from really horrible conditions. From Wiki - ".. and a reformist, Communist-led government came to power, under E. M. S. Namboodiripad.[81] It was the first time a Communist government was democratically elected to power anywhere in the world. It initiated pioneering land reforms, leading to lowest levels of rural poverty in India.[82][83]"

I think you hit the nail on the head when you say - "No government can fix people’s hearts."

Form of government cannot really dictate it's intentions. Form of government cannot even maintain it's form, since it's based on who's in charge. Look at the case now - the illusion is that it is a - such and such form of government, but the rulers are able to change and tailor it to their needs. They can even hide the *actual* mechanism/form of the government and cloak it in a facade.

Nothing can substitute the need for benevolent leadership.





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join