Yeah - Capitalism

Just love laizze faire capitalism, it's so good for everyone. Everyone is motivated to work hard, be honest and you'll get ahead. Yay!!

Well, it doesn't work so well if you make under $100/hour.



From:

www.nelp.org...

Which was reported upon here:

www.commondreams.org...

Robert Kuttner, writing for the American Prospect, notes that "one manifestation of job insecurity is extremes of inequality as corporations, banks, and hedge funds capture more than their share of the economy's productive output at the expense of workers."

"The shift in labor markets, from an economy where regular payroll employment is the norm, to one where more of us are performing odd jobs, or have regular jobs with indeterminate schedules, ought to be the top domestic political issue," Kuttner writes.

I blame capitalism for this - and it's bought and paid for lackeys in the Executive, Legislative and especially Judicial branches of government at all levels in the USA. It is not, however, just a US problem as this Austerity, Trickle Down, Reagan-nomics, Chicago-School Business Model is being spread through out the globe.

P.S. This covers the period 2009 - 2013. The so-called recovery period from the last crash. Blame whomever you want but deregulation of the financial system and financialization of all big business is the root cause.

I am self-employed due to capitalism. I am pleased about that, and the same opportunities are available for my fellow citizens in the UK if they have the motivation.
Which system would you prefer OP? Communism?!

a reply to: FyreByrd

In my opinion,people should not blame capitalism,but blame the people who use this political system in their advantage.
This political system is the best humankind can get,the idea itself is a good and benefic one.
The only thing that needs to be changed in this world are the people who leads this political system.And yes,this economy "collapse" may have connections with the tensions around the world.

a reply to: grainofsand

Communism? Hell ya, I'd like that.

Well, I think we should create a society in which all basic needs such as food, water, healthcare and housing are guaranteed. Once those necessities are taken care of, we can still allow for a free-market to exist where the individual can make their "fortunes".

Right now we have a system that funnels money upward and those in the middle, lower class have to spend all of their resources on basic needs.

That doesn't seem very moral or ethical to me.

Even the Chinese use a form of capitalism. Their version of communism is for control of the people and not the financial markets.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: grainofsand

Communism? Hell ya, I'd like that.

Well, I think we should create a society in which all basic needs such as food, water, healthcare and housing are guaranteed. Once those necessities are taken care of, we can still allow for a free-market to exist where the individual can make their "fortunes".

Yep, we've got that in the UK with comfortable welfare benefits if you don't spend it on booze/drugs, free healthcare, and benefit payments for people who rent and are low waged or out of work.
The UK is not a communist state, it is capitalist with a decent safety net.
It is the 'capitalist' status which allows me to chase money in any legal way I can think of. The same opportunities apply to my fellow citizens as me.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

How much is it going to cost me? (beezzer pulls out his check book)

This glorious people's republic of. . . what?

How will you pay for all this "free" stuff?

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Communism falls into the same trap as other ideologies that are intrinsically linked to heterodox economic theory that does not accurately model human behavior. The people who fought for communism in the early part of the 20th century didn't do so because they wanted to live in a society oppressed by a totalitarian state. Their intentions were good and unfortunately they were wrong.

The same sort of trap is evidenced in the love affair some ideologies have with pure laissez-faire capitalism. I expect if this thread stays up long enough, there will be some well meaning libertarians who may even post something about how great economic growth was in 19th century America — perhaps the closest to this ideal any society has come.

What they won't tell you is that while the economy was booming, the average person wasn't enjoying a similar increase in their standard of living. They'll probably also completely ignore macroeconomic factors contributing to economic growth and the changing world (and society) we live in.

Sure we could put children in factories and do away with environmental regulation and the GDP would go up faster but...



We need to accept that while capitalism has advanced society, it's modern mixed economies that have kept it going and it's just as likely that pure laissez-faire capitalism would result in disaster. In purely pragmatic terms, I see a need for some sort of wealth redistribution from the top to the bottom.

Think it through. The richest people are amassing fortunes that they likely won't spend in their lifetimes — sucking the wealth out of the rest of society and locking it up in banks and vastly expensive assets. A lot of people get stuck on what's fair because obviously, nobody should take from somebody to give to somebody else, right? This is dogmatic horses# that will get us nowhere. We live in the real world and we need to do what works the best for everyone, PERIOD.

I also would like to quote Thomas Paine from Agrarian Justice:

Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.

We should only have to work about thirty hours a week to support our families. Anything after that should be for things we want. Right now, most people have to work over forty hours a week and they still need the food stamps if they have a family.

The system is broken. I don't know if it can be fixed. Some people are making lots of money while everyone else is two months away from bankruptsy. Even those who are making lots of money are over extended lots of times. Con men are swindling money away from everyone, and our government does little to catch these people.

Swindling a person is stealing, except in the eyes of the law. That is because many people at the top gained their wealth by tricking people out of it. These people were connected and structured our laws. Soon everyone will be in the same boat because these swindlers will clean us out of our savings, electronically.

a reply to: beezzer

Good questions.

This glorious people's republic of. . . what?

I would prefer it to be called The Almighty Dictatorship of Sheepslayer!

Anywho, if we take the profit out of food, water, housing, etc, and we take complete advantage of our technologies.....I think we would find that the actual "costs" would be fairly low. Of course, there would be many people employed by The Almighty Dictatorship of Sheepslayer to provide those basic needs/services, but like I said, with no profit needed to be added to the final costs, we could ensure that any tax on the people would only cover the bare bones costs.

We could also take the profit out of pharmaceuticals and still grant them the resources needed for research.

It all depends on us changing our priorities. Either we can spend our money on food, housing, medicine....or we can spend it on subsidizing farmers to not grow food to keep the market at a certain level, subsidize ethanol to water down our gasoline, meaningless wars and on and on.

The Almighty Dictatorship of Sheepslayer would be a tightly ran machine. It would only tax the people for what was necessary and those needs would be clearly defined. Everything else is up to the individuals and they are free to go out and make themselves rich. But they would not be able to make their fortunes by taking advantage of those things needed for basic survival.

originally posted by: grainofsand
I am self-employed due to capitalism. I am pleased about that, and the same opportunities are available for my fellow citizens in the UK if they have the motivation.
Which system would you prefer OP? Communism?!

NOT TRUE!!! You can have all the motivation in the world, and still not be able to make it being Self Employed. In the REAL WORLD it's not just about motivation, self employment depends a lot on Demographics ect.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

When you remove profit, set artificial standards, take away the ability to earn on your own, you end up with housing projects.

Only you wish to see this done nation-wide.

Remove the incentive to do better and you see the results.

The Glorious Dictatorship of Sheepslayer may have good intentions, all beneficent good-hearted peoples do, but you are creating a nation-wide welfare state.

I would want to part of it, personally.

originally posted by: Dingo80

originally posted by: grainofsand
I am self-employed due to capitalism. I am pleased about that, and the same opportunities are available for my fellow citizens in the UK if they have the motivation.
Which system would you prefer OP? Communism?!

NOT TRUE!!! You can have all the motivation in the world, and still not be able to make it being Self Employed. In the REAL WORLD it's not just about motivation, self employment depends a lot on Demographics ect.

...life is a competition, and the UK has a comfortable safety net. Some folk play the life game to win more prizes, but some people do not. I am close friends with both, from mates who live in a caravan on a field, to landlord mates who own 8-9 million £'s worth of properties with a rental income of thousands each week. Why are we bitching about it? All my mates have built their own 'empires' from hard work in a capitalist society, as have I...although I'm quite lazy so my own empire is pretty average.

*Edit*
I was raised in a poor house where someone always had 2nd hand bathwater after some other sibling or parent.
It was capitalism that allowed me to chase a better future while living my life in the UK.
Oh, and I said my fellow citizens have the same opportunities as me...that remains true, even if you don't like it.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

I think we can completely eliminate money and still guarantee a lot more than just basic needs. I've heard it said many times now "socialism looks great on paper", yet I've still never seen this "paper" as it pertains to the US with today's technology.

I'd like to start a massive research project right here on ATS to create this "paper" if any of you are interested.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

When you remove profit, set artificial standards, take away the ability to earn on your own, you end up with housing projects.

Only you wish to see this done nation-wide.

Remove the incentive to do better and you see the results.

The Glorious Dictatorship of Sheepslayer may have good intentions, all beneficent good-hearted peoples do, but you are creating a nation-wide welfare state.

I would want to part of it, personally.

Not everyone is lazy and wants to sit around. That was a terrible le example you gave. Having the resources to do things is how things get done. Not motivation.

Anyone that says that motivation is all that is needed to succeed has not thought about it. ALL money in western capitalism was BORROWED into the economy, that means that every dollar in circulation needs to be paid back with interest.

Say the country is a village of 10 people. They need money to trade. A bank opens and lends everyone 100 dollars to get started but they want 5% return on the loan. So $1000 dollars is in the economy split between 10 people. Problem is the bank wants $1050 back from all the borrowers in total. There is only $1000 in the economy.... so someone is going to default on their loan and now they either work for the bank or give up assets.

It is absolutely impossible for capitalism to work for everyone and if we were not all in debt then there would be no money in this system.

This system was designed when the average literacy rate was 0.5%. I would like to see this system pitched today and see how far it got.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Show me an actual system where government has taken care of food, shelter, healthcare and has succeeded.

Show me a system that will work for the large and varied population of the US.

Show me a system that can provide all of that and still maintain within the framework of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Anyone that says that motivation is all that is needed to succeed has not thought about it.

Ah, I've thought it and experienced it so your assertion does not appear to be correct for every human being.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Show me an actual system where government has taken care of food, shelter, healthcare and has succeeded.

Show me a system that will work for the large and varied population of the US.

Show me a system that can provide all of that and still maintain within the framework of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Show me a world where there is no central banking system and I will. There are millions of models that could work better than this one. If your stuck on the current like it is tthe ONLY way to survive then I seriously feel for you bruv.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

In order for YOUR system to work, you'd need to get rid of the Central Banking System.

Um, okay. Short of a nuclear war or alien invasion or zombie apocalypse (my favorite) it's not going to happen.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Anyone that says that motivation is all that is needed to succeed has not thought about it.

Ah, I've thought it and experienced it so your assertion does not appear to be correct for every human being.

Buddy Ill never say this again but I pulled in over 150k last year. Because I am good? No. because I am smart? no. It was because I knew the right people and I was at the rigjt place at the right time. The world is a little bigger than what YOU experienced.