Capitalists - you really don't see a problem?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

but just may be the best way to run things

No it's not. America is right up there with the most corrupt political/economic systems in the world. You're not thinking clearly if you believe capitalism is the best system. They all suck, they all benefit those who have the most money/influence.

You are operating under the assumption that America is capitalist. It's closer to a corporatocracy than a free market system.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It's somewhat odd how I am a fan of both Socialism, and of Libertarian/near anarchy then, or perhaps not so odd seeing your example.

a reply to: sycomix

How did you address that? You seem unable to deal with reality and wish to place the blame or failures onto some one else. If your parenting style didn't work it didn't work. If you failed to nurture your child by not examining what they needed to be nurtured in and how then that's your fault.

If your parenting produced a bad adult there is a good chance it was your fault. Thee is a lesser chance it was not your fault. If your unwilling to admit that you aren't as productive as you think you are.

a reply to: luthier

very good points

a reply to: luthier

"as parent your prime responsibility is to instill things like social sense, push them toward an education, encourage them to be all they can be." This is getting old, did you read that part at all?

a reply to: sycomix

It's getting old because of your fallacy.

You described generic things. I am saying your methodology for instilling those values could be flawed and if your not introspective enough to consider that you are missing an opurtunity to do better.

Disclaimer this is a metaphore as well as literal example for making corrections in a system. Whether parenting or social and market constructs.

a reply to: luthier

The methodology will vary from child to child, they are after all individuals. What works for my oldest may or may not work for my youngest. For example my oldest son has an aptitude for mechanical engineering, so that is what I encourage him to persue. My middle son is a bit of an introvert and like to study music so this is what I encourage, my youngest is a bibliophile thus I encourage him to study and read as much as he would like. Notice the "push them toward an education" part? Yes it can be that simple.

a reply to: Puppylove

That could very well be true. In many cases, I'm sure it is.
However, the 'lazy innovators' beaten down by the 9-5 still have the 5-10 to do things at home, if they choose.
I feel like your giving people too much credit. Maybe I'm cynical.
I do agree with what your saying, overall though

a reply to: sycomix

Then why were you argueing against my points?

The same theory applies to society and the market.

You can't just say capitalism is the best so that's it. You have to address it's good but where are we failing. We are not doing that and so far you have objected to this rationale.

a reply to: luthier

Aye I will give you that but the fact remains that Capitalism provides everyone a chance at being the top dog where Socialism only justifies theft of others labor and profits under the guise of helping the less fortunate when in fact under that idea now instead of the less fortunate few being under the rich mans boot, now becomes everyone is under the governments boot.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

That doesn't leave much time, and that time at work is still exhausting and stressful, especially for them. It's extreme anxiety for someone like that. By the time they get home from trying to get through their day they're pretty much toast.

a reply to: sycomix

Sure. I am not advocating socialism. I am saying there is a necessity to make corrections and if you argue that capitalism is better than socialism you are missing an opportunity to adress the failings or dangers of capitalism. Some of these issues brought up by socialist advocates are very real that doesn't mean they own the solution. We can however find some common ground I think to fix what the issues are without destroying the whole system.

I strongly believe encouraging space exploration would create high tech jobs and expansion of the labor market. You don't want China building most of the stuff especially if it's carrying human beings. No offense China.

I also think we should try with as little intervention as possible to restore and keep in place a "clock punching" style workplace for those who just want to do a good job and be with their families and leave their job at the job. Not everybody is an entrepreneur and those are not the only good hard working people.

Just a side note. I work for myself. I am a sound engineer and make guitars at night after my wife gets home. So I consider myself not a clock puncher. I do however think it's perfectly fine to be one. It doesn't make them a lesser person bit society has come to stop rewarding a loyal employee who just wants to do their job and go home.

a reply to: Puppylove

Production line workers have plenty of time to get drunk when they get home. They could do something more productive if they chose to.
All kidding aside, I see what your saying. I just can;t completely get all the way on board with it.

a reply to: luthier

Love that response! However as mentioned before you can't have both systems in place at once they by nature contrary and can not coexist. So If it is all the same to you I will stick with the lesser of the evils, that one that lets me keep what I earned even if it leaves others with less. (Maybe it will encourage them to work more and earn better, I know that sounds cold but it really isn't)

a reply to: sycomix

Why do you need both systems and what evidence is there they don't work together?

Is applying trade tarifs to level manufacturing jobs inherently socialist? What about creating education/civil service exchanges beyound military? Or having a president who inspires people to get to the moon?

Capitalism hasn't and isn't working and won't work in the future.

With capital gains it puts the actual producers at a disadvantage and the owners of capital can keep it that way with leverage in the material market keeping the smaller producers out.

Pretty simple to understand.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It's somewhat odd how I am a fan of both Socialism, and of Libertarian/near anarchy then, or perhaps not so odd seeing your example.

I mean if you dig deep into what actual "real" anarchy would look like, It would be worker controlled production of things. People would do what they want by personal agreement with one another, but all property would be shared. Everything would belong to everyone else, so that no one could use property or resources to control someone else, or compell them to do something they didn't want to do.

That's the thing about even hardcore conservatism -- you can only be a "rugged individual" as long as someone doesn't have stuff you need.

If someone has stuff you need, they can control you and compel you to do things you don't want to do -- taking away your "freedom" by manipulating you in exchange for that stuff you need.

That's why under anarchy no one owns anything. Everything is owned by everyone for the collective good of not being under the control of anyone else.

Property is a form of slavery. When you own things you are a slave to those things, you aren't truly "free".

If you own a car, you have to change the oil, put gas in it ... maintain it. You are a slave to that car because it compels you to do things.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yet it was capitalist at some point in the past. Aren't those who are against socialism always saying socialism is the gateway to communism? So how is capitalism any better since it leads to corporatism?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It compels you to do things for your own benefit, though, I'd argue.

Anarchy is always an interesting topic because I certainly identify with it but don't see it being realistic at all. We have the powers in the current regime that may not allow it to happen, and then people that would not want to see it happen. It's like you say - We need to disperse based on our desires. The world honestly is big enough to split into groups of people with different ideas.

Whether you'd like to live in the middle of nowhere with little to no laws, or in a huge city with tons of them - You could have your choice.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Fair question there!

How is capitalism better when it leads to corporatism?

I doubt anyone has a good response.

My response about the whole matter? Adaptation.

If the society seems to need more capitalism/free market elements - Implement them.

If it seems to need some democratic socialism elements - Implement them.

Right now... We need less government, less Bilderbergs, less federal reserve. While conversely we could use more programs to help people with food, rent and the like while the system is changing. Kinda a catch-22.