Capitalists - you really don't see a problem?

a reply to: deadlyhope

An issue I see is the mega rich seem to have corrupted the democratic political process, they generally lobby for their own interests. Maybe there should be an upper limit on an individual's wealth say 100M, no more billionaires, but they would fight that, not in their interests. Then they would have less power and influence. WTF does 1 person need a billion dollars for anyway, well they don't, it's a bit obscene.

a reply to: sycomix

What is the inherent flaw in wanting to give others basic things like water and food?

I'll never agree with legislation to give poor people smart phones and game consoles and computers and stuff.. But food and water?

What is the flaw in providing such things? Ethically speaking, with altruism as a hopeful, they should be taken care of. That's what capitalists always tell me.. Billionaires donate and donate and give life to others when they don't need money.

Why does the richest country in the world have enough empty homes to house the homeless?

But answer that question. What is bad, what is wrong, what is evil about providing shelter, food and such to those who cannot provide for themselves - whether it be temporarily or permanently?

a reply to: JimTSpock

Depends on what that 1 person does with the billion, if they invest that billion that investment typically trickles down through the company invested into and creates those jobs people want and need, infrastructure isn't exactly free. Milton Friedman had plenty to say on the idea and practicality of how to put it into proper use.

a reply to: deadlyhope

And who is boosting the student debt bubble? Who keeps messing with monetary policy devaluing the dollar exaggerating the inequality gap? If you look at charts when Nixon took us off the gold standard the cost of living and inflation started to diverge.

People working minimum wage jobs having to supplement their income with government subsidies isn't a capitalist problem it's a bad government policy problem.

Capitalism has it's flaws. But the flaws of humans being easily influenced by money and power makes them easily corruptible and due to the fact they are inherently dishonest, people seize upon these opportunities to advance their own agendas.

"The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money."

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: sycomix

What is the inherent flaw in wanting to give others basic things like water and food?

I'll never agree with legislation to give poor people smart phones and game consoles and computers and stuff.. But food and water?

What is the flaw in providing such things? Ethically speaking, with altruism as a hopeful, they should be taken care of. That's what capitalists always tell me.. Billionaires donate and donate and give life to others when they don't need money.

Why does the richest country in the world have enough empty homes to house the homeless?

But answer that question. What is bad, what is wrong, what is evil about providing shelter, food and such to those who cannot provide for themselves - whether it be temporarily or permanently?

The short answer is it ruins basic instinct to survive and to thrive, one thing leads to another leads to another and it becomes a domino effect that leads to a sense of entitlement. A sense of entitlement leads to useless people. If you are useless...

a reply to: sycomix

I agree that complicating the market laws beyound the utility function of preserving a job market is dangerous. Like I said a tariff strategy may help deal with outsourcing.

The seperarion of cooperations and state would be a good start. No need for GE to be getting billions in gov grants and contracts. Or having lobby power.

a reply to: gpols

It's two teams, though. I agree the government has done terrible things - but take obamacare for instance, written by corporations. Take the trans Pacific partnership.. Written by multi national corporations. Corporate lobbyists are a huge problem in this nation.

Men are corrupt, selfish, etc.. So politicians and corporations really get along.

Cut down the government, the corporations still exist and do what they want.

Do something against corporations... Well, who can do that, and who would benefit the most? The government.

It's two sides of the same coin.

a reply to: sycomix

Define useless? Is a good parent useless? The latch key era certainly shows different sociologically. There is a Ballance to be had.

a reply to: sycomix

... Some of us would never call a person in need useless.

If we want to talk about useless...

Who helps me get groceries? I mean.. How do they really end up as a meal for me?

Workers?

Or

The Walton family?

The workers did every step to get me that food. The Waltons did zero. I personally deem the rich and elite as useless, and they far more deserve derogatory terminology.

a reply to: sycomix

Double post.

a reply to: luthier

No parenting should be a partnership, and both partners have value. Useless people are those without the means to contribute anything at all, raising children properly is a contribution to the future of a society.

a reply to: gpols

Actually the problem with socialism is it tries to cohabitate with capitalism which is impossible, as capitalism will always succeed in corrupting it's socialist nature with unfair trade.

For socialism to truly work you need a completely cashless society. Everyone works for the benefit of society, each persons successes benefits everyone, we rise and fall together.

The hard part is finding a noncorruptable way to incentivise people to take up the harder more complicated jobs and reward harder workers. The other hard part is an uncorruptable brain to determine these things. A dictator doesn't work, elections don't work, our government branches are a failure... We need a good way to acquire benevolent leadership.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Those countries do not have dictators.

You could argue that those countries you listed benefit from capitalism.
Not to mention they run their economy in a way similar to Capitalism.
As to proving that we have better quality of life than Switzerland, I probably can't. Switzerland is awesome.
It depends on what you see as a quality life though. I don't want to live there.

a reply to: Puppylove

You are on point to an extent, but there is something else that breaks socialism. People who don't work. (Useless people)

EDIT: Before anybody goes what about the disabled???
My brother is a quadriplegic and has a job, my step father is legally blind and has a job, and a very good friend of mine is a quadruple amputee and has a job. In my eye there is no excuse.

a reply to: Puppylove

I don't see cashless society as being realistic. I wish I did, but I just don't think it could exist in a first world nation, therefore an attempt to implement the best legislation based on our circumstances is the goal.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

If I didn't have family ties I'd try to get into new Zealand or Switzerland in a heartbeat.

Less pollution.
Less crime.
Overall higher happiness index.
Less health issues.
Less wars.
More renewable energy.....

a reply to: sycomix

So you are talking about Congress?

I can't say I disagree with all your points. I do think you have an idealistic view of a free market and capitalism the same way socialist are idealistic.

The system of government and the social contract as well as the market are evolutionary yet they are seen as stationary. I think capitalism can be altered by protecting the democratic process from an oligarchy and by paying attention to the market in terms of job growth and job expansion.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I used to empathize, or agree with your line of thinking... I don't really believe people are who they are, though. I believe the homeless, humble and kind man could just as easily become a ruthless human trafficker addicted to money. It depends on if that person has any amount of conviction, if they have roots sunk far in the ground defining who they are and who they are not.

Yes, that might be the case, but how comes that people would do anything to survive? Even become criminals, in the first place? To call it "human nature" is an easy way out, blaming the victims of deception for their poor conditions they are in because some prefer to be billionares or even trillionares. And then they call those people "the mop", "the masses" and the like. Oh...the arrogance...

And not to forget all those middle-class-billonare-spit-lickers, who blame the so called under-privileged for being in that condition also.

As for most of us? I think most could easily be a nice caring citizen one year, a ruthless ceo that will do anything for profit the next.

And exactly that is want needs to be overcome by housing, feeding and educating the people FOR FREE by taking away the delusional "rights" of those billionares to "possess" their particularl propertys, which they have stolen from those who actually own it, which are the ones who actually WORK, and not just steal. Who owns the Earth anyway? The billonares, because they claim it? Certainly not.

Sorry for the cynicism.

No problem. Just overcome your cynicism and point fingers in the right direction.

a reply to: luthier

LOL loved the jab at congress.

I think that to an extent you are correct the democratic process does require protection, ending lobbing would be a nice start. Limit where campaign funds are permitted from as well. Doing those two things would put a serious kink in the oligarch plans.

Edit: Note on campaign funds bit, they should also have a limit on spending. Force them to play fair.

a reply to: Puppylove

No, socialism doesn't work because the producers who work harder eventually stop working hard and do as much as the slackers because the producers who work harder get tired of supporting the slackers.

And we do have a system like you mentioned. It's called Capitalism. If you work harder you get more rewards, if you slack you have less.