Capitalism =Greed

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


The question was hypothetical but your answer is implied - no, you do not support anyones right to disagree with you and you are willing to use violence against those who do. (in your geographical reigon) Right. No sense in pretending this is a debate then since youre holding a gun.

UK has a greater debt to GDP ratio than Greece because socialisim borrows from the future to pacify the present. Your nation will soon implode under its own unsustainable debt, followed by mine. I wonder if you will support even more staggering levels of violence to 'fix' the problem?

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by pexx421

 

Im sure you have a point there but I dont think the free market can be blamed for an increase in poverty as much as the rise of corpratism and monopoly capitalism can, which are enabled by the state and use it as their enforcement arm. The welfare state creates a dependant class that permanetly locks people into poverty and due to their dependancy they tend to vote for more and more government lagress that further taps the productive sectors of the economy until the whole thing collapses. (see, the world post 2008)

Not necessarily. Whilst there is an underclass which rely on welfare, they are not nearly as prevalent as you might expect given the vitriol directed towards government benefit schemes. For most people (once again, I can only argue for the UK) it's a way out of poverty by enabling people to obtain and education, healthcare, food and housing-meaning they don't have to go to work in a dead-end job but can instead get educated, improve their skill sets and actually achieve their potential. It's win-win, since these people then pay more in taxes (since we have progressive taxation) and help to support the next generation who come up through that same system.

It is as close to a historical truism as is possible to say that the free market is responsible for the greatest exponential increases of wealth across all sectors compared to any other system.

Its hard to argue against freedom.

I agree, to a point. Sometimes the intervention of an agency which doesn't just operate solely in terms of their bottom line is required. Socialism by itself will not bring anybody's standard of living up, whereas Capitalism by itself brings many up but also leaves many behind. A regulated free market- a middle ground or a Social Democracy if you will- helps to provide the best of both worlds by enabling the poor to better themselves. It's still possible to get absolutely filthy rich in the UK, and that's how it should stay- It should just not be allowed to happen at the expense of those at the very bottom of society.



[edit on 31-7-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


Give it a year.

/out

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

 

The question was hypothetical but your answer is implied - no, you do not support anyones right to disagree with you and you are willing to use violence against those who do. (in your geographical reigon) Right. No sense in pretending this is a debate then since youre holding a gun.

Disagree all you want, but the fact is that if you're in the UK you're receiving some manner of benefit from the government- that may be financial, it may be in terms of security, or it may be in some other way. People being allowed to opt out of these services while still in these national borders would be a terrible decision by any government that implemented it. Anybody who opted out of the government is fair game to be mugged, raped, etc. with absolutely no punishment. You wouldn't even be able to set foot on the roads, for God's sake. Not a realistic idea in the slightest.

UK has a greater debt to GDP ratio than Greece because socialisim borrows from the future to pacify the present. Your nation will soon implode under its own unsustainable debt, followed by mine. I wonder if you will support even more staggering levels of violence to 'fix' the problem?

en.wikipedia.org...

The latest figures would suggest otherwise.
Besides, we've had this situation before. The 1970's were a terrible time for the country, economically and politically. You know what we did? We elected somebody who changed it and put the government back to a reasonable level (Mrs Thatcher) and then got on with it again. This time around we've elected someone who (we hope) will do the same- already the debate about which public spending should be kept and which should be done away with is going strong, and we'll see plenty more yet.

Relax, the sky isn't falling.

Edit: Whilst I'm unhappy with the huge levels of external debt in the UK (416% of GDP and counting) as it will leave myself, my children and possibly even my grandchildren paying it back, it's not insurmountable. It's not even an inherent problem with 'Socialism' (not the kind that you seem to think the UK has, anyway. We're a centre right nation, economically speaking.)

[edit on 31-7-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

reply to post by LeftWingLarry


Your naiveté extends from your trust of the government into your belief that the current situation is ANYTHING like the 70s, or any other time in human history...if you still think this system isnt at a red light catastophic collapse situation in the very near term...well i dont know what to say to you. Not that i had much more to say since you keep waving that gun around.

keep trusting the system, keep wielding its gun and drinking its floridated water...perhaps youll be allowed to keep some of the table scraps left behind.

/really out

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

 

Your naiveté extends from your trust of the government into your belief that the current situation is ANYTHING like the 70s, or any other time in human history...if you still think this system isnt at a red light catastophic collapse situation in the very near term...well i dont know what to say to you. Not that i had much more to say since you keep waving that gun around.

keep trusting the system, keep wielding its gun and drinking its floridated water...perhaps youll be allowed to keep some of the table scraps left behind.

/really out

If you say so.

Have a good day.

No. Free market may be responsible for growth among all sectors of investment, but it has not benefited the workers, or the other countries. Free market has outsourced american jobs, and it has caused american wages to decrease in order to compete with outsourced jobs. As far as the effect on other countries, free market has flooded african, south american, and other third world nations markets with subisidized american produce, causing all their indegenous farms to go out of business. Then all their farmers have to sell off to corporations, and move to cities...where they have trouble finding jobs to support their families. This often leads to countries losing their industries, and having greater unemployment and poverty, allowing the corporations to come in and buy everything on the cheap...quite destructive to their societies.

This is one of the main reasons the earthquakes in haiti did so much destruction. All the outlying farmers had been put out of business trying to compete with government subsidized american produce. They all sold off and moved to the city to try to find work which meant that there was a pretty large migration over time from all the outlying lands until their population was largely concentrated in the city. Then the earthquake hit, and the densely populated city suffered massive casualties. This was exacerbated by the fact that due to the destruction of their farming industry (due to american "free trade") they had no local ability to produce food post earthquake, and now the people are starving.

Free market is, and always was, a tool for US corporations to destroy industries in other economies so our corporations can buy up their land and resources cheaply....and it is a tool to reduce the cost of american workers. Free market supports the corporations, and is detrimental to everyone else.

reply to post by pexx421


Thats just it though, my friend. Subsidies have NO place in a truly free market. There is no theft of wealth from one sector at gunpoint through taxation to be redistributed to another sector by the state in a truly free market. Such redistribution by the state is a distinctly statist machination.

A free market is like dating. You can make yourself as attractive as possible to the 'market', (some call it the meat market, lol') you can preen yourself, advertise how much better your 'meat' is (for lack of a better term), buy nice clothes, whatever. But you cannot rape. You cannot force. You cannot steal from your friends in order to buy aformentioned clothes. The free market is the same, and it ceases to be 'free' when it is not 'free' of coericion of any kind. Subsidies are not free. I never voted to prop up farmers in my country.

So please, when talking about the 'free market', look for the gun, the coersion, the theft, the lack of contract. If any of these elements exist in the equation, its not really 'free', is it?

Originally posted by ANOK

Countries fail because that is how capitalism works. There will always be someone on the bottom, people and countries. There is no such thing as everyone being successful, capitalism as an economic system is a pyramid scheme with the capitalists at the top. It has nothing to do with populations, as we have the technology to feed the worlds population already.

There isn't a country or system that doesn't have a mix of the rich and poor, but what America has is also a middle class and that is something many countries do not have. The middle class is what gets distroyed in these other systems.

My neighbor started a Quiznos which means he most likely got at least a 500k loan and put forth the effort to get it up and running. I estimate that he most likely grosses 200k per year and works many hours per week while providing jobs for about 10 people. It is this type of person who I suggest capitalism offers the opportunity to that many other countries do not.

Labour is wasted making stuff that is only needed to make 'profit', when there are more important uses for labour such as producing needed resources like food. In Spain, after they collectivized the farms, they concentrated on feeding people. They collectivized industry and focused on repairing the tram system and improving the infrastructure.

An so what do they use as motivation? Why work at all if the state provides everything. We see that with welfare here in the US.

Spain's unemployment rate rose from a low of about 8% in 2007 to more than 19% in December 2009 and continues to rise. Its fiscal deficit worsened from 3.8% of GDP in 2008 to about 7.9% of GDP in 2009, more than double the EMU limit. GDP contracted by 3.6% from 2008, ending a 16-year growth trend. The economy is projected to resume modest growth sometime in 2010, making Spain the last major economy to emerge from the global recession. The reversal in Spain's economic growth reflects a significant decline in the construction sector, an oversupply of housing, falling consumer spending, and slumping exports. Government efforts to boost the economy through stimulus spending, extended unemployment benefits, and loan guarantees have not prevented a sharp rise in the unemployment rate, which was the highest in the EU in 2009.

World facts

I think they are about average in many areas, and they maybe have provided better living for many who lived poor but this type of system works for smaller populations and in their case over 50% of the population is the working class of 40 mil, but they are running 20% unemployment, and 21% below the poverty line. It is interesting that over 70% of the work force is in services (most likely tourism is a big part) with an average yearly income of 33k US dollar.

The interesting part is their GDP is and has been flat or negative, and they have very low population growth or immigration, so that shows that with a stable population with a huge number able to work they can do well, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do better.

US is 9% unemployment and 12% below the poverty line by comparison.









[edit on 2-8-2010 by Xtrozero]

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Neo_Serf


And I never voted for the wars in the middle east which suck up our tax dollars, that goes to the capitalist military complex and more importantly exact death and physically handicap our youth and innocent people.

Originally posted by hypattia

And I never voted for the wars in the middle east which suck up our tax dollars, that goes to the capitalist military complex and more importantly exact death and physically handicap our youth and innocent people.

I see major military complexes in every system around the world, but we do have the ability to vote those into office that either support it or not, but it seems we like the large military foot print around the world. as our votes go. Capitalism doesn't necessary mean Corporatism, but in America we have strong Corporatism and that is what we need to fight against.

A free market is a great thing and allows anyone to get ahead on their own efforts, but when corporations get in bed with governments and start to control those governments then we are talking about a fascist state. I really think that a few of you are confusing Capitalism with Corporatism since ever example I have seen is really Corporatism at work.

I’m 100% against the World Bank with corporate raping, pillaging plundering and enslaving countries. I’m against the corporations destroying our Capitalistic system with their greed and little care for their actions, but I’m not ready for the government to become my nanny. My success or failures is by my own hands and the day I sit home waiting on my government check or I am lost in a sea of workers all working for little goals but mindless ones of the government I will move to another country where my single efforts are welcomed.

reply to post by hypattia


This whole thread is very clearly and very fundamentally flawed from the start. The idea that any given thing is greedy depends on the motivation. For example, I could say "stealing is greedy". Are socialist going to tell me that socialism is greedy? No. Yet socialism involves taking without asking (stealing) of the means of production from business owners and then giving them to another party. The motivation for the thefts by socialists is usually a desire to improve the world for others.

The second flaw is that all of human action is fundamentally selfish. If you are stealing from Peter to pay Paul, then it is because you get a warm and fuzzy feeling inside. So you like socialism, it is because it makes you feel better, even though it makes make me feel worse, being a major advocate of capitalism.

There are a large number of socialists who advocate socialism for very obviously selfish reasons. See the following video for proof:

"If I help him, he's going to help me."

So as you can see in video proof form, socialism can just as easily be at least as selfish, if not more.

Originally posted by civilchallenger
reply to post by hypattia

 

Yet socialism involves taking without asking (stealing) of the means of production from business owners and then giving them to another party.

Wrong, socialism takes back what has been stolen from the people since the industrial revolution.

The so called 'property' of the capitalist class has been financed by the working class, from the money they make from the exploitation of labour.

It is as much ours as it is theirs. We paid for it! We are still paying for it with every dollar they make from our labour. Capitalists get rich because of us, not because of their 'hard work'.

The owner is an unnecessary 'middle man' taking money that could be ours.

reply to post by ANOK


If labour was totally without the need of managers and financiers *there would never be an unemployed labourer*! If the willingness to work were the source of employment then everyone who wanted to work would be doing so.

I wonder how my contractor would react to me if I were to don your completely self assured, smug sense of entitlement. I wonder how it would turn out for me, the sub contractor, if i told him that his contribution to his own company was unnecessary, that I didnt need him to supply me with work, oh and that all the money Ive made him through my labours is rightfully mine and petulantly demanded that he hand them over, because hes oppressing me!

Well, hed laugh at me before terminating our *voluntary* work agreement, but if perhaps he was foolish enough to swallow this self entitled pronouncement, and agreed that he had been oppressing me and the 10 other people he employs, he would have to shut down his shop and put us ALL out of work, himself included!

Youre right, the STATE ( collection of immoral people with the monopoly over the use of force) can run things much better for us. I mean, its worked so well in the past!

reply to post by hypattia


Calling the Military Industrial Complex 'capitalist' is like calling the Mafia 'capitalist'. They both operate for a profit, but thats where the comparison ends. Both the MIC and the Mafia extract the funds that sustain them mostly, if not entirely, at gunpoint. Involuntary taxation is no different than 'protection money'.

Now it is true that the free(er) market system in the States created a tax base that was unprecedented and allowed for the largest military the world has ever known, but we dont blame the local business owner whos being extorted more than his less sucessful competitors for the rise of organized crime.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by hypattia

And I never voted for the wars in the middle east which suck up our tax dollars, that goes to the capitalist military complex and more importantly exact death and physically handicap our youth and innocent people.

I see major military complexes in every system around the world, but we do have the ability to vote those into office that either support it or not.

There lies the biggest problem, corporations fund the political candidates, therefore the corporations are in control.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by ANOK

 

If labour was totally without the need of managers and financiers *there would never be an unemployed labourer*! If the willingness to work were the source of employment then everyone who wanted to work would be doing so.

I never said there is no need for managers or financiers.

Not everyone can work because there are not the jobs available, capitalism makes us compete with each other for work. It's just another artificially scarce resource.

I wonder how my contractor would react to me if I were to don your completely self assured, smug sense of entitlement.

Hmmm scuse me? Entitlement lol? What made the capitalists entitled to exploit labour?

I wonder how it would turn out for me, the sub contractor, if i told him that his contribution to his own company was unnecessary, that I didnt need him to supply me with work, oh and that all the money Ive made him through my labours is rightfully mine and petulantly demanded that he hand them over, because hes oppressing me!

I have no idea and it really has nothing to do with my argument.

Private owners are not necessary to give you work.

No private owner told the workers in Spain to repair the tram system, or increase productivity by 20%, or make sure everyone got food etc.
The workers new what they needed, not what the private owner wanted them to produce in order to make them profit at the expense of what really needed doing.

Well, hed laugh at me before terminating our *voluntary* work agreement, but if perhaps he was foolish enough to swallow this self entitled pronouncement, and agreed that he had been oppressing me and the 10 other people he employs, he would have to shut down his shop and put us ALL out of work, himself included!

Well you're one of the lucky ones with a job you like and a situation you're happy with for now. Most workers are not in your position.
The majority of workers are hourly wage slaves. Capitalism is why jobs are going overseas to sweatshops in China, because in capitalism we are made to compete for jobs. The private owner does not care about you, but the least he can pay for labour in order to make the most profit for themselves. By doing this they are taking even more money from the population as they reduce their wage cost and increase their private profits. More money being re-distributed upwards. The rich-poor divide gets wider.

I don't care what your 'boss' would say but if you and the other ten workers, and even your boss, all equally owned the company you would be better off financially. If you'd rather work for less than your worth for fear of being laughed at by your boss then that's your choice, and I'll be the last one to try to stop you.

Your boss is also not really the capitalists I'm talking about. If it's his own business and he works then he's not really a capitalists by my definition. A true capitalist is a person who does nothing but own capital that he uses to make money from the labour of others.

Your 'boss' in this situation may not be making any more than you, and is as much a victim of the capitalist system as you are, just like most small businesses.

Youre right, the STATE ( collection of immoral people with the monopoly over the use of force) can run things much better for us. I mean, its worked so well in the past!

When did I say the state can run things better? Did you read everything I said, or did you just skim and pick up on words you recognized? Socialism does not require a state system and is historically the economic system preferred by most Anarchists, including the founding father of Anarchism Bakunin.

This is the problem, people these days have a serious comprehension problem, you can't even read what's in front of you and understand it without making assumptions based on your conditioning.

Socialism is simply an economic system and does not require a government or the state. Capitalism is an economic system where the private owners require the state to protect their interests and keep the population controlled in order to keep producing, in order for capitalists to make money.

[edit on 8/3/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by hypattia

 

Calling the Military Industrial Complex 'capitalist' is like calling the Mafia 'capitalist'.

Not really. The companies that make up the Military Industrial Complex surely are capitalist.

Here's a list...

militaryindustrialcomplex.com...

I don't think any of them are worker owned and ran.

reply to post by ANOK


Socialism requires the redrisibution of weath, yes? Well who, but the State, would confiscate said wealth and redistribute it? Will the doctor freely give up half his pay to the plumber so they can be equals?

I see nothing wrong with worker owned co-operative as long as they are consentual and not state enforced of subsidised. Sounds like an awesome business model to me - but can it compete in a free market with a more hierarchial system? Thats the great part about freedom - it pits the best of ideas against eachother in the real world and lets them duke it out, metephorically speaking, for supremacy on the free market of ideas, instead of a prepackaged one size fits all, top down solution of the state. If your worker owned co-operative is really that productive, and does not rely on coercion of any kind, I would certainly like to hear more.

To accumulate capital and invest in business is not inheriently wrong. Until some sort of coercion is involved, be it from lobbying (bribing) the state, nefarious bookwork, lying, stealing ect. is engaged in, people should be able to be as sucessful as the market allows them to be. The problem comes when these sucessful companies hijack the monopoly of violence that is the state and use it to unscupulous ends, which is exaclty what the MIC is. These 'capitalists' that you rail against are really monopoly capitalists, which is more akin to fascism or communism than it is capitalism, which is just the voluntary exchange of goods at a negotiated rate. The big tycoons, the real blue bloods, hate capitalism and competition of any kind as it threatens their entrenched interests. 'Competiton is a sin' said one Rockefeller.

So i think the terms have been all garbled up (purposefully so, by some) and I appologise for the offensive where I may have assumed too much. Bottom line is - the true enemy is not one 'ism' or another. The true enemy to us all are those who initiate force and violence (in whatever capacity, be it a club to the face, theft through taxation, or a ball and chain around the leg) in society to achive their ends, be they monopoly capitalists, communists, nazis, whatever.

If Capitalism = Greed then socialism and communism = slavery.