It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Merinda
Which economy is going to run more smoothly? The one where the wealth trickles up fast or the one where wealth is kept in the loop?
Originally posted by the owlbear
You damn well know the money given to the poor is IMMEDIATELY put back into circulation whatever consumer goods they buy...ASAP.
Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
even though on paper, as many other ideologies, capitalism sounds nice...if it weren't for the motif ingrained in the ideology. It is not the pursuit of happiness, it's the pursuit of profit. It puts profit first. This is especially true for the corporations.
The problem with starting off with capitalism, is the starting point...which is the question..."how can I earn money ?", and not "how can I contribute to society or a local economy?". In order to sell more (because without constant increase in sales the ideology would crumble) one needs to speed up production, reduce expenses. What this brings is a reduction in quality of products and reduction in wages for the working class. Examples of this is contained within all too well known social meme..."made in China" or "made in Taiwan".
Capitalists are playing dumb...without the second/third world countries which are used as cheap labor, there wouldn't be any capitalism. There wouldn't be any corporations.
A woman in Taiwan gets paid 0,50 cents per pair of NIKE sneakers...and they sell for 200 $ back in the US. (don't quote me on this one, I watched a doco online some time ago about sweat shops).
Anyway...most of us know the ugly head of Socialism...how it can turn to bad from a good starting point. But I say...Capitalism is no different. It sort of gives you opportunities, but behind the scenes...it's still oppressive.
Actually...people are oppressive...but Capitalism gives them a context to be so. Worrying only about profit, makes you sort of free of responsibilities...towards your community or people that work for you. You can sack people, destroy the environment and incite wars...if it is about making money...you will even be helped (protected) by the state.
What is the point of opening a bakery in a street full of bakeries...? society wise...no point. Individually looking, those bakeries are doing well and you would want to emulate their profit making...by creating the same...because you need/want money. Whether this is needed by your community is not something that is even considered by a capitalist society.
Fortunately or not, Socialism provides much needed boundaries for people. Although it sounds like the dreaded american horror story..."they are taking our freedoms"...ultimate freedom to do what you want, which is provided in a capitalist context, requires great responsibility. One not currently present in human mind set.
Originally posted by Merinda
Capitalism isnt an ideology at all. ...
The argument of capitalism is to channel peoples selfishness and own interest into being productive for the society.
What do those poor people do with that money? Sock it away on off-shore tax free accounts or invests it in mutual funds? No. You damn well know the money given to the poor is IMMEDIATELY put back into circulation whatever consumer goods they buy...ASAP.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by the owlbear
What do those poor people do with that money? Sock it away on off-shore tax free accounts or invests it in mutual funds? No. You damn well know the money given to the poor is IMMEDIATELY put back into circulation whatever consumer goods they buy...ASAP.
Same thing those evil rich folks do socialism in a nutshell is tax the rich so the poor can go out, and buy more corporate products..
And no that money is put back in to circulation doesn't make new wealth.
Originally posted by cenpuppie
Denmark and their socialism seem to be doing quite fine. As always, the issue is in implementation.
For the first post in my Responding to Capitalists Series, I want to address a misconception that is used by both capitalists and self-described socialists alike — the idea that a welfare state is socialism.
There are many today who think that socialism is just a state with public healthcare, public education, public transportation, unemployment benefits, and so on. This is the case in many parts of Europe where “socialists” really just advocate for more state welfare, and it is the case with many Americans who think that socialism is what the Democratic Party advocates...
...The historical and correct definition of democratic socialism is a grassroots, anti-authoritarian socialism that wants to get rid of capitalism by labor organization, elections, and other democratic, decentralized means (think Eugene Debs). Then, you have the modern redefinition that inaccurately calls democratic socialism a mixed economy between capitalism and socialism (think Sweden) [or Denmark, ANOK]...
...Socialism is collective and cooperative ownership of the means of production (e.g. factories, farms, etc.) and that those who produce and earn wealth (the workers) should be the ones who reap the fruit of their labor. This manifests in either state ownership or worker ownership of the means of production (though worker ownership is the historical use of the term).
Originally posted by Cynic
reply to post by buddhasystem
I know one thing about you buddhasystem.
You're trolling this thread.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by the owlbear
What do those poor people do with that money? Sock it away on off-shore tax free accounts or invests it in mutual funds? No. You damn well know the money given to the poor is IMMEDIATELY put back into circulation whatever consumer goods they buy...ASAP.
Same thing those evil rich folks do socialism in a nutshell is tax the rich so the poor can go out, and buy more corporate products..
And no that money is put back in to circulation doesn't make new wealth.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Merinda
Never mind misread the OP, sorry comrades, carry on...
edit on 5/27/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
What those people who ask for equality have in mind is always an increase in their own power to consume. In endorsing the principle of equality as a political postulate nobody wants to share his own income with those who have less. When the American wage earner refers to equality, he means that the dividends of the stockholders should be given to him. He does not suggest a curtailment of his own for the benefit of those 95 per cent of the earth's population whose income is lower than his.”
“The Santa Claus fables of the welfare school are characterized by their complete failure to grasp the problems of capital. It is precisely this defect that makes it imperative to deny them the appellation welfare economics with which they describe their doctrines. He who does not take into consideration the scarcity of capital goods available is not an economist, but a fabulist. He does not deal with reality but with a fabulous world of plenty. All the effusions of the contemporary welfare school are, like those of the socialist authors, based on the implicit assumption that there is an abundant supply of capital goods. Then, of course, it seems easy to find a remedy for all ills, to give to everybody "according to his needs" and to make everyone perfectly happy.