NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently took a vacation out if the U.S. I thought I tolerated Captialism (like i really have an option living in this country OR like others have one living in any nation considered to be developed) but i now find myself loathing it.
I'm not sure what i'd replace it with, but i know for sure it isn't the best way.
Capitalism has destroyed so many a pure nationality. Has squeezed every ounce of value out of anything it can touch. And has infected/contaminated many a culture. It's so contagious, that it's now reworked many a foreign market or economy so that the bigger picture is wealth and not well-being.
I fear that such an infection of our world by this insidious device will only lead to destruction, war and social collapse.

Can it be modified to start fixing world economy?
Can it be overhauled to benefit humankind both today and tomorow?
Can it ever mean a level approach to all pertinent issues facing the world (environment, the poor and helpless, peace)?

Really, in the end, when we're all on our deathbeds, does it matter how much money we have or have made? can we take it with us? Will it make our deaths better/easier for our loved ones?

How do any of your fears, questions or certainties mean that capitalism doesn't work?

Perhaps, if it fails to "fix" the World's economy, that's because a lot of the world doesn't practice capitalism. Or perhaps because a system is not "working or not working" based on how "fixed" the world's economy seems to be to you.

I recently took a vacation out if the U.S. I thought I tolerated Captialism (like i really have an option living in this country OR like others have one living in any nation considered to be developed) but i now find myself loathing it.
I'm not sure what i'd replace it with, but i know for sure it isn't the best way.
Capitalism has destroyed so many a pure nationality. Has squeezed every ounce of value out of anything it can touch. And has infected/contaminated many a culture. It's so contagious, that it's now reworked many a foreign market or economy so that the bigger picture is wealth and not well-being.
I fear that such an infection of our world by this insidious device will only lead to destruction, war and social collapse.

Can it be modified to start fixing world economy?
Can it be overhauled to benefit humankind both today and tomorow?
Can it ever mean a level approach to all pertinent issues facing the world (environment, the poor and helpless, peace)?

Really, in the end, when we're all on our deathbeds, does it matter how much money we have or have made? can we take it with us? Will it make our deaths better/easier for our loved ones?

Sounds like you went to France.

sorry to say it, but all one needs to do is TRAVEL and it's very evident that material wealth and how to obtain more of it AT ANY COST is an entrenched mindset among many peoples.

Do you honestly want me to spell out the where's and whys?

Oh yeah i forgot, unless there's written proof, not subject to media spin, conveniently provided for any reader to peruse, then it's not proveable nor valid. ---- come now, you think any source provided is going to satiate your thirst fro proof? You know as well as I, that in these specific forums, all proof is questioned and refuted with the refuters own personal sources that say "yay" or "Neigh" to its vaildity. there's no source that someone can find absolutely nothing biased or wrong with - so why bother.

Personal experience my friend, that and common sense. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a high scholl graduate to figure out that an indigenous people that was 5 years ago soley reliant on their own sources of revenue and their own practices of renvenue generation that are other than Capitalistic, are now the very embodiment of capitalism has been affected if not absorbed by it.

You're correct in that I probably won't accept any "proof" you have about the matter, I guess I was searching more for "evidence," as in "evidently" capitalism doesn't work, but my common sense tells me all this is mainly to the effect of a simple OMG CAPITALISM IS TEH EVIL post from a born-again anticapitalist.

Your anecdote about tribal people becoming absorbed into bigger world cultures hardly has anything to do with capitalism specifically. It would and does happen regardless of economic system.

I tend to think of it as a form of sickness, a pandemic of self-absorption...

My opinion:
Capitalism is slavery (work where I want you to work, how I want it, when I want it or starve to death) and people love being a slave more then anything. The word "freedom" is one of the most overused of all, once living in capitalism say how much they enjoy their freedom, but don´t have a slightest idea of what freedom is. Of course, comparing to fundamentalist dictatorships and socialist countries, capitalism is the "most free", but people are still slaves.
So, What I would say is, talk to people, warn then that they are being used by corporations, but give up trying to "change the world". People don´t want the world to be changed, again, people love to be slaves and they will do anything to continue working mindless forever and ever.

People don´t want the world to be changed, again, people love to be slaves and they will do anything to continue working mindless forever and ever.

Add the word 'some' to the beginning of that last sentence and maybe I'd agree, but you didn't, so I won't. I want the world to change, I don't love being a slave, and I wouldn't care to work mindlessly for even a day let alone forever.

Big surprise.

Sounds like you went to France.

BOOOYAHHH!!

He shoots, he scores!

Really, in the end, when we're all on our deathbeds, does it matter how much money we have or have made? can we take it with us? Will it make our deaths better/easier for our loved ones?

Oh, and, honestly saying, it´s preety stupid to live thinking on how would it be on the deathbed, I am against capitalism because on how it force people to live and not how people feel when they die. Actually, if you want to think about it, think more about when you are 30 or 40 years old. And you realized that you lost your youth trying to make money, while, all you did was to help your boss and, how you are on a no-turning point of your life, because, if you stop working, your kids will starve to death, so, the only choice you have is to keep helping your boss who treat you like shit. Compared to that, capitalists on the deathbed are relieved that the suffering is finally coming to an end.

My opinion:
Capitalism is slavery (work where I want you to work, how I want it, when I want it or starve to death) and people love being a slave more then anything.

Capitalism, in its purest form, makes you a slave to the market. Socialism and communism make you slaves to the state. The difference is that the market has its ups and downs and therefore offers a chance for improvement, whereas statism almost always produces a status quo that is mediocre at best.

Dear Lord,
Please Strike down this poor individual and spare him another minute of this increasingly difficult insanity that is his life.
Thanks
You are an idiot man, should we go to communism maybe we should breed poverty in our streets through equality. Competition creates better products higher quality and quantity

Can it be modified to start fixing world economy?
Can it be overhauled to benefit humankind both today and tomorow?
Can it ever mean a level approach to all pertinent issues facing the world (environment, the poor and helpless, peace)?

Really, in the end, when we're all on our deathbeds, does it matter how much money we have or have made? can we take it with us? Will it make our deaths better/easier for our loved ones?


Loc Tav I,

Capitalism has its benefits, but when let loose like in America, it can be destructive. So i can't honestly answer your first question.

It does benefit wallets, while suppressing the rest. As i always say, capitalism will create wealth, but will destroy pride & culture.

It's basically a system of classes. I believe in the abolishment of classes, but i don't believe in communism!

We're all in our death beds? Well, as an immortalist, i beg to differ!

sorry to say it, but all one needs to do is TRAVEL and it's very evident that material wealth and how to obtain more of it AT ANY COST is an entrenched mindset among many peoples.

Do you honestly want me to spell out the where's and whys?

Oh yeah i forgot, unless there's written proof, not subject to media spin, conveniently provided for any reader to peruse, then it's not proveable nor valid. ---- come now, you think any source provided is going to satiate your thirst fro proof? You know as well as I, that in these specific forums, all proof is questioned and refuted with the refuters own personal sources that say "yay" or "Neigh" to its vaildity. there's no source that someone can find absolutely nothing biased or wrong with - so why bother.

Personal experience my friend, that and common sense. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a high scholl graduate to figure out that an indigenous people that was 5 years ago soley reliant on their own sources of revenue and their own practices of renvenue generation that are other than Capitalistic, are now the very embodiment of capitalism has been affected if not absorbed by it.
Show me any alternative that would up the quality of life for americans and I will suck your **** and give you an hour to draw a crowd

My opinion:
Capitalism is slavery (work where I want you to work, how I want it, when I want it or starve to death)

No one told me where to work, I found and got a job myself. It's hardly slavery if you agree to it, and it's not like the only other choices are starving to death. There are other jobs locally, and if not locally than elsewhere, because one of the great things about capitalism is the variety of work opportunities.

My opinion:
Capitalism is slavery (work where I want you to work, how I want it, when I want it or starve to death) and people love being a slave more then anything.

That's socialism, dude.

How do any of your fears, questions or certainties mean that capitalism doesn't work?


Santa Barbara,

Capitalism works as does socialism works under the right conditions. Everyone knows that socialism creates much poverty, but i never seen a lack of pride!

In america you'll see everything go around for money, and noone really cares about a national culture, it's all about target advertisement.

It's basically a system of classes. I believe in the abolishment of classes, but i don't believe in communism!


How is capitalism a system of classes when it makes no difference whatsoever what background you have as long as you're successful?

Sounds like you went to France.


BlindLiberal,

How did you come to that conclusion?

My opinion:
Capitalism is slavery (work where I want you to work, how I want it, when I want it or starve to death) and people love being a slave more then anything. The word "freedom" is one of the most overused of all, once living in capitalism say how much they enjoy their freedom, but don´t have a slightest idea of what freedom is. Of course, comparing to fundamentalist dictatorships and socialist countries, capitalism is the "most free", but people are still slaves.
So, What I would say is, talk to people, warn then that they are being used by corporations, but give up trying to "change the world". People don´t want the world to be changed, again, people love to be slaves and they will do anything to continue working mindless forever and ever.

I agree there! And you know what, without a middle class, there is no america. So someone has to be the slave!

Oh, and, honestly saying, it´s preety stupid to live thinking on how would it be on the deathbed, I am against capitalism because on how it force people to live and not how people feel when they die. Actually, if you want to think about it, think more about when you are 30 or 40 years old. And you realized that you lost your youth trying to make money, while, all you did was to help your boss and, how you are on a no-turning point of your life, because, if you stop working, your kids will starve to death, so, the only choice you have is to keep helping your boss who treat you like shit. Compared to that, capitalists on the deathbed are relieved that the suffering is finally coming to an end.

you fail horribly to see the point, which is intriquing for we're on the same side of the issue. The piont:

in the bigger picture, beyond our self-asorbed cosmically insignificant lives on this planet, wealth has no meaning. It's what we've done with our lives and how we'll be remembered (and if there is a god how our lives will measure up to him/her). If wealth truly was the only measuring stick for success - all those bastards in Enron and all those criminals that have worked on wall street and in like instutions that illegally swindle innocent trusting people out of their hard-earned savings woul dbe saints.

Money is not the bottom line - whether the world accepts it or not. I think the world has finally started to get over their infatuation with the U.S. and though it means negative things for them and me (i'm a U.S. citizen) i fully embrace it. The first step in change is to realize it's needed.

Add the word 'some' to the beginning of that last sentence and maybe I'd agree, but you didn't, so I won't. I want the world to change, I don't love being a slave, and I wouldn't care to work mindlessly for even a day let alone forever.

Big surprise.

"People" doesn't necessarily mean everyone. And i want the world to change as well. Or atleast Italia.

I recently took a vacation out if the U.S.

Where to?

I thought I tolerated Captialism

Your post indicates otherwise.

(like i really have an option living in this country OR like others have one living in any nation considered to be developed)

You most certainly do.

but i now find myself loathing it.

Loath it all you want. You are free to either leave or attmpt to change it through agreed upon means (politics).

I'm not sure what i'd replace it with, but i know for sure it isn't the best way.

Good to see you know what you want.

Capitalism has destroyed so many a pure nationality.

:confused: I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.
Whta is a "pure nationality" and how has capitalism destroyed so many?

Has squeezed every ounce of value out of anything it can touch.

Wrong. Capitalism is all about adding value, not removing it.

And has infected/contaminated many a culture.

Assumes capitalism is exclusively a western idea. Wrong again.


It's so contagious, that it's now reworked many a foreign market or economy so that the bigger picture is wealth and not well-being.

:confused: Are you again trying to say capitalism is exclusively a western idea? And it seems your condemning it for being common and popular. WTF?

I fear that such an infection of our world by this insidious device will only lead to destruction, war and social collapse.

Unlike pre-capitalist society? Oops, that was all about destruction, war and social collapse.

Can it be modified to start fixing world economy?

It is doing so as you read this, without modification.

Can it be overhauled to benefit humankind both today and tomorow?

It does not need to be overhauled. It benifits humankind more greatly than any other system, as is.

Can it ever mean a level approach to all pertinent issues facing the world (environment, the poor and helpless, peace)?

Yes. Just free it of government restriction.

[quotr]Really, in the end, when we're all on our deathbeds, does it matter how much money we have or have made? can we take it with us? Will it make our deaths better/easier for our loved ones?

Nope. But theft and restriction via anti-capitalism deminish all of our lives.

BOOOYAHHH!!

He shoots, he scores!

Why is that all that person says?

Oh, and, honestly saying, it´s preety stupid to live thinking on how would it be on the deathbed, I am against capitalism because on how it force people to live and not how people feel when they die. Actually, if you want to think about it, think more about when you are 30 or 40 years old. And you realized that you lost your youth trying to make money, while, all you did was to help your boss and, how you are on a no-turning point of your life, because, if you stop working, your kids will starve to death, so, the only choice you have is to keep helping your boss who treat you like shit. Compared to that, capitalists on the deathbed are relieved that the suffering is finally coming to an end.

Well, you could just find another job.

I recently took a vacation out if the U.S. I thought I tolerated Captialism (like i really have an option living in this country OR like others have one living in any nation considered to be developed) but i now find myself loathing it.
I'm not sure what i'd replace it with, but i know for sure it isn't the best way.
Capitalism has destroyed so many a pure nationality. Has squeezed every ounce of value out of anything it can touch. And has infected/contaminated many a culture. It's so contagious, that it's now reworked many a foreign market or economy so that the bigger picture is wealth and not well-being.
I fear that such an infection of our world by this insidious device will only lead to destruction, war and social collapse.


Capitalism has made the world a smaller place. Why is that a bad thing? In fact it is a positive thing that our economies are interconnected- it provides incentive for us to resolve disputes amicably. What in the hell is a "pure nationality"? Germany still looks like Germany...the US like the US....the UK like the UK. If you're talking about developing nations, your argument seems quite neo-Luddite.

Dear Lord,
Please Strike down this poor individual and spare him another minute of this increasingly difficult insanity that is his life.
Thanks
You are an idiot man, should we go to communism maybe we should breed poverty in our streets through equality. Competition creates better products higher quality and quantity


and competition on a global scale, amongst extremely unfair palying grounds equates to MONOPOLY. you know the reason why the British empire fell.
global Equality coupled with the abolishment of currency would mean what?

It would mean we'd actually have to better oursleves and help others for their would be nothing else to distinguish oursleves from. Damn, that woud be a tragedy wouldn't it?

You are an idiot man, should we go to communism maybe we should breed poverty in our streets through equality. Competition creates better products higher quality and quantity

Your country is doing an exceptionally effective job at breeding poverty in your streets through inequality already. Why change now?

Competition does not necessarily create 'better' products, but it certainly creates more products. In many cases, competition creates far more products than'll ever be needed or wanted. And as for producing 'higher quality' products, I'll further disagree. Competition encourages the production of 'lesser quality' products to capture less-afluent markets, thus ensuring market saturation.

Capitalism, in its purest form, makes you a slave to the market. Socialism and communism make you slaves to the state. The difference is that the market has its ups and downs and therefore offers a chance for improvement, whereas statism almost always produces a status quo that is mediocre at best.

True. Though communism as appears in text as a utopia has never existed. That goes for socialism as well. Everything looks good on text, but doesn't always work out in the reality.

You are an idiot man

He's an idiot for having a valid opinion? Interesting.

Show me any alternative that would up the quality of life for americans and I will suck your **** and give you an hour to draw a crowd

A proper roman structure centralized from Roma.

Is US THAT capitalist?

Their capitalistic, yes, but not to the point of lasseiz-Faire (mind my crappy spelling).

And I guess ppl living in Europe would say that of US, and US would say the same back to Europe for being too socialist.

Come to a second and third world country where the country is unable to sustain itself, I believe it's even worse when it comes to materialism, not because the government won't feed you, the government CAN'T to feed you.

No system is perfect however.

But I guess US still being the largest economic superpower does have to say for something for the way it's running.

No one told me where to work, I found and got a job myself. It's hardly slavery if you agree to it, and it's not like the only other choices are starving to death. There are other jobs locally, and if not locally than elsewhere, because one of the great things about capitalism is the variety of work opportunities.

What do you do?

Capitalism is not merely all persons in society seeking material wealth. The main tenets of capitalism is that all people work toward their own well-being whatever they believe that to be. The fact is that most people like money so they work hard to get a lot of it. Then once they have money they use it to buy a nicer house, pay for their kids' education, play a round of golf... or whatever else they want to do. Nobody is forced to do anything. Another problem with any conclusions that you are drawing is that no nation is truly capitalist (except in NationStates where Oraas sure is). So all the problems you cite with "capitalism" may be the ineffective attempts by government to alter true capitalism.

Pure capitalism sets prices (both for goods and labor) by supply and demand. Any deviation, via government interaction, inserts the arbitrary will of bureaucrats and politicians into the market. The government takes from those it deems decadent and gives to those it deems needy. This seems nice and philanthropic but I assert that government has neither the right nor the competence to make any such judgment.

If you want to talk about capitalism being slavery then I put forth:
What ended feudalism and monarialism? Capitalism!
What ended mercantilism? Capitalism!
What ended institutional slavery? Capitalism!

These were all impediments to the markets grasp, so they were torn down, pushing back the limits of prosperity and extending freedom and prosperity to many more. But the work is far from over, the welfare state infects so many nations across the world. Only when we tear down all the barriers to free-market capitalism will you see the full power of the market as it elevates all, rich and poor.

That's socialism, dude.

It is? Never seen the majority of cuba loving their lives!

No one told me where to work, I found and got a job myself. It's hardly slavery if you agree to it, and it's not like the only other choices are starving to death. There are other jobs locally, and if not locally than elsewhere, because one of the great things about capitalism is the variety of work opportunities.

A variety? That's if you've graduated high school and college. that's if you had a fair shake at decent living. That's if you grew up in a place that enabled you to make a living based on the american/ideal dream.
I guess your going to argue now that everyone in poverty is there by their own accord right? that anyone not able to make 40,000 a year plus chose their own destiny. that kids of crack addicts and alcoholics and domestic abuse chose thier parents and thus chose their own bleak living envrionments.

Step outside your nice urban neighborhood that Mom and Dad had no other choice but to buy into Capitalistic trends to afford a house in and actually do some research. Not everyone is dealt a fair hand and thus has a fair shake at obtaining wealth. Let's be realistic shall we - not everyone chooses their own destiny - sometimes, even rich white kids get shitty deals in life and thus spend the rest of theirs trying to fix.

step outside the fenced in protected community of Southern Florida and take a look around and life on a larger scale - it's called base reality.

Your country is doing an exceptionally effective job at breeding poverty in your streets through inequality already. Why change now?

Competition does not necessarily create 'better' products, but it certainly creates more products. In many cases, competition creates far more products than'll ever be needed or wanted. And as for producing 'higher quality' products, I'll further disagree. Competition encourages the production of 'lesser quality' products to capture less-afluent markets, thus ensuring market saturation.

In capitalism, if something is produced that is not wanted by the consumers, then the company fails. The whole idea of Free Market is that it creates just what the consumer wants.

How is capitalism a system of classes when it makes no difference whatsoever what background you have as long as you're successful?

Well, you have the bums on the street (Lowest Class), People just making ends meat (Middle Class) and those who are comfortable (Upper Class). The rest are too wealthy!

In capitalism, if something is produced that is not wanted by the consumers, then the company fails. The whole idea of Free Market is that it creates just what the consumer wants.

It also creates artificial and unnecessary "need" in order to expand as well.

It is? Never seen the majority of cuba loving their lives!

I was talking about slavery, and the "They tell you where, when and how to work" line. I don't like Cuba, I don't like slavery and I don't like socialism :)

It also creates artificial and unnecessary "need" in order to expand as well.

Yes, an "artificial" and "unnecessary" need *that the consumer requests*.

No matter how artificial and unnecessary you may think it is, if it's there, it means that there's a market for it.

you fail horribly to see the point, which is intriquing for we're on the same side of the issue. The piont:

in the bigger picture, beyond our self-asorbed cosmically insignificant lives on this planet, wealth has no meaning. It's what we've done with our lives and how we'll be remembered (and if there is a god how our lives will measure up to him/her). If wealth truly was the only measuring stick for success - all those bastards in Enron and all those criminals that have worked on wall street and in like instutions that illegally swindle innocent trusting people out of their hard-earned savings woul dbe saints.

Money is not the bottom line - whether the world accepts it or not. I think the world has finally started to get over their infatuation with the U.S. and though it means negative things for them and me (i'm a U.S. citizen) i fully embrace it. The first step in change is to realize it's needed.

I agree. What About an extensive system of barter? A PS2 for an XBOX!

I was talking about slavery, and the "They tell you where, when and how to work" line. I don't like Cuba, I don't like slavery and I don't like socialism :)

Oh please. You mean to say that everyone in a capitalist society is happy with their work and has the option to switch jobs?

Well, you have the bums on the street (Lowest Class), People just making ends meat (Middle Class) and those who are comfortable (Upper Class). The rest are too wealthy!

And all are free to get a job, be successful in what they do and grow in the system. Of course it's harder if you don't have much money, but it's not impossible.

I agree. What About an extensive system of barter? A PS2 for an XBOX!

Nope. At least 2 PS2 for an XBOX :p

Yes, an "artificial" and "unnecessary" need *that the consumer requests*.

No matter how artificial and unnecessary you may think it is, if it's there, it means that there's a market for it.

Yes, and thats a fundamental flaw behind it. It forces people to want things that they don't need, in itself a form of invisible economic slavery.

Capitalism has made the world a smaller place. Why is that a bad thing? In fact it is a positive thing that our economies are interconnected- it provides incentive for us to resolve disputes amicably. What in the hell is a "pure nationality"? Germany still looks like Germany...the US like the US....the UK like the UK. If you're talking about developing nations, your argument seems quite neo-Luddite.

So you're an internationalist?

Oh please. You mean to say that everyone in a capitalist society is happy with their work and has the option to switch jobs?

Everyone has the option to leave their job and try something else, yes.

Yes, and thats a fundamental flaw behind it. It forces people to want things that they don't need, in itself a form of invisible economic slavery.

I disagree :D

And all are free to get a job, be successful in what they do and grow in the system. Of course it's harder if you don't have much money, but it's not impossible.

If you look at it from a certain point of view, communism offers to ensure the greatest number of rights to the citizens. Citizens have the right to housing, healthcare, education, employment, national identity, etc.

Nope. But theft and restriction via anti-capitalism deminish all of our lives.

it's interesting to read someone respond to points in a post with 3 worders. i'd respond in a simialr fashion, but it lacks readability and original content.

How does it take value? - by robbing the values of the culture and it's importance and replacing it with superficial material value. Really, if you can't see that then you're not at all aware of the human condition nor sympathetic to it's less fortunates (screw 'em right? they're making me richer)

All those one-liner responses remind me of a kid tryign to refute an argument:

Uhh-unnn, my idea is better because i think the opposite.

Oh please. You mean to say that everyone in a capitalist society is happy with their work and has the option to switch jobs?


I don't think anyone is saying that everyone is "happy in their jobs" in a capitalist society. Capitalism does ensure that upward mobility is and remains an option. You can choose to have a better job at any time you want, you just have to be willing to make serious sacrifices if necessary to get where you want to go.

If you look at it from a certain point of view, communism offers to ensure the greatest number of rights to the citizens. Citizens have the right to housing, healthcare, education, employment, national identity, etc.

But they're not free.

The government tells you where to live, what to do for a "living", who you ARE.

Everyone has the option to leave their job and try something else, yes.

No, that's incorrect.

People who are unhappy with their work often cannot leave because they know that they are likely to face economic hardship and have great difficulty finding further employment due to age, education restrictions, etc.

Or, of course, they could change and get a lower paying manual labor job, and struggle through that.

It isn't a happy-do-whatever-you-want-you're-guaranteed-to-suceed paradise.

A variety? That's if you've graduated high school and college. that's if you had a fair shake at decent living. That's if you grew up in a place that enabled you to make a living based on the american/ideal dream.
I guess your going to argue now that everyone in poverty is there by their own accord right? that anyone not able to make 40,000 a year plus chose their own destiny. that kids of crack addicts and alcoholics and domestic abuse chose thier parents and thus chose their own bleak living envrionments.

Step outside your nice urban neighborhood that Mom and Dad had no other choice but to buy into Capitalistic trends to afford a house in and actually do some research. Not everyone is dealt a fair hand and thus has a fair shake at obtaining wealth. Let's be realistic shall we - not everyone chooses their own destiny - sometimes, even rich white kids get shitty deals in life and thus spend the rest of theirs trying to fix.

step outside the fenced in protected community of Southern Florida and take a look around and life on a larger scale - it's called base reality.

Calm down Karl Marx. No one denies that those who are in born in unfortuante circumstances have a much harder road to prosperity than others. But it is possible, many have found their way through hard work and dedication. The fact is that every society at all times in history has had an underclass. And it is certainly possible that the poor of society may have it better off in socialism than capitalism. But is that worth the price? Capitalism offers a way out through hard work... socialism offers a way out through welfar. Capitalism rewards those who contribute to the welfare of society giving all citizens the incentive to produce... socialism refuses to reward these people as it would create inequality. Capitalism allows all people, rich and poor, to work where they wish, keep the money that they earn and buy whatever they wish for their consumption... socialism takes the money that is earned so that equality can be enforced and then the economy is wrought with shortages and misallocations of resources due to misrepresentative prices.

Remember, utopia would be nice but it's not an option so I'll take capitalism as the next best thing.

In capitalism, if something is produced that is not wanted by the consumers, then the company fails. The whole idea of Free Market is that it creates just what the consumer wants.

Yes, I understand the 'whole idea' of the 'Free Market' - but do you understand that because of the 'Free Market' we're going to be living knee-deep in disposable ballpoint pens, discarded lunch-boxes, and every other form of consumer junk that's been mass-produced not just by big corporations, but by all the samll players as well?

Haven't you ever wondered where all the failed consumer items end up once they've passed out of the remainder bins?

No, that's incorrect.

People who are unhappy with their work often cannot leave because they know that they are likely to face economic hardship and have great difficulty finding further employment due to age, education restrictions, etc.

Or, of course, they could change and get a lower paying manual labor job, and struggle through that.

It isn't a happy-do-whatever-you-want-you're-guaranteed-to-suceed paradise.

They still have the option... and capitalism is not a guarantee but at least there's hope of prosperity. In socialism, it's illegal to be rich.

Capitalism has made the world a smaller place. Why is that a bad thing? In fact it is a positive thing that our economies are interconnected- it provides incentive for us to resolve disputes amicably. What in the hell is a "pure nationality"? Germany still looks like Germany...the US like the US....the UK like the UK. If you're talking about developing nations, your argument seems quite neo-Luddite.


That would be good if indeed in prompted PEACEFUL resolution of indifference - but as the U.S. has demonstarted, it's not always the case

ALSO, i think folks are misreading the original statement "MANY a pure nationality"

it means when Capitalism is introduced to an unwanting nationality through tastes of what it COULD mean. the TASTES are called tourism - before long it spreads outwards with the shallow promises of prosperity for all when it only benefits the sowers of the seeds - all others are left barely treading above the surface of survival.

Yes, and thats a fundamental flaw behind it. It forces people to want things that they don't need, in itself a form of invisible economic slavery.

And not so 'invisible', really. It's the 21st century. Have we really honestly become a global culture of people selling useless crap to each other? Is this what we all really want from the 3rd millenium?

Maybe it's not too late for me to find a decent-sized cave to go live in...

How does it take value? - by robbing the values of the culture and it's importance and replacing it with superficial material value

How does capitalism "rob the values of culture and its imporatnce"? Here's a newsflash: people who value their culture retain cultural traditions, people who do not adapt the traditions of other cultures. They have the option. People who value the material are allowed to pursue it. I seen nothing wrong with the option.



Really, if you can't see that then you're not at all aware of the human condition nor sympathetic to it's less fortunates (screw 'em right? they're making me richer)

What you're saying here is that if we don't see things the way you do, well we're just ignorant or callous. Niether happens to be the case.

Yes, I understand the 'whole idea' of the 'Free Market' - but do you understand that because of the 'Free Market' we're going to be living knee-deep in disposable ballpoint pens, discarded lunch-boxes, and every other form of consumer junk that's been mass-produced not just by big corporations, but by all the samll players as well?

Haven't you ever wondered where all the failed consumer items end up once they've passed out of the remainder bins?

But in any other system, you would have like one kind of pen, one kind of lunch box, ... And you wouldn't be able to choose.
I'd rather have hundreds of different kinds of junk than nothing to choose from at all.

They still have the option... and capitalism is not a guarantee but at least there's hope of prosperity. In socialism, it's illegal to be rich.

The "option" to move from a clerk to become a janitor for example i'm sure would still exist under socialism ;)

Anyway, there is hope of prosperity under a socialist system as well, but it is simply evenly distributed so that everyone has a share. It's a stereotype to assume that because socialism hasn't worked out and become prosperous in undeveloped nations that it wouldn't in an advanced industrial society.

It's a stereotype to assume that because socialism hasn't worked out and become prosperous in undeveloped nations that it wouldn't in an advanced industrial society.

Kinda risky you think? If it can't work small, would it work big?

But in any other system, you would have like one kind of pen, one kind of lunch box, ... And you wouldn't be able to choose.
I'd rather have hundreds of different kinds of junk than nothing to choose from at all.

Why? No offence, but that's an odd attitude given the context- A lunchbox is a lunchbox...right?

Socialism works.
The USSR rocked.
Capitalist Russia sucks.
Those who are about to bump Stalin can go away. They don't know what WW2 was.

Why? No offence, but that's an odd attitude given the context- A lunchbox is a lunchbox...right?

How about shoes? T-shirts? Pants? :D

Why? No offence, but that's an odd attitude given the context- A lunchbox is a lunchbox...right?

Because Lunchbox A is cheap but bad quality, Lunchbox B is a little more expensive but it won't break, Lunchbox C has a picture of Ali G on it, ...
It's nice to have a choice :)

If you look at it from a certain point of view, communism offers to ensure the greatest number of rights to the citizens. Citizens have the right to housing, healthcare, education, employment, national identity, etc.

Who says those are rights!?!? If housing is a "right" then someone must be forced to build your house. If employment is a "right" then someone must be forced to employ you. In capitalism, you have to earn your living. The only thing you're entitled to is the right to live your life, the right do what you want in your life (right to liberty) and the right to keep what you earn with your life (right to property). Note, these rights to not depend on anyone else, but only enforce your ownership of what is yours!

Everyone has the option to leave their job and try something else, yes.

stll using all the muscles except the one that counts eh? Not evryone is qualified to leave their present jobs and try something new - nor could they afford to retrain for a new job.
Remember that not everyone had a cake upbringing. Are you going to hold the baby born to a crack addict mom or alcoholic dad in poverty accountable for their upbringing in failure? That's right, you don't care about those things 'cause you've been there and done that. you know how EASY it is to recover from such situations especially when you've never known a better way because you've always lived in the wrong way.

Please - get realisitic. you can't go through life deniyign others realities because you deem them illegitmate reasons for failure/poverty.

Kinda risky you think? If it can't work small, would it work big?

Not necessarily. If you have a look, the only non-industrial democracy to survive through the past 50 years has been India- following a somewhat leftist economic viewpoint, but that's not my point. Poor nations have a hard time adjusting to that kind of system and have to compromise, exemplified by the NEP undertaken by Lenin in the USSR. This slides them into dictatorship and inevitably corruption. A poor nation can't really hold socialism in place (though they can modify capitalism to make it less harsh for their citizens). I think Socialism needs to come after a society is industrial, as did most thinkers on the subject (Marx, for example).

Socialism works.
The USSR rocked.
Capitalist Russia sucks.
Those who are about to bump Stalin can go away. They don't know what WW2 was.

WHAT!?!?!?

Did you live in the USSR!? They were plagued with shortages, in things that were essential to life like soap, bread, etc. Russia is most certainly NOT capitalist today. And Stalin killed more of his citizens than Hitler.

But in any other system, you would have like one kind of pen, one kind of lunch box, ... And you wouldn't be able to choose.
I'd rather have hundreds of different kinds of junk than nothing to choose from at all.

Sorry, but I don't need to waste my time choosing between hundreds of different kinds of junk. Like I don't want to have to spend time researching who'll give me the best pricing scheme for cel phone use, or picking my way through endless shelves of grocery items to buy a loaf of bread. My time is more valuable to me than it is to some faceless marketing firm, and I resent the Hell out of a situation where some well-heeled SOBs indirectly end up monopolizing my time and energy.

Guess what? I didn't have a problem with there being only one phone company. I never wanted supermarkets the size of airport hangars. Apparently the sort of people who were terribly unhappy not being able to absolutely micro-manage every aspect of their daily lives have insinuated themselves so as to warp the fabric of our society. FEH. Feh, I say.

Feh.

How about shoes? T-shirts? Pants? :D

Oh please, even the USSR had a choice of clothing types, not everyone wore the same thing contrary to popular belief.

Because Lunchbox A is cheap but bad quality, Lunchbox B is a little more expensive but it won't break, Lunchbox C has a picture of Ali G on it, ...
It's nice to have a choice :)

Ah, but with less resources wasted, Lunchbox B would be the same price as Lunchbox A, therefore making that choice redundant. Lunchbox C...well...you can take the picture and stick it on with tape to Lunchbox B. There ya go. :D

The "option" to move from a clerk to become a janitor for example i'm sure would still exist under socialism ;)

Anyway, there is hope of prosperity under a socialist system as well, but it is simply evenly distributed so that everyone has a share. It's a stereotype to assume that because socialism hasn't worked out and become prosperous in undeveloped nations that it wouldn't in an advanced industrial society.

Okay, so to become prosperous in socialism I have to work hard enough so that everyone in the entire nation becomes prosperous. Sounds like I'd rather just sit on my ass and get my entitlment check. Wait, that's what happens in socialism!! Everyone sits on their ass, nothing gets done, the economy tanks and everyone's poor... that's so much better than capitalism!

stll using all the muscles except the one that counts eh? Not evryone is qualified to leave their present jobs and try something new - nor could they afford to retrain for a new job.
Remember that not everyone had a cake upbringing. Are you going to hold the baby born to a crack addict mom or alcoholic dad in poverty accountable for their upbringing in failure? That's right, you don't care about those things 'cause you've been there and done that. you know how EASY it is to recover from such situations especially when you've never known a better way because you've always lived in the wrong way.

Please - get realisitic. you can't go through life deniyign others realities because you deem them illegitmate reasons for failure/poverty.

Sad but true. I guess all middle americans have crack whores as moms and alcohols as dads. :D *cough Eminem Cough*

WHAT!?!?!?

Did you live in the USSR!? They were plagued with shortages, in things that were essential to life like soap, bread, etc. Russia is most certainly NOT capitalist today. And Stalin killed more of his citizens than Hitler.
And here we go.
Stalin ended WW2 and took Berlin. He rebuilded the country who suffered the war the most and made it a superpower. People were killed by Stalin because the country was at war. People have been killed by Bush as well. This is what war is about. Don't put Stalin as an argument against socialism, but against war. Thanks.

The USSR rocked. If you want to talk about food shortage, talk about Uzbekistan after the fall of the USSR, or the current mafia-driven capitalist Russia.

Okay, so to become prosperous in socialism I have to work hard enough so that everyone in the entire nation becomes prosperous. Sounds like I'd rather just sit on my ass and get my entitlment check. Wait, that's what happens in socialism!! Everyone sits on their ass, nothing gets done, the economy tanks and everyone's poor... that's so much better than capitalism!

No, because the majority of "socialist" nations have simply been dictatorships that spend masses upon their militaries and deliberately impoverish their people.

The other contemporaries, like the popular examples of the Scandinavian nations (while not 100% socialist) routinely score extremely high results on standard of living indicators and have high GNP's- making your assumption that everyone is poor flawed.

capitilism is NOT a bad system.but no goverment is truly capitilistic.for them to be so would require extensive restructureing of society,which the conservitive fools will never accept.wanna know what the biggest impediment to capitilism is?
family.
we favor our familys even if they havent earned it.we give our children all the wealth we earned which they didnt.and that my friends is feudilism.
no for capitilism to work,it needs to destroy the concept of inheritence and raiseing your own children.once every child has the exact same start,and can never get ahead just because of blood,THEN capitilism will work.

Calm down Karl Marx. No one denies that those who are in born in unfortuante circumstances have a much harder road to prosperity than others. But it is possible, many have found their way through hard work and dedication. The fact is that every society at all times in history has had an underclass. And it is certainly possible that the poor of society may have it better off in socialism than capitalism. But is that worth the price? Capitalism offers a way out through hard work... socialism offers a way out through welfar. Capitalism rewards those who contribute to the welfare of society giving all citizens the incentive to produce... socialism refuses to reward these people as it would create inequality. Capitalism allows all people, rich and poor, to work where they wish, keep the money that they earn and buy whatever they wish for their consumption... socialism takes the money that is earned so that equality can be enforced and then the economy is wrought with shortages and misallocations of resources due to misrepresentative prices.

Remember, utopia would be nice but it's not an option so I'll take capitalism as the next best thing.


Woa! way too many assumptions there bud. The poor don't just decide to overcome poverty or the shitty situation they've grown up in. They have to first realize what's wrong and then have the will power enough to find a way to change it. That means someone or something has to get through to them - the percentage of those figuring out for themselves what's going on and how to make it better is minute. That's why we have welfare and have made it what it is today - to help those who have figured out the better way and need help to get there.
Capitalism enables rich and por alike to keep their income and spend it where they like? Hmmmm if you're barley making enough to feed your 3 kids and keep the one-bedroom apartment and the fees necessary to take the subway to and from work - then that's not aloowing them to epnd it how they like - it's forcing them to spend it the only way they can to survive.
The system does not benefut anyone besides those successful in it - I.E. those who directly benefit from it.
It takes money to make money don't forget.

stll using all the muscles except the one that counts eh? Not evryone is qualified to leave their present jobs and try something new - nor could they afford to retrain for a new job.
Remember that not everyone had a cake upbringing. Are you going to hold the baby born to a crack addict mom or alcoholic dad in poverty accountable for their upbringing in failure? That's right, you don't care about those things 'cause you've been there and done that. you know how EASY it is to recover from such situations especially when you've never known a better way because you've always lived in the wrong way.

Please - get realisitic. you can't go through life deniyign others realities because you deem them illegitmate reasons for failure/poverty.

For the genuinely unfortunate, there is always private charity, and yes, I believe that DOES work, unlike government funded welfare, which I believe to be organised theft.

In the end we must all accept that we are born and then eventually some time after that, we die. What we put in between is up to us. Turning the whole capitalism or not capitalism question into a debate about life after death (for example the ancient Egyptians did believe that you could take it with you!) serves only to complicate the question.

If you want to look for a better society, then perhaps you should start your quest by reading some philosophy and then maybe some of Karl Marx's works. Better still....think hard and write your own book!

As for me, I also think that raw capitalism broadly speaking, stinks. I do accept that my quality of life has been improved by it (though at the expense of others). I also accept that timely investment in a project or scheme can be beneficial for us all as a species. However, raw capitalism, perhaps taking the mills and factories which were around during Marx's time as an example, serve only the desires of one man. This is the mill owner. Here the workers see little benefit from their many hours of hard labour.

Today, we could take the tobacco companies as another disaster story. They refuted evidence that smoking was bad for many years, allowing people to suffer and die from the addiction. Of course, they got their pay off.

Like yourself, I don't know what the alternative is. Communism has failed in so many places (by degrading into a form of dictatorship). This is not to say that communist ideas are no longer relevant today. Indeed Mark himself never laid out his ideas of what the perfect society would be like. However, this does not mean that we should blindly accept what has been handed down to us. Live, question and above all Think!!

Sorry, but I don't need to waste my time choosing between hundreds of different kinds of junk. Like I don't want to have to spend time researching who'll give me the best pricing scheme for cel phone use, or picking my way through endless shelves of grocery items to buy a loaf of bread. My time is more valuable to me than it is to some faceless marketing firm, and I resent the Hell out of a situation where some well-heeled SOBs indirectly end up monopolizing my time and energy.

So, you want the government to make your decisions for you.. Way to not be a slave.

FEH. Feh, I say.

Feh.

:mad:
FEH

Like yourself, I don't know what the alternative is. Communism has failed in so many places (by degrading into a form of dictatorship).

Thats because in every communist society, the preceding regime was a dictatorship.

So, you want the government to make your decisions for you.. Way to not be a slave.



:mad:
FEH

No, I want the corporations to stop demanding my attention, it doesn't have anything to do with government. I don't want to remain a corporate slave. I want my time spent uselessly comparing consumer crap eliminated.

How does capitalism "rob the values of culture and its imporatnce"? Here's a newsflash: people who value their culture retain cultural traditions, people who do not adapt the traditions of other cultures. They have the option. People who value the material are allowed to pursue it. I seen nothing wrong with the option.





What you're saying here is that if we don't see things the way you do, well we're just ignorant or callous. Niether happens to be the case.


that remains to be seen. Obviously you don't see how, international lumber companies enter a foreign land and wave relatively large amounts of cash infronf of impoverished land owners in return for rights to clear their land (by the way, unbridled clear-cutting IS tremendously detrimental to the surrounding untouched land). And this gives them a foothold and Demo to other locals who are poor. Now faced with the option to be eat and live, let alone be rich, that wasn't there before, chosing to save your culture or rather your countries interests Weighs considerably less.

Keep thinking about your own bottom line - you'll never go to those places. there just unlucky bastards right? I didn't personally have a hand in their regions demise (meanwhile your writing on the very international paper company who did its' loose leaf)

Or was painted as a dictatorship by western capitalist propaganda.

Well, I don't think for a moment that most of them (barring the DPRK) are worse than dictatorial developing capitalist nations, to me, they're still far from ideal. Maybe if Cuba has a democratic election following Castro and another Socialist is elected...that would be sweet.

No, I want the corporations to stop demanding my attention, it doesn't have anything to do with government. I don't want to remain a corporate slave. I want my time spent uselessly comparing consumer crap eliminated.

So who decides what you use then, who decides all that? If it's not the corporations, it's the government.

And you're not a corporate slave, you're a human with free will and freedom of choice.
If there's only one (even if it's "the best" according to them) version of every product, you are a slave of the government who decides absolutely everything for you.

But in any other system, you would have like one kind of pen, one kind of lunch box, ... And you wouldn't be able to choose.
I'd rather have hundreds of different kinds of junk than nothing to choose from at all.


You can be the manager of the Global Waste disposal system than. Don't worry, with th at sort of mindset, you're ensuring your own job security.
We'll send a post card from our new home planet as you manage this garbage dump planet.

Well, I don't think for a moment that most of them (barring the DPRK) are worse than dictatorial developing capitalist nations, to me, they're still far from ideal. Maybe if Cuba has a democratic election following Castro and another Socialist is elected...that would be sweet.
There I agree. It's far from ideal. Anyway, the dictatorship of the capital is worse than the dictatorship of the government.

it's interesting to read someone respond to points in a post with 3 worders. i'd respond in a simialr fashion, but it lacks readability and original content.

:rolleyes:
Seeing as this is an argument that has been run to pieces...

How does it take value? - by robbing the values of the culture and it's importance and replacing it with superficial material value.

You imbue those cultures with a mystical, unrealistic, and unproven anti-capitalism.

Really, if you can't see that then you're not at all aware of the human condition nor sympathetic to it's less fortunates

I am both sympathetic to and aware of the human condition. That's exactly why I don't believe in the theft system you appear to advocate. Don't take what isn't yours is a key element to nearly every ethical system ever existant, except socialism and communism. Those two systems advocate theft. And both are rightly condemned.

(screw 'em right? they're making me richer)

It isn't my responsibility what another person does or fails to do with their opprotunity. How can you hold me responsible for another's actions?

All those one-liner responses remind me of a kid tryign to refute an argument:

Uhh-unnn, my idea is better because i think the opposite.

All this has been argued over repeatedly ad nauseum, and has developed a short hand. If you can't read that yet, stick around and you'll see what I mean.

So who decides what you use then, who decides all that? If it's not the corporations, it's the government.

And you're not a corporate slave, you're a human with free will and freedom of choice.
If there's only one (even if it's "the best" according to them) version of every product, you are a slave of the government who decides absolutely everything for you.

So my freedom to choose amongst thousands of differently-coloured hunks of plastic is a greater freedom than any other?

Who says those are rights!?!? If housing is a "right" then someone must be forced to build your house. If employment is a "right" then someone must be forced to employ you. In capitalism, you have to earn your living. The only thing you're entitled to is the right to live your life, the right do what you want in your life (right to liberty) and the right to keep what you earn with your life (right to property). Note, these rights to not depend on anyone else, but only enforce your ownership of what is yours!


Uhhh - where is it written that housebuilders would be forced to build houses?

When Socialism is the elected method of governing - no one is ofrced to do anything. Plus those same housebuilders - don't have to worry about losing their jobs due to bad economy/markets. they also don't have to pay for the materials. they're also not responsbile for upkeep or warranty guarantees.

Socialism has worked on smaller scales. when it stopped working is when officials became tainted and influenced by capitalism and thus desired and preceeded to accrue wealth.

a philosophy is only as good as those who enact it. However noble it seems, it can only achieve the amount of nobility it's procurers invest.

No economic system will work perfectly so long as there are greedy people bent on manipulating the system for their own benifit. Free market capitalism would have to be my favorite model though. With hard work and a little luck there is no limit to what you can accomplish under this system.

Okay, so to become prosperous in socialism I have to work hard enough so that everyone in the entire nation becomes prosperous. Sounds like I'd rather just sit on my ass and get my entitlment check. Wait, that's what happens in socialism!! Everyone sits on their ass, nothing gets done, the economy tanks and everyone's poor... that's so much better than capitalism!


Didn't you just ask someone if they lived in the USSR? Well did you?

Poeple still worked. No one sat on their ass bud. If anything. after they worked their 10 hour shift, they wlake don down to the hand out line for free bread and supplies that were in daily shortage (because they were rationed by the government). the food shortages were due to mismangement by the capitalist-infected olegarky and their miscalculated infrastruture demands.

It's east to put off development while you're earning 6 figures a month - do some research first eh?

Sad but true. I guess all middle americans have crack whores as moms and alcohols as dads. :D *cough Eminem Cough*

Not sure what you meant - bu the did work his way out of poverty. How? selling his reality and it's perverse contradiction to the American dream. Now he's rich. Did he realize hsi life sucked? yeah. What did he choose to do about it? Follow in the steps of others and piblically bitch about it. Though profane, it's done more to increase awareness of the sometimes hopeless conditions some our youth face.

First well done for venturing out side the US!
I know no one who thinks capitalism works completely and is the best thing since sliced bread. At the moment and for the fore seeable future its the only alternative. Who wants to live in a communist state? Yes captialism infringes on Human rights,only truely benifits the better off in society. But the poor in society would be in an even worse state if we lived in a communist society. Going on a guy whos name I can't remember suggests that to make a decision like that you must do it from behind a veil of ignorance-you will not know how it will affect you, your race, wealth. health, marital status anything. You can only pick a society that will A-have an imbalance in which there is a 60% chance you will be reasonalbly well off-say middle class and 40% you will be poor. Or B that there will be come out on a more equal stance and the vast majority will be poor, so at least every one will be at the same position and have a fair chance at improvement. However people will still take charge as this model doesn't account for personalities, disasters, vulnerabilities etc.

So A or B?

that remains to be seen.

America is one of the most capitalistic nations in the world, yet the culture of almost every ethnic nationality still thrives here, especially latino and asian cultures. What normally occurs is that ethnic groups retain the portions of their cultures in which they find value, and discard other parts for that of either the foreign or the dominant culture. But either way...it is their choice.

Obviously you don't see how, international lumber companies enter a foreign land and wave relatively large amounts of cash infronf of impoverished land owners in return for rights to clear their land (by the way, unbridled clear-cutting IS tremendously detrimental to the surrounding untouched land). And this gives them a foothold and Demo to other locals who are poor. Now faced with the option to be eat and live, let alone be rich, that wasn't there before, chosing to save your culture or rather your countries interests Weighs considerably less.

Culture isn't necessarily tied to the land, nor is it always preferrable to the foreign culture. There are some ways in which it may be superior and others in which it may be inferior. But either way, those that are directly involved should have the say, not some altruistic but mislead person 10000 miles away.
It sounds like both the landowner and the company are better off in this transaction. Viola! Capitalism.

Keep thinking about your own bottom line - you'll never go to those places. there just unlucky bastards right? I didn't personally have a hand in their regions demise (meanwhile your writing on the very international paper company who did its' loose leaf)

This isn't about the bottom line, this is about two people engaging in a mutually beneficial arrangement. Who is unlucky in the scenario you proposed? I don't see anyone.

So who decides what you use then, who decides all that? If it's not the corporations, it's the government.

And you're not a corporate slave, you're a human with free will and freedom of choice.
If there's only one (even if it's "the best" according to them) version of every product, you are a slave of the government who decides absolutely everything for you.


so then n+2 will always equal 3 right? The variable here represents what you fail to comprehend. You really see it plain and clear that the government would decided what our options would be?

To me, in this scenario, the choice would be accept the default decision or to make your own. All possessions would be issued (perhaps base quality) and then the other option and only choice would be to upgrade with the new item.

:rolleyes:
Seeing as this is an argument that has been run to pieces...



You imbue those cultures with a mystical, unrealistic, and unproven anti-capitalism.



I am both sympathetic to and aware of the human condition. That's exactly why I don't believe in the theft system you appear to advocate. Don't take what isn't yours is a key element to nearly every ethical system ever existant, except socialism and communism. Those two systems advocate theft. And both are rightly condemned.



It isn't my responsibility what another person does or fails to do with their opprotunity. How can you hold me responsible for another's actions?



All this has been argued over repeatedly ad nauseum, and has developed a short hand. If you can't read that yet, stick around and you'll see what I mean.


Your right, charity for those who truly need it, due to their severely disadvantaged upbringings is totally unnecessary right? I mean, who cares if you're parents screwed you up so much that your thought patterns revolve around daily survival - it's your problem not mine so why should i give a damn right? Besides that's one less person consuming valueable minetary resources right?

I don't like using sarcasm but soemtimes it becomes the last resort in tryign to convey the message. Not giving a damn about others and being sel-absorbed enough to discount their realities is certainly a rpized characteristic in Dictatorships.

America is one of the most capitalistic nations in the world, yet the culture of almost every ethnic nationality still thrives here, especially latino and asian cultures. What normally occurs is that ethnic groups retain the portions of their cultures in which they find value, and discard other parts for that of either the foreign or the dominant culture. But either way...it is their choice.



Culture isn't necessarily tied to the land, nor is it always preferrable to the foreign culture. There are some ways in which it may be superior and others in which it may be inferior. But either way, those that are directly involved should have the say, not some altruistic but mislead person 10000 miles away.
It sounds like both the landowner and the company are better off in this transaction. Viola! Capitalism.



This isn't about the bottom line, this is about two people engaging in a mutually beneficial arrangement. Who is unlucky in the scenario you proposed? I don't see anyone.

WHO?
My god, help me withstand such lack of vision. The unlucky is the future generations that won't have that choice in hand. The future generation that has to deal with that regions decimated forests, polluted streams and rivers, raped econmies and resources. How little forsight material-wealth seekers have. If there wasn't any foresight, America would be one big city (guess what - it's on its way - there's no limits or restrictions in some places as to how much one can develop. If it were unbridled there wouldn't be any land left to regenerate forests. Hell, the Alaskian Wildlife reserve is about to be torn up for what? America to be fractionally less depenedent on foreign oil for what - maybe 50 years. The bigger picture is that we'll jeopardize ruining one of the last pristine places in this country for profit. Then our kids can just read about like the dinosaurs and early American wildernesses - things long since extinct. Blatent lack of civil and social responsibility is not and must become ACCEPATBLE.

We''' be dead soon and then we're bequeathing what to the next generation? Our lifetimes of selfish, self-asorbed, greedy social practices that almost cannot be undone.

My opinion:
Capitalism is slavery (work where I want you to work, how I want it, when I want it or starve to death) and people love being a slave more then anything. The word "freedom" is one of the most overused of all, once living in capitalism say how much they enjoy their freedom, but don´t have a slightest idea of what freedom is. Of course, comparing to fundamentalist dictatorships and socialist countries, capitalism is the "most free", but people are still slaves.
So, What I would say is, talk to people, warn then that they are being used by corporations, but give up trying to "change the world". People don´t want the world to be changed, again, people love to be slaves and they will do anything to continue working mindless forever and ever.


Hahahaha. This is so typical. Its like a class on political attacks in this forum. Since you don't like capitalism, you assigned an untenable opinion or position to capitalists, then relentlessly attacked that idea.

When you say you are only allowed to work where and when and how you are told, are you talking about capitalism or communism? Because that statement is pretty much the complete opposite of the fundamentals of capitalism.


On a side note:


It is a similiar arguement used by gay rights activists(not that I have anything against them). How many times have you heard someone who derides homosexuals is rumored to be gay? That's the first thing out of people's mouths if you say anything against gays.

"Homophobes all have gay tendencies!!!!"

I don't know where this idea came from, but it is an obvious personal attack in a political climate. How can anyone attack homosexuals when they themselves are gay? Yet no one provides research or any attempt at fact finding to back up this assertion.


Anyway, back to the original post: You sir, are an idiot. Just because you think capitalism is wrong does not neccessarily make it so.

And here we go.
Stalin ended WW2 and took Berlin. He rebuilded the country who suffered the war the most and made it a superpower. People were killed by Stalin because the country was at war. People have been killed by Bush as well. This is what war is about. Don't put Stalin as an argument against socialism, but against war. Thanks.

The USSR rocked. If you want to talk about food shortage, talk about Uzbekistan after the fall of the USSR, or the current mafia-driven capitalist Russia.

Wow... WOW!! WOW WOW!!!!!!
See socialists, these are the type of people who agree with you!

But seriously, Stalin wasn't so bad, 11 million people deserved to die, I mean, they questioned the almighty authority of Stalin... that's unthinkable. This man is the king of genecide, killing 8 million Ukrainians (and that's before the war!!)

And once again, Uzbekistan nor Russia is capitalist.

Hahahaha. This is so typical. Its like a class on political attacks in this forum. Since you don't like capitalism, you assigned an untenable opinion or position to capitalists, then relentlessly attacked that idea.

When you say you are only allowed to work where and when and how you are told, are you talking about capitalism or communism? Because that statement is pretty much the complete opposite of the fundamentals of capitalism.


On a side note:


It is a similiar arguement used by gay rights activists(not that I have anything against them). How many times have you heard someone who derides homosexuals is rumored to be gay? That's the first thing out of people's mouths if you say anything against gays.

"Homophobes all have gay tendencies!!!!"

I don't know where this idea came from, but it is an obvious personal attack in a political climate. How can anyone attack homosexuals when they themselves are gay? Yet no one provides research or any attempt at fact finding to back up this assertion.


Anyway, back to the original post: You sir, are an idiot. Just because you think capitalism is wrong does not neccessarily make it so.


That's choice (adejective). You use the Homophobe example to back up your idea.

Just so you know (perhaps you should referesh your sexuality course asorptions) everyone is born with bisexual tendancies. it's our parents that form our preferences based on the gender they see us born with. There's a small percentage of scientists out there who will take it a step further and state that there is genetic disposition towards sexuality.

back to the topic, and not lowering myself to the level of personal insult (i.e. name calling), speakibng from an altruistic (that means from a human living for the betterment of all humans) standpoint and with an eye on the future and our ability to live on this planet, you dear sir would have us Living in sess pools. ANY political device that endorse and promotes excessive production and needless consumption, will ulimately bring about environmental ruin which is accompanied by civil unrest and eventually dire demand for others necessities. SO what happens when there's nothing left to trade/sell/barter? When all that's left we own and are not willing to give up?

WAR my freinds. The present disguised malfunctioning state of Capitalism will drive mass consumerism to new heights whci in turn will drive accelerated consumption of unrenewable resources past replacement with working alternatives. At this point of desperation, World War is asioudously around the corner.

Your right, charity for those who truly need it, due to their severely disadvantaged upbringings is totally unnecessary right? I mean, who cares if you're parents screwed you up so much that your thought patterns revolve around daily survival - it's your problem not mine so why should i give a damn right? Besides that's one less person consuming valueable minetary resources right?

I don't like using sarcasm but soemtimes it becomes the last resort in tryign to convey the message. Not giving a damn about others and being sel-absorbed enough to discount their realities is certainly a rpized characteristic in Dictatorships.

I agree that there are people in unfortunate circumstances but as I stated earlier the government has neither the right nor the competence to take my money to change their circumstances. I have donated my time and my money to charities which help feed those who cannot feed themselves. This is everyone's option in capitalism and in the US billions of dollars are donated every year. The government taking what others have rightfully earned against their will is not the answer.

First well done for venturing out side the US!
I know no one who thinks capitalism works completely and is the best thing since sliced bread.

You don't? We should meet

Uhhh - where is it written that housebuilders would be forced to build houses?

When Socialism is the elected method of governing - no one is ofrced to do anything. Plus those same housebuilders - don't have to worry about losing their jobs due to bad economy/markets. they also don't have to pay for the materials. they're also not responsbile for upkeep or warranty guarantees.

Socialism has worked on smaller scales. when it stopped working is when officials became tainted and influenced by capitalism and thus desired and preceeded to accrue wealth.

a philosophy is only as good as those who enact it. However noble it seems, it can only achieve the amount of nobility it's procurers invest.

Who's paying for all this!? The tax dollars are taken from those who are FORCED to pay for your house!! Someone has to be forced, and that is where freedom breaks down in socialism. And since they don't have to worry about a bad economy or upkeep or warranty guarantees, they don't have to worry so they can do a half-assed job... all the time cause what the hell does it matter!!

No, because the majority of "socialist" nations have simply been dictatorships that spend masses upon their militaries and deliberately impoverish their people.

The other contemporaries, like the popular examples of the Scandinavian nations (while not 100% socialist) routinely score extremely high results on standard of living indicators and have high GNP's- making your assumption that everyone is poor flawed.

First off, Scandanavia has been blessed with tremendous natural resources and second their per capita GDP is far below that of the US

The system does not benefut anyone besides those successful in it - I.E. those who directly benefit from it.
It takes money to make money don't forget.

First off, "The system does not benefut anyone besides those successful in it" is a tautology and the point is that many more are successful in capitalism than socialism because they have incentives to be more successful. In socialism I have little or no incentive to work harder. Secondly, it absolutely does not take money to make money. Working at McDonald's requires no money but does make money. I freely admit that there are people who do not succeed in capitalism. There are poor and there are destitute, but that doesn't mean the system is a failure. The standard of living in the US for the average citizen in #1.

Your country is doing an exceptionally effective job at breeding poverty in your streets through inequality already. Why change now?

READ: I am not objective, so take the rest of what I have to say with a grain of salt.


Competition does not necessarily create 'better' products, but it certainly creates more products.

I agree. Competition does not necessarily create better products, but it does create more desirable products. Capitalism in its purest sense is completely non-judgmental. If people are willing to buy crap, then companies will make crap. Just look at the Chia-Pet.

In many cases, competition creates far more products than'll ever be needed or wanted.


While this may be true in the short term (due to incomplete or incorrect information), nothing could be further from the truth in the intermediate and long term. It may create far more products than YOU will ever need or want, but if there was not a demand for the product, what company in their right mind would continue to make it?

And as for producing 'higher quality' products, I'll further disagree. Competition encourages the production of 'lesser quality' products to capture less-afluent markets, thus ensuring market saturation.

I can only assume you tried to slip this one by us, hoping we would not actually think about what you were saying. Following this argument to its logical conclusion, poor people prefer an inferior product over a superior product.


The bottom line is, capitalism is the most efficient way of distributing goods and services. I am happy to entertain any objections, but please try to make your argument at least semi-coherent.

First off, Scandanavia has been blessed with tremendous natural resources and second their per capita GDP is far below that of the US

Scandanavia is made up of capitalist countries. The rate of taxation is a lot higher than America, but the mode of ownership is basically the same so they are capitalist states. Americans call them socialists because they tax more and spend more on health & education. This is the same reasoning that allows America to be called facist by some, because it spends more on the military and prisons.


BTW - America is blessed with far greater natural resources than the Scandanavian countries.

Who's paying for all this!? The tax dollars are taken from those who are FORCED to pay for your house!! Someone has to be forced, and that is where freedom breaks down in socialism. And since they don't have to worry about a bad economy or upkeep or warranty guarantees, they don't have to worry so they can do a half-assed job... all the time cause what the hell does it matter!!


WHo's being forced when it's elected by the people?
This is how spin is used to twist what ohter say. you've infused the forced part because that's YOUR reference point. You're citing assumptions based on historical failures of the philosophy - the same can be done for - guess what? Capitalism. i'll be back tomorrow - work calls some of us to responsibility.

WHo's being forced when it's elected by the people?


I am. I've never voted for a tax in my life, but I'm still expected to pay them.

READ: I am not objective, so take the rest of what I have to say with a grain of salt.

I am happy to entertain any objections, but please try to make your argument at least semi-coherent.

Oooh, snippy aren't we? Objectivity is theoretical nonsense.

And did I claim to be an expert at distribution schemes? I think not. But no matter how efficiently you deliver Care Bear drinking cups, AFX racing car decals, Olympic Games-packaged silly string, 'Sweating to the Oldies Vol. 24' or the million or so other items crafted to appeal to a passing whim or fancy, all you're ensuring is that more worthless crap is being distributed, consumed, and disposed of.

So capitalism is the most effective means of getting useless crap moved from a boardroom table to your trash can.

Yippee! I feel so happy...! Now if I could just get someone to distribute a rake or shovel so I can dig my house out from under the mounds of full-colour packaging that come with all that useless crap, I'll be an extraordinarily happy camper.

Nothing works. Greed is a part of human nature.

A variety? That's if you've graduated high school and college. that's if you had a fair shake at decent living. That's if you grew up in a place that enabled you to make a living based on the american/ideal dream.

Yeah. Duh.

I suppose YOU will now argue that, in anti-capitalist societies, people can drop out of high school or college, grow up in a place that doesnt allow them to make a living, and don't get "fair shakes," they can still find a variety of employment opportunities?

Please.


I guess your going to argue now that everyone in poverty is there by their own accord right? that anyone not able to make 40,000 a year plus chose their own destiny. that kids of crack addicts and alcoholics and domestic abuse chose thier parents and thus chose their own bleak living envrionments.

Well, no, I wasn't going to argue that.

But everyone has choices they make, and consequences of those choices. Unless you're blind and love to make excuses and blame other people or other belief systems for the unfortunate things in life.


Step outside your nice urban neighborhood that Mom and Dad had no other choice but to buy into Capitalistic trends to afford a house in and actually do some research.

Yeah, just like you? Just like me, you'll say, you were once a naive capitalist living in Mom's basement, but then you visited France and were enlightened about how evil capitalism is, and how much more fair life would be if only we pretended that nothing had value over anything else. How delightfully condescending of you. And wrong. Now go do your ad hominem anticapitalist angst at someone else.


step outside the fenced in protected community of Southern Florida and take a look around and life on a larger scale - it's called base reality.

Why is it everyone who disagrees with you is sheltered and pampered and ignorant? Could it be that actually, we're NOT, and that you just are basically inventing fictional realities to suit your new (anti-capitalist) worldview?

I quite think so.

I recently took a vacation out if the U.S. I thought I tolerated Captialism (like i really have an option living in this country OR like others have one living in any nation considered to be developed) but i now find myself loathing it.
I'm not sure what i'd replace it with, but i know for sure it isn't the best way.
Capitalism has destroyed so many a pure nationality. Has squeezed every ounce of value out of anything it can touch. And has infected/contaminated many a culture. It's so contagious, that it's now reworked many a foreign market or economy so that the bigger picture is wealth and not well-being.
I fear that such an infection of our world by this insidious device will only lead to destruction, war and social collapse.

Can it be modified to start fixing world economy?
Can it be overhauled to benefit humankind both today and tomorow?
Can it ever mean a level approach to all pertinent issues facing the world (environment, the poor and helpless, peace)?

Really, in the end, when we're all on our deathbeds, does it matter how much money we have or have made? can we take it with us? Will it make our deaths better/easier for our loved ones?

Okay, lets take an economic system A.

First, acknowledge that there are a limited resources of something B.

Second, acknowledge that the resources B should go to those most qualified to handle the resources, the C people.

The only way to distinguish the C people from the notC people is by having them compete for the B resources.

So in any economic system A, limited resources need to be distributed by results of a competition. Now, "pure capitalism" as we think of it is pretty much competition with no rules. But as in sports competitions, academic competitions, application competitions (ie. college applications, loan applications, welfare applications, etc.), we are allowed to set rules. And thats the government's function. Okay, lets agree you can't kill your neighbor. Lets sort of agree you can't have a monopoly. Lets agree that your products can't blow up in consumers' faces. So any economic system that works is going to need some competition, the question is finding out the best rules for that competition.

P.S. One of the best ways to help workers out of poverty in the U.S. is to have government run or subsidized child care. I just completed a Sociology project that I will probably post about later. G2g

First off, Scandanavia has been blessed with tremendous natural resources and second their per capita GDP is far below that of the US

I've been through this argument before. Per capita GDP is *NOT* an ideal indicator of standard of living. In it's calculation, often-times it is worked out by a raw exchange rate. Furthermore, the wealth of the USA isn't distributed equally, rather, much of it is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy upper-class. The Scandinavian countries do a better job and as a result are quite likely to have a higher median pay rate. You Can't measure GDP as the sole indicator of standard of living.

Finally, despite all I have said about GDP not mattering as much as you believe, the GDP of Norway is higher than the USA.

EDIT- Oh yeah, and like the USA isn't blessed with tremendous natural resources, is it?

Wow... WOW!! WOW WOW!!!!!!
See socialists, these are the type of people who agree with you!

But seriously, Stalin wasn't so bad, 11 million people deserved to die, I mean, they questioned the almighty authority of Stalin... that's unthinkable. This man is the king of genecide, killing 8 million Ukrainians (and that's before the war!!)

And once again, Uzbekistan nor Russia is capitalist.
bla bla bla. Socialism sucks because Stalin that ... Stalin this ...
Capitalism is great because Bill Gates has a such a big house and life is so good... bla bla bla...
Uzbekistan and Russia are as capitalist as the USA. They are not 100% capitalist but they are more capitalist than they were under the USSR, but they still have social laws like the ban on child labor. Anyway the part of the economy which they privatized did colapse. And they are way worse off than they were under the USSR. The USA is better off that it was under capitalism. Closer to home, look at the UK train system. It was obviously more efficient when it was public. In the USSR it is the same. They were a superpower, they sent the first man in space, they had full employment. Now their combined GDP is about 1/3 of the one of the USSR, they have mass unemployment, sky-rocketting crime rate, a thriving mafia, their once great industries are falling apart in private hands.

I've read enough by Marx and likeminded Marxist authors to understand where he is coming from. In many capitalist nations, there are indeed wide class distinctions. However, what these authors (and probably many of you) fail to realize is that this is less the result of capitalism and more the result of an inadequate legal system.
It is a fact of life that people have varying strengths and weaknesses. This does not mean that positions of power are reserved by default by the wealthy, intelligent elite. Capitalism allows everyone the oportunity to pursue his or her own economic destiny. I could start at the bottom rung of a company, and, years later, find myself running it if I so applied myself. Because it affords everyone this same opportunity, capitalism is in that sense just. Granted, it does not garuntee result, but common sense says that it shouldn't. You wouldn't make Charles Manson head of human resources or Forrest Gump head of accounting because they 'deserve' a job, would you?
Social inequality occurs not when capitalism is advocated, but when it is subverted. Disallowing someone employment solely on the basis of race, gender, faith, culture or sexuality is unjust. Similarly, giving jobs to one's friends or relatives merely because they are friends or relatives is likewise unjust. Discrimination (based on something other than performance) and nepotism are the enemies of capitalism.
When Stokely Carmichael examined black America and saw that many blacks were essentially demoted to the ranks of second-class citizens, he erroneously concluded that this was the result of a capitalist society. In fact, it was not. It was the result of an unjust legal system that categorically excluded blacks from positions of power. Under a free, capitalist system, Stokely Carmichael could have worked himself up to be anything he aspired to be (he was certainly intelligent, charismatic and capable enough) as could have any other black American (contingent upon the effort they apply and the skills they have available to them).
As was the case, however, the system of the 1960's was not free and not just. Because it excluded/denigrated the majority of blacks, Carmichael assumed it to be a white or a pro-white system. Similarly, he viewed its alternative (collectivism) to be black or pro-black (claiming, as he did, that it had its roots in African culture). These systems exist independently of racial or cultural distinction, but that isn't to say that there aren't racial implications.
Many of you who who claim to be in favor of social justice realize that socialism and communism fundamentally unjust. Whereas capitalism requires a pro-freedom government in order to function properly, collectivism requires an anti-freedom/authoritarian government to function properly, whether it is benign (imposing an excessively high tax upon the wealthy) or malignant (abolishing private property and personal rights and freedoms and making one's entire existence dependent on the mercy of the state). Collectivism also promotes, rather than prevents, injustice. By attempting to eliminate class distinctions by penalizing the upper class, everyone is reduced to mediocrity. This deprives the masses of their right to aspire to greatness and basically implies that they are incapable of achieving it by any measure and should thus be greatful for what the government gives them (I don't know about you, but I'd find that pretty insulting). At the same time, a new upper class is created comprised almost entirely of government bureaocrats and power-brokers. Those who are entrusted to represent the public become rich and powerful while the masses (the true public) is held in powerless poverty under them.
The only just application of socialism is when it is enacted democratically. Either the rich must consent to giving up their wealth and status or enough of the population must consent as to make the opposition of the rich irrelevent.
A capitalist system is capable (though not gaurunteed) of functioning with social justice in mind, provided that the legal system surrounding it does not protect the rich (through subsidies, bailouts or favoritism) or exclude the poor (via non-performance based discrimination, degree inflation, etc.). Socialism, by contrast, is unjust by default inasmuch as it dooms the masses to mediocrity and protects the elevated status of its bureaucratic power-brokers.

Vanu-Vanu, I believe you don't fully understand where he is coming from. You talk about equal opportunity, but you fail to realize that capital is inherited. The workers and the owners are two separate classes. If you start at the bottom of the workers, you can climb the worker ladder and end up as CEO, but you will never be the owner, because the owners are not workers and they won't give away their properties. They will parasite the system and get the benefit of your work without contributing.

Vanu-Vanu, I believe you don't fully understand where he is coming from. You talk about equal opportunity, but you fail to realize that capital is inherited. The workers and the owners are two separate classes. If you start at the bottom of the workers, you can climb the worker ladder and end up as CEO, but you will never be the owner, because the owners are not workers and they won't give away their properties. They will parasite the system and get the benefit of your work without contributing.

You can start at the bottom and start your own business, build it up and end up as the owner of a huge multinational concern, and lots of people have done this. Plus anyone who buys shares (and you can buy shares extremely cheaply) is an owner, even if they only own a little bit.

One of the advantages of capitalism is that it isn't very proscriptive, it doesn't have an enormous number of rules. So there can be co-operative companies and employee-owned companies competing in a capitalist economy on equal terms with other companies.

Capitalism isn't the answer to everything though. For some reason, lots of people in the UK want to introduce a market in healthcare. I suspect the reason is lower taxes, but for most people they will have to spend more on healthcare than they currently do in tax to get the same standard of care.

People say that introducing a market into healthcare will make it more efficient and provide a better standard of service for all, as a market makes things more efficient. If this were always true, then everyone who ever bought double glazing in the UK would have bought a top quality service at a low price, and nobody would ever get crap customer service from our privatised utilities.

You can start at the bottom and start your own business, build it up and end up as the owner of a huge multinational concern, and lots of people have done this. Plus anyone who buys shares (and you can buy shares extremely cheaply) is an owner, even if they only own a little bit.
You need the capital to buy shares. If you own 0.0001% of a big corporation, you own nothing, because you have no voice in the administrative board. The man who own the 51% is using your money to further his own goal and you're just lucky if his goal is the same as yours. Investing less than a billion on the share market is no better than betting on a horse race.
The people you talk about who started from nothing and who now own big corporations did not start from nothing. They are all located in the same area. Bill Gates was not born in India, he was born in the richest area in the world. He invested $50 000 from his pocket to buy the DR-DOS and they sold it $1 billion to IBM. He now owns something like 7% of Microsoft. The rest is owned by the banks, which in turn are owned by the big capitalists.
So no, there is no equal opportunity. If you don't have $50 000 at birth and if you live in Angola, you'll be a worker all your life.

People say that introducing a market into healthcare will make it more efficient and provide a better standard of service for all, as a market makes things more efficient. If this were always true, then everyone who ever bought double glazing in the UK would have bought a top quality service at a low price, and nobody would ever get crap customer service from our privatised utilities.
Look no further than the train system to see how privatization of big industries work.

If you don't like capitalism, leave my country.

Seriously. If you're going to sit here and whine because you have the right to own private property, you're a fucking shallow jack off who will always be controlled because he's too timid to make his own decisions. That, or you're this whacko activist liberal student who's still in or are just graduating from college, and are therefore forcefed this propagandic bullshit from your professor which you readily parrot because it's the only opinion you know of that isn't your parents'.

And afterall, PROFESSORS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT, RIGHT?!?!?!?!

Seriously, how can someone be so fucking stupid as to say "Hmm, you know, I don't want to be allowed to own something I worked for...government, please take it away from me, it's infecting society with a horrible virus if I'm allowed to own things I earn!"

You down trodden, psychopaths.

Be happy with capitalism. If only you actually learned something from your fucking books and saw what communism can and does do to people. If you don't like it, move to Cuba.

I am. I've never voted for a tax in my life, but I'm still expected to pay them.

How narrow-minded a notion. Without taxes, you'd be driving your Car (BMW is it?) on freaking dirt roads - be digging holes in your backyard to dispose of your feces, watse, food matter. Be driving to the nearest river to get water (and then of course spend time decontaminating it enough to consume).

Wake-up - without taxes we'd be in a far worse situation than the had in the dark ages when sewage ran down the middle of the streets and disease was everywhere. Not to mention we'd see the elderly discarded and left to die - wait people wouldn't grow old because their wouldn't be medicine to sustain health in a disease ridden world.

Thank the gods taxes are imposed, if they weren't we'd be in a big sess pool.

If you don't like capitalism, leave my country.

Seriously. If you're going to sit here and whine because you have the right to own private property, you're a fucking shallow jack off who will always be controlled because he's too timid to make his own decisions. That, or you're this whacko activist liberal student who's still in or are just graduating from college, and are therefore forcefed this propagandic bullshit from your professor which you readily parrot because it's the only opinion you know of that isn't your parents'.

And afterall, PROFESSORS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT, RIGHT?!?!?!?!

Seriously, how can someone be so fucking stupid as to say "Hmm, you know, I don't want to be allowed to own something I worked for...government, please take it away from me, it's infecting society with a horrible virus if I'm allowed to own things I earn!"

You down trodden, psychopaths.

Be happy with capitalism. If only you actually learned something from your fucking books and saw what communism can and does do to people. If you don't like it, move to Cuba.
You are angry because you don't understand. Learn and you will lighten up.
People are not complaining because they are allowed to own things. They are complaining because they are not allowed to own things. their house and their car belong to big banks or to big corporations. They have to pay to use common medecine. They have to pay to move. They have to pay for a license to have access to culture and when they pay, they still don't own the CD they bought, they just have a right to listen to it.
Owning things are ok, but you have to remember that when you own something you are denying the right to own this thing to everybody else. Owning your tooth brush is nice because nobody else is interested in your tooth brush, or your house or your car. This is not the problem. There is a problem when you own a beach and when you deny access to the beach to everybody else, or when you own a patent on fire.

Yeah. Duh.

I suppose YOU will now argue that, in anti-capitalist societies, people can drop out of high school or college, grow up in a place that doesnt allow them to make a living, and don't get "fair shakes," they can still find a variety of employment opportunities?

Please.

SO, if an area/country isn't capiltalist it's anti-capitalist? Please. Nice auto-assumption - you think you would get that by me? The original point you're commenting on is that not everyone can switch jobs like that. You assumption is based on what? Really, what you're doing is making an average and callign it the majority. SO, the average kid/person having grown up in the average household, having access to the average amenities could change careers - true. Fuck the rest right? AGAIN, it's their choice to be born into dire situations and their choice to remain in them.
If that's not an ignorant and self-centered an idea i don't know what is. You say you ackowledge people's real-life sitautions but equate resolving them them to changing a lightbulb - it's not that easy both mentally and physically let alone socially.


Well, no, I wasn't going to argue that.

But everyone has choices they make, and consequences of those choices. Unless you're blind and love to make excuses and blame other people or other belief systems for the unfortunate things in life.

Unless your ignorant or just don't give a damn about reality of others, you'd care about your neighbors - after all their living sitaution does affect the value of your house.

Yeah, just like you? Just like me, you'll say, you were once a naive capitalist living in Mom's basement, but then you visited France and were enlightened about how evil capitalism is, and how much more fair life would be if only we pretended that nothing had value over anything else. How delightfully condescending of you. And wrong. Now go do your ad hominem anticapitalist angst at someone else.

You started this jack. Haven't visited france, but have a lot of supposed other 'get-away-from-it-all' places and some of their former realites: share-cropping, cmommunity-orientated, trade and barter systems are a hell of alot more successful from a altruistic and morally affirmitive viewpoint. Morals do weigh in with you right?

Why is it everyone who disagrees with you is sheltered and pampered and ignorant? Could it be that actually, we're NOT, and that you just are basically inventing fictional realities to suit your new (anti-capitalist) worldview?

I quite think so.

actaully, you're the only one who's disagreed in such a caustic and abrasive manner, which in turn demands a recipricated response. One way folks avoid needless confrontation is to actually think through the possible interpretations of what's written before spouting off. I coudl consider your ideas, but the manner and mode in which you chose to respond dictated the tones of our conversation.

Vanu-Vanu, I believe you don't fully understand where he is coming from. You talk about equal opportunity, but you fail to realize that capital is inherited.

Only in a rare handful of cases. In most instances, it is earned.

The workers and the owners are two separate classes.

The designations 'worker' and 'owner' imply a role distinction, not a class distinction. And its a necessary role distinction, I might add. Owners and high-level management are generally not suited for low-level work; low-level workers don't have the slightest clue about managing.

If you start at the bottom of the workers, you can climb the worker ladder and end up as CEO, but you will never be the owner, because the owners are not workers and they won't give away their properties.

I don't care if I'm not owner. If I'm CEO, I'm earning a lot and I'm making a bulk of the decisions.

They will parasite the system and get the benefit of your work without contributing.

Wrong! They contribute money. While it is true that I am causing them to profit from my labor, if they wish to continue to profit, they will have to compensate me accordingly....just as they will have to continue to compensate every other worker in the operation. Its whats known as "salary" or "wages", with each person getting paid in relation to the type and quality of work that he or she does.

Trying to lay claim to the fruits of your labor perpetuates an unjust double standard. You are essentially paid FOR your labor. You cannot take this payment and on top of that lay claim to the product of the labor as well. Its especially egregious when you consider the materials used by you are often not yours and are provided by the employer. Anyone who feels they have a right to lay claim to something because they made it for someone else is a parasite.

Oooh, snippy aren't we? Objectivity is theoretical nonsense.

And did I claim to be an expert at distribution schemes? I think not. But no matter how efficiently you deliver Care Bear drinking cups, AFX racing car decals, Olympic Games-packaged silly string, 'Sweating to the Oldies Vol. 24' or the million or so other items crafted to appeal to a passing whim or fancy, all you're ensuring is that more worthless crap is being distributed, consumed, and disposed of.

So capitalism is the most effective means of getting useless crap moved from a boardroom table to your trash can.

Yippee! I feel so happy...! Now if I could just get someone to distribute a rake or shovel so I can dig my house out from under the mounds of full-colour packaging that come with all that useless crap, I'll be an extraordinarily happy camper.

So it sounds as if you are only in favor of a system that produces things that YOU want and in a quantity that YOU want and in packaging that YOU want. I guess everybody else is supposed to want what you want, and if they don't then they are wrong. Well done. Very well done.

*Waits for coherent argument he asked for in the first place. *

If you don't like capitalism, leave my country.

Seriously. If you're going to sit here and whine because you have the right to own private property, you're a fucking shallow jack off who will always be controlled because he's too timid to make his own decisions. That, or you're this whacko activist liberal student who's still in or are just graduating from college, and are therefore forcefed this propagandic bullshit from your professor which you readily parrot because it's the only opinion you know of that isn't your parents'.

And afterall, PROFESSORS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT, RIGHT?!?!?!?!

Seriously, how can someone be so fucking stupid as to say "Hmm, you know, I don't want to be allowed to own something I worked for...government, please take it away from me, it's infecting society with a horrible virus if I'm allowed to own things I earn!"

You down trodden, psychopaths.

Be happy with capitalism. If only you actually learned something from your fucking books and saw what communism can and does do to people. If you don't like it, move to Cuba.

Once again, such responses only generate like responses - i suggest if you want to be respected as a poster and possibly even listened to, shore up your communication skills - gangsters in Compton California, USA speak better than you when it comes to vocalizing their poltical ideas. Let me guess, you live in North Dakota.

People in "civilized" countries live just to make money. Capitalism and consumerism brought us the idea that happiness lies in material possessions. The message they want to get through is that the more you have and show you have, the happier you will be. Big houses, fast cars, nice clothes, etc.

And while people are working their asses off to "be happy" they are making money for the system, just like in The Matrix, where people are given a vision of a normal and happy life just in order to keep feeding the system, the ones in power.

While you are working, wondering when you'll have money to buy that car you dream of, life passes you by. And the rich keep getting richer, at the expense of the work of others and their ignorance.

They tamper with nature, by polluting and mass producing genetically modified plants, etc, in order to get products that are very cheap for the producers but come at the same price or just a bit lower for the blind consumer, too busy being shown icons of capitalism on tv to notice the truths about the wicked corporate practices.

And the world suffers. Oceans overfished and polluted, millions of years of evolution destroyed by genetic engineering, emissions of venomous gases that are changing the climate for worse, ancient forests being destroyed to make pastures for your delicious hamburgers, endangered animals killed for organs smaller than Bush's brain. All for money.

All feed The Machine.
All hail The System

Only in a rare handful of cases. In most instances, it is earned.I'd say it is the other way around. You don't see much people from Angola earning much capital. The capital doesn't move as easily as you think from the owners to the workers. It stays in the hand of the owners in the EU and in the US.

The designations 'worker' and 'owner' imply a role distinction, not a class distinction. And its a necessary role distinction, I might add. Owners and high-level management are generally not suited for low-level work; low-level workers don't have the slightest clue about managing.

Owners usually don't have the slightest clue about managing either. You seem to confuse owners and managers. Managers are workers. They contribute by their work and skills. Owners contribute nothing.

I don't care if I'm not owner. If I'm CEO, I'm earning a lot and I'm making a bulk of the decisions.
But you have huge responsibilities and you work night and days. You can be fired if you aren't good enough. You deserve the money you earn.
I'd rather be the owner and just tan on the beach while the CEO works his ass so I can enjoy my money. And I can't be fired but I can fire the CEO if he doesn't bring me enough money.

Wrong! They contribute money. While it is true that I am causing them to profit from my labor, if they wish to continue to profit, they will have to compensate me accordingly....just as they will have to continue to compensate every other worker in the operation. Its whats known as "salary" or "wages", with each person getting paid in relation to the type and quality of work that he or she does.
Thank you but I understand the value of work.
What I don't understand is what is the added value brought by investors? Why do we need investors at all? You say they contribute with their money, but it doesn't make sense. Their money is worth what you are ready to work for it. They take half your pay if not more.

Trying to lay claim to the fruits of your labor perpetuates an unjust double standard. You are essentially paid FOR your labor. You cannot take this payment and on top of that lay claim to the product of the labor as well. Its especially egregious when you consider the materials used by you are often not yours and are provided by the employer. Anyone who feels they have a right to lay claim to something because they made it for someone else is a parasite.
But if you make something for someone else, is it just that this guy give you half your pay? If you make a product that cost $10, you should get paid $10, but the investors are getting a tax and you get paid $5.

How narrow-minded a notion. Without taxes, you'd be driving your Car (BMW is it?) on freaking dirt roads - be digging holes in your backyard to dispose of your feces, watse, food matter. Be driving to the nearest river to get water (and then of course spend time decontaminating it enough to consume).

No, I don't drive a BMW. They're good cars, but too expensive and too heavy for my taste. It's a myth that taxes are necessary for the existence of roads, sewage, or running water. I pay for my running water and sewage not thru taxes, but thru fees. Roads can be, and sometimes are, paid for the same way. If I didn't live in the city I could dig a well for water, and use a septic tank for sewage. That's how my grandparents live. In fact, my grandfather has the means to pave roads. He's semi-retired now, but he's paved many a private drive, including his own.


Wake-up - without taxes we'd be in a far worse situation than the had in the dark ages when sewage ran down the middle of the streets and disease was everywhere. Not to mention we'd see the elderly discarded and left to die - wait people wouldn't grow old because their wouldn't be medicine to sustain health in a disease ridden world.

Thank the gods taxes are imposed, if they weren't we'd be in a big sess pool.

We are in a big sess pool, not in spite of taxes, but largely because of them. I strongly suggest you learn about the history of the US, particularly the period from the civil war to WWII. This idea that we have government to thank for all the great things in life is total bunk.

I'm convinced that you're dead wrong about the necessity of taxes, but even if you're right my initial point is still valid. Taxes are taken by force, whether or not they have popular support of the taxpayers.

So it sounds as if you are only in favor of a system that produces things that YOU want and in a quantity that YOU want and in packaging that YOU want. I guess everybody else is supposed to want what you want, and if they don't then they are wrong. Well done. Very well done.

*Waits for coherent argument he asked for in the first place. *

I'm in favour of a system that produces small enough quantities of things to appease those unfortunates who have deluded themselves into thinking they were put on the planet merely to accrue and consume worthless consumer goods, without the rest of us having to live in deep-piled refuse as a result.

And now I'll echo your smarmy rejoinder. Got your coherent argument together yet? No? Okay, just keep trying to slag me, Wicks. I'll be there...

actaully, you're the only one who's disagreed in such a caustic and abrasive manner, which in turn demands a recipricated response. One way folks avoid needless confrontation is to actually think through the possible interpretations of what's written before spouting off. I coudl consider your ideas, but the manner and mode in which you chose to respond dictated the tones of our conversation.


Oh please. I was caustic, so you have to ignore every point I make and continue to fail to provide anything other than emotional platitudes?

It's actually the other way around, but whatever. Clearly my thoughts are wasted on you.

Capitalism has destroyed so many a pure nationality. Has squeezed every ounce of value out of anything it can touch. And has infected/contaminated many a culture. It's so contagious, that it's now reworked many a foreign market or economy so that the bigger picture is wealth and not well-being.
Too true.

I fear that such an infection of our world by this insidious device will only lead to destruction, war and social collapse.
...too late.

Can it be modified to start fixing world economy?
Can it be overhauled to benefit humankind both today and tomorow?
Can it ever mean a level approach to all pertinent issues facing the world (environment, the poor and helpless, peace)?
Social Democracy is the only way forward for that.

Really, in the end, when we're all on our deathbeds, does it matter how much money we have or have made? can we take it with us? Will it make our deaths better/easier for our loved ones?
Not really... unless you count inheritance... but that's shallow.

Communism & Socialism do not cause poverty, it would be perfectly feasible to have a happy, healthy and comfortable life under these systems. The reason we never have is because of people, remove these from the equation and these systems can be idyllic. Unfortunately people are greedy and corrupt and so their political systems become so too.

The nature of humans means that as things stand we are better suited to a capitalist system, where we aren't as concerned with who gets stepped on. It's not because we want to be evil, but because we just don't care whether our running shoes come from the hands of young children or the magical shoe fairy as long as the price is right. Out of sight out of mind and all that, besides if they really didn't want to be child labourers they would start their own business and become millionaire with the rest right?

It doesn't really matter what system you choose as long as there are some people wanting to take advantage of the situation, others less inclined to these motives will suffer. Perhaps some sinister form of genetic manipulation would be better.

I'm in favour of a system that produces small enough quantities of things to appease those unfortunates who have deluded themselves into thinking they were put on the planet merely to accrue and consume worthless consumer goods, without the rest of us having to live in deep-piled refuse as a result.


It certainly sounds to me as if you want to live in a very selfish world. Only YOUR opinions matter, and people should only want what makes sense to YOU. Certainly nobody gets to drive an SUV, the styrofoam peanut industry will completely collapse, and forget about having lemon AND lime flavored Coke! I guess what your saying sounds OK in principle ... WHAT AM I SAYING? WHAT YOU ARE SAYING DOESN'T EVEN SOUND OK IN PRINCIPLE!

And that does not even account for how you are going to institute your ideas from a practical standpoint. Who decides what to make and in what quantities? Who sets the price? With fewer goods being produced, where do those people who are laid off from their manufacturing jobs earn a living?

It really sounds elitist to me to say that you think people have deluded themselves into thinking they should acquire consumer goods. That kind of thinking is, in my opinion, a majority of the problem. That is exactly what the government does when it takes money from taxpayers and reallocates it. The government thinks it knows better how to spend my money than I do!

What was that about a coherent argument, Wicks? Keep it together, dude, you sound like your head is about to come off at the hinges.

Take a deep breath. Regroup. Now, what did you want to say?

What was that about a coherent argument, Wicks? Keep it together, dude, you sound like your head is about to come off at the hinges.

Take a deep breath. Regroup. Now, what did you want to say?

If this is what you have to resort to, then I am wasting my time. I am done.

People in "civilized" countries live just to make money. Capitalism and consumerism brought us the idea that happiness lies in material possessions. The message they want to get through is that the more you have and show you have, the happier you will be. Big houses, fast cars, nice clothes, etc.

And while people are working their asses off to "be happy" they are making money for the system, just like in The Matrix, where people are given a vision of a normal and happy life just in order to keep feeding the system, the ones in power.

While you are working, wondering when you'll have money to buy that car you dream of, life passes you by. And the rich keep getting richer, at the expense of the work of others and their ignorance.

They tamper with nature, by polluting and mass producing genetically modified plants, etc, in order to get products that are very cheap for the producers but come at the same price or just a bit lower for the blind consumer, too busy being shown icons of capitalism on tv to notice the truths about the wicked corporate practices.

And the world suffers. Oceans overfished and polluted, millions of years of evolution destroyed by genetic engineering, emissions of venomous gases that are changing the climate for worse, ancient forests being destroyed to make pastures for your delicious hamburgers, endangered animals killed for organs smaller than Bush's brain. All for money.

All feed The Machine.
All hail The System

FINALLY, someone with a world conscience rooted in an existentialist awareness. I get angry trying to explain my awarness to others, and even angrier when they discount this awareness to something akin to 'trying to recycle is futile unless everyone does it'. I commend you Tribal Ecology for your abundance of vision and of course shared opinions of what civilization has spelled out as 'what's really important' not being important at all.
Apparently some folks are happy with not thinking about the bigger pictures just as ancient philosophers did. Is this lack of higher thinking a result of the lack of civics and philosophy being denied to students as a necessity in schools? Maybe so.
Indeed, just like in the Matrix, some are not ready to be freed and will hopelessly fight to protect the very system that decpetively enslaves them.

If this is what you have to resort to, then I am wasting my time. I am done.

Dude, I was done a long time ago, I've just been watching your pot boil over. Most amusing. Do let me know if you'd care to have a coherent discussion, otherwise good luck with navigating the rubbish tip.

It certainly sounds to me as if you want to live in a very selfish world. Only YOUR opinions matter, and people should only want what makes sense to YOU. Certainly nobody gets to drive an SUV, the styrofoam peanut industry will completely collapse, and forget about having lemon AND lime flavored Coke! I guess what your saying sounds OK in principle ... WHAT AM I SAYING? WHAT YOU ARE SAYING DOESN'T EVEN SOUND OK IN PRINCIPLE!lemon and lime flavored coke are produced from the same corporation. That corporation is the only corporation to produce coke because it has a patent on coke. If you want real choice, remove patents.

And that does not even account for how you are going to institute your ideas from a practical standpoint. Who decides what to make and in what quantities? Who sets the price? With fewer goods being produced, where do those people who are laid off from their manufacturing jobs earn a living?
who decides -> the people.
what to do with the extended free time gained from higher productivity -> non-issue.

It really sounds elitist to me to say that you think people have deluded themselves into thinking they should acquire consumer goods. That kind of thinking is, in my opinion, a majority of the problem. That is exactly what the government does when it takes money from taxpayers and reallocates it. The government thinks it knows better how to spend my money than I do!
The government does not think. People think.

No, I don't drive a BMW. They're good cars, but too expensive and too heavy for my taste. It's a myth that taxes are necessary for the existence of roads, sewage, or running water. I pay for my running water and sewage not thru taxes, but thru fees. Roads can be, and sometimes are, paid for the same way. If I didn't live in the city I could dig a well for water, and use a septic tank for sewage. That's how my grandparents live. In fact, my grandfather has the means to pave roads. He's semi-retired now, but he's paved many a private drive, including his own.



We are in a big sess pool, not in spite of taxes, but largely because of them. I strongly suggest you learn about the history of the US, particularly the period from the civil war to WWII. This idea that we have government to thank for all the great things in life is total bunk.

I'm convinced that you're dead wrong about the necessity of taxes, but even if you're right my initial point is still valid. Taxes are taken by force, whether or not they have popular support of the taxpayers.

No one takes your money by force. you don't see armed convoys or tax collectors making their rounds - using force to take your money. If you don't want to pay taxes - shit - illegally move to a remote part of a forest. Taxes have existed a long time. In the beginning they were bunk - just to inflate the wealth of a few.
Now a days they do pay for a lot of things. Roads can be paid for without government taxing - you're right. If your negihborhood agrees to it, you could all cough up some of your hard earned-money and do it yourselves. Same with water and waste removal. However, who governs the process? who ensures all codes and rules (which are there for everyone's including the folks down the road and river's safety) are adhered to? Who oversees the process, contracts the work, and orders the supplies? Basically you have to organize a small government-like committee to facilitate the process - it's a job all in it's own - so how does the neighborhood do it if everyone in the neighborhood has their own lives and agendas and schedules? DO they come home from working the 7-10 day and do it? Do they take time off from work and lose money to do it (which compromises their ability to afford the road building).
We have government do it because we want lives. Plus someone has to have a vision of the future and the authority to enforce it. Ever live in a condo community? The rules and guidlines of such are only as good as the folks who will ultimately enforce them - seeing it's a private community - any rules broken have to be handled internally - not by police. the best you can do to stop your neighbor from keeping their wrecked car out of site is eventually try to evict them (mind you evictions are a timely process). In the meantime property value is at stake.
If it's one thing we should take back from the government is future planning.

Oh please. I was caustic, so you have to ignore every point I make and continue to fail to provide anything other than emotional platitudes?

It's actually the other way around, but whatever. Clearly my thoughts are wasted on you.

Clearly Barb, clearly. you should there's no way for progress to happen when it's not the goal - and it isn't right? you didn't originally respond in hopes of swaying me to your view or at least trying to make your view understandable did you? Because if you did, usually people shut down when insults and condescending tones are used - they only perpetuate disagreement - where as when civil diiscussion or Rather 'give and take' format is used no one's view is posed as superior just different.

But hey, we're past that damage is done right?
good day.

It certainly sounds to me as if you want to live in a very selfish world. Only YOUR opinions matter, and people should only want what makes sense to YOU. Certainly nobody gets to drive an SUV, the styrofoam peanut industry will completely collapse, and forget about having lemon AND lime flavored Coke! I guess what your saying sounds OK in principle ... WHAT AM I SAYING? WHAT YOU ARE SAYING DOESN'T EVEN SOUND OK IN PRINCIPLE!

And that does not even account for how you are going to institute your ideas from a practical standpoint. Who decides what to make and in what quantities? Who sets the price? With fewer goods being produced, where do those people who are laid off from their manufacturing jobs earn a living?

It really sounds elitist to me to say that you think people have deluded themselves into thinking they should acquire consumer goods. That kind of thinking is, in my opinion, a majority of the problem. That is exactly what the government does when it takes money from taxpayers and reallocates it. The government thinks it knows better how to spend my money than I do!

if you're buying SUV's (which consume higher amounts of non-renewable resources) and need to have the Manufacturer add lemon and lime to your drink (what you can't get up off your butt and do it yourself - fresh fruts are more flavorful anyway) and think that more product means better choices means better life than YEah - i guess you're not thinking things through.
Out of sight out of mind - what do you care you're helping use up our resources? what do you care that the emissions from that is contaminating our world at aquicker rate than 100 years ago? what do you care if your kids and grandkids need special suits to go outside in the future because those same deadly emissions have destroyed the planets natural protection from radiation and contaminated the air we breathe? what do you care that your grandkids will have to take 'virtual vacations' seeing that real-life ones are extinct due to abuse of those beautiful locales that once flourished with vegitation and wildlife? You won't be there to witness it so why worry about it?
That's the sort of eye's-forward, secure-the-blinders thinking and attitude we need. that'll defintely jumpstart the space program ...... so we can find a new place to ruin.

No one takes your money by force. you don't see armed convoys or tax collectors making their rounds - using force to take your money.


If I don't pay "my taxes" I will be forcefully taken from my home and forcefully put in prison. I only pay because of this threat.

If I don't pay "my taxes" I will be forcefully taken from my home and forcefully put in prison. I only pay because of this threat.

Yes, and if no-one paid their taxes, how would your government be able to render assistance to your fellow Americans in times of emergency, like in the aftermath of a hurricane?

Would they send office supplies instead of emergancy aid?

If I don't pay "my taxes" I will be forcefully taken from my home and forcefully put in prison. I only pay because of this threat.

then move.by living in whatever country you do you agree to abide by its rules and pay taxes.if you dont want to pay taxes move.

If I don't pay "my taxes" I will be forcefully taken from my home and forcefully put in prison. I only pay because of this threat.

Maybe thinking of it differently will help make it easier:

- taxes are like green fees - you pay for useage and for any damage you MAY do
- taxes are like association fees in condominium communites - they pay to have certain things done for you(cutting the lawns, snow removal)
and pay for communal upkeep
- taxes are like tips - you reward personalized quality service with a monetary 'gift'

Taxes suck - don't get me wrong, but we must ackowledge that for the security and order we want out of life - that which is necessary for personal interpretation of stability and happiness - there is a price. why? Because humans are a young lifeform, a young consciousness. we have notions of what maturity means that are associated with individual place in the life cycle, where ideal maturity is awareness of presence and it's implications to all that surrounds. Humans are like children - beleiving in kiddish notions that we're seperate from our environment - that it's a scary "other thing" or something 'different from us'. Lifeforms are all connected in one way or another. without ackowledgement of the base connections of reality, how can a human be expected to look beyond themselves and all personal needs?
Humans worry abou tthemselves judging from the past or what migh tbe in the future - it's programmed into us and thus the drive to survive the most effeciently as possible.
I guess we coudl twist this and make it that our bilogical tendancies force us to no tonly gather and make what we need bu tto make excesses with promitive reasoning - too much is more for later and more for later means a sense security, of survival.

Am I missing something here? Companies will only produce what the consumer says they want. The consumer says what they want by buying it. I understand your concern for conserving non-renewable resources. It is a legitimate and real concern. If you are concerned about that, you should support companies that support that viewpoint as well. The waiting list to buy a Toyota Prius is 8 months long. That is a great thing. That tells the market that there is a demand for a car that does not consume as much as a standard car. Companies will see that and realize that there is a profit to be made in oil-based fuel driven cars. That is the beauty of the market system. It will produce what people want. If enough people think like you, then the market will swing in that direction.

However, I think it makes zero sense to have some sort of Manufacturing Czar that tells people what they should want and what they can have. Just because you don't want a Flowbee doesn't mean that somebody else shouldn't.

And to address a previous issue, while Coca-Cola has a patent on the Coke formula, that does not prevent another company from making their version of a cola drink. What company in their right mind would spend millions of dollars developing a product that somebody else could copy exactly for free?

Can I retype Tolstoy's War and Peace, sign my name at the bottom and call it my own?

It is very easy to point out what you perceive as inadequacies in the American market system without making specific suggestions. The person who started this thread stated that, while they don't know what is better, they know that Capitalism is not the best economic system. I guess my question is, if you don't know what is better, how do you know Capitalism is not the best.

Am I missing something here? Companies will only produce what the consumer says they want. The consumer says what they want by buying it. I understand your concern for conserving non-renewable resources. It is a legitimate and real concern. If you are concerned about that, you should support companies that support that viewpoint as well. The waiting list to buy a Toyota Prius is 8 months long. That is a great thing. That tells the market that there is a demand for a car that does not consume as much as a standard car.

I agree that it's a good thing that demand for high effiency vehicles is so high, but I'm forced to wonder why the automakers are doing such a terrible job at meeting that demand. I'm not suggesting a need for more market intervention, it's just hard to believe they're really that bad a predicting demand. Perhaps, we're starring at the unintended consequences of previously initiated ongoing market intervention. It would certainly be easier for new companies to compete against established auto-makers if the industry wasn't so highly regulated.

It's good to see that somebody understands how the free market works.


And to address a previous issue, while Coca-Cola has a patent on the Coke formula, that does not prevent another company from making their version of a cola drink. What company in their right mind would spend millions of dollars developing a product that somebody else could copy exactly for free?

Actually, Coca-Cola does not have a patent on their formula. Their name is trademarked. Legally, you can copy their exact formula molecule per molecule, but you can't use their trademark to sell it. I like Coke, and I drink the brand name stuff because it reliably tastes the way I expect Coke to taste.


Can I retype Tolstoy's War and Peace, sign my name at the bottom and call it my own?

I'm pretty sure War and Peace is public domain. You could do that I suppose, but nobody would believe you wrote it and you certainly couldn't make any by doing that.

The person who started this thread stated that, while they don't know what is better, they know that Capitalism is not the best economic system. I guess my question is, if you don't know what is better, how do you know Capitalism is not the best.

I know it's not the best economic system because it's based entirely on the idea that someone, somewhere along the line, has the screws put to them. That's what you call 'profits'. The idea that some dude in a suit should be able to mark up the useless crap he's peddling by a few hundred percent, the same stuff he and his fellows blackmail foreign villagers into producing for a pittance.

More often than not, it's the slave labourers in sweatshops, the migrant farmers paid a fraction of their worth, or the unemployed North American workers who are screwed. But they're free...free, free to spend their few remaining dollars on overpriced, useless crap produced by Indonesian children.

The poster may not know which system is best, but certainly they're capable of spotting bum deals for what they are.

FINALLY, someone with a world conscience rooted in an existentialist awareness. I get angry trying to explain my awarness to others, and even angrier when they discount this awareness to something akin to 'trying to recycle is futile unless everyone does it'. I commend you Tribal Ecology for your abundance of vision and of course shared opinions of what civilization has spelled out as 'what's really important' not being important at all.
Apparently some folks are happy with not thinking about the bigger pictures just as ancient philosophers did. Is this lack of higher thinking a result of the lack of civics and philosophy being denied to students as a necessity in schools? Maybe so.
Indeed, just like in the Matrix, some are not ready to be freed and will hopelessly fight to protect the very system that decpetively enslaves them.
Lets see....slaves of the system. What else are we slaves of? Earth, Nature (we really are nature's bitch just look at what happens when a hurricane hits), the course of life and all other biological processes. If we all sat around thinking we'd all die because there wouldnt be anyone growing food. Civilization depends on one factor and one factor alone, a surplus of food. With that others can specify in other things(such as architecture, art, medicine, politics, philosophy). Not everyone is meant to think on a higher level. Visit any public school and sit in a class and you will quickly learn that most of the kids are not willing to think at a higher level because they know with government support they'll live comfortably. Capitalism, is not the best market structure out there..at least in its pure state. The Mixed Market that the United States is probably the best. Money is nothing more than a medium of exchange. You can have all the money in the world and still be miserable. But if you use the money well, then you can live a less stressful life. Don't forget that most of the wordl's greatest inventions have happened under a free market based system. Communist countries don't really invent much. You could argue with the space race with the Soviet Union. For the most part here are your options for an economic systems: Free Market, you sign a contract with a person or corporation to supply labor for a paycheck. Socialism: Government gives you a job whether you like it or not and they give you housing, clothing, food and everything else (sounds a bit like the life of slaves in the americas all those years ago), a traditional system where you do everything yourself, build your own home, grow your own food and make your own clothes. Which one would you pick? There are only variations of these three.

Lets see....slaves of the system. What else are we slaves of? Earth, Nature (we really are nature's bitch just look at what happens when a hurricane hits), the course of life and all other biological processes. If we all sat around thinking we'd all die because there wouldnt be anyone growing food. Civilization depends on one factor and one factor alone, a surplus of food. With that others can specify in other things(such as architecture, art, medicine, politics, philosophy). Not everyone is meant to think on a higher level. Visit any public school and sit in a class and you will quickly learn that most of the kids are not willing to think at a higher level because they know with government support they'll live comfortably. Capitalism, is not the best market structure out there..at least in its pure state. The Mixed Market that the United States is probably the best. Money is nothing more than a medium of exchange. You can have all the money in the world and still be miserable. But if you use the money well, then you can live a less stressful life. Don't forget that most of the wordl's greatest inventions have happened under a free market based system. Communist countries don't really invent much. You could argue with the space race with the Soviet Union. For the most part here are your options for an economic systems: Free Market, you sign a contract with a person or corporation to supply labor for a paycheck. Socialism: Government gives you a job whether you like it or not and they give you housing, clothing, food and everything else (sounds a bit like the life of slaves in the americas all those years ago), a traditional system where you do everything yourself, build your own home, grow your own food and make your own clothes. Which one would you pick? There are only variations of these three.


social democracy? That's what my country in this NationStates game is categorized as - a Social Democracy. Is it successful?
fragile economy (could be caused by my oppressive police force - but hey there's no crime)
Excellent political freedoms though.

I'm glad you're begining to see the light, Loc Tav I. We need all the help we can get.

You are angry because you don't understand.

Wrong. I'm amazed because people are so fucking stupid.

People are not complaining because they are allowed to own things. They are complaining because they are not allowed to own things.

Yeah? That's fatalistic horse shit thrown out by people who want to feel guilty. You're the same breed as the jack offs who think that the world will end because of humans, or that it's your job as a human being to intervene in nature and make it one fucking Bambi utopia.

their house and their car belong to big banks or to big corporations.

DING DING DING

NO FUCKING SHIT SHERLOCK.

Because you know whose money bought the house? The bank's. The big corporation's. You fork over the raw 200k, and you can get the house all to yourself, no big corporations or banks attached.

How can you be so fucking stupid as to complain that a bank owns something they bought?

They have to pay to use common medecine. They have to pay to move. They have to pay for a license to have access to culture and when they pay, they still don't own the CD they bought, they just have a right to listen to it.
Owning things are ok, but you have to remember that when you own something you are denying the right to own this thing to everybody else.

You're right I am.

When I buy it, it's mine.

I don't buy shit to share it with all you fucking people, I don't buy it to make the Chadwick Commonwealth Society of America where you can all come in and lavish yourselves with my wears.

The shit I buy is mine, because I earned it. Period.

How can you be stupid enough to on one hand go "Boo hoo no one gets to own things" and THEN try to advocate social ownership?

Owning your tooth brush is nice because nobody else is interested in your tooth brush, or your house or your car. This is not the problem. There is a problem when you own a beach and when you deny access to the beach to everybody else, or when you own a patent on fire.

Way to drag yourself into ridiculous extremeties.

"WELL IF U OWN THE PATENT ON SUMTHING U CANT OWN THE PATENT ON THEN ITS REAL FUCKED UP!"

Yeah, that's why you can't own the patent on it genius.

If you bought the beach, it's yours. If you don't want people on it, tough shit. Who the fuck are they to tell you what to do wtih your property? Why should you be forced to appeal to every Tom, Dick, and Larry that wants to go skinny dipping?

Darun....I'm with you in spirit....but here dude....take a valium ;)

I know it's not the best economic system because it's based entirely on the idea that someone, somewhere along the line, has the screws put to them. That's what you call 'profits'. The idea that some dude in a suit should be able to mark up the useless crap he's peddling by a few hundred percent, the same stuff he and his fellows blackmail foreign villagers into producing for a pittance.

Who along the line, has the screws put to them? If it's useless crap, why is he producing it? And why do people want it? He's "blackmailing" foreign villiagers by providing jobs, just in case they don't care for hearding sheep?


More often than not, it's the slave labourers in sweatshops, the migrant farmers paid a fraction of their worth, or the unemployed North American workers who are screwed. But they're free...free, free to spend their few remaining dollars on overpriced, useless crap produced by Indonesian children.

Have you ever noticed that all industrial societies have had the same evolution? Similar conditions existed in the West during its economic maturation. And those poor migrant farmers, first escaping Mexico for the US, then being exploited :rolleyes: and then....staying here. They must hate it. The "crap" must not be overpriced, because people buy it...and the same thing indicates it is also not useless.

I don't see how being denied the choice to your own business really is pro-freedom like communism says it is. If the people don't like a corporation or its methods, then people need to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and not shop there. Stop depending on others to do what you should be doing.

There is no perfect political system, no perfect economic system, no perfect society. Freedom isn't free, the cost is our safety; when you make a choice there is a risk that it will fail or succeed, when you are spoon fed the only risk you need to worry about is that it might stop unexpectedly.

Communism is great over a very sort amount of time; GDP and GNP will sky-rocket in the first few years under a communist system but the economy will collapse entirely after only a few decades. Capitalism is good only over an extended period of time; GDP and GNP will fluctuate with a slower net increase over several decades, during which time there will be short periods of extreme prosperity and recessions.

Neither system is perfect but at least Capitalism can hold out longer than Communism and can even straighten itself out unlike Communism.

I doubt capitalism would hold out so well if it were surrounded by hostile communist nations that were more advanced than them. http://members.rogers.com/dariuszalina/emot-ussr.gif

Wrong. I'm amazed because people are so fucking stupid.I don't think so. IMO you wouldn't use words like fucking and stupid if you were not angry, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Yeah? That's fatalistic horse shit thrown out by people who want to feel guilty. You're the same breed as the jack offs who think that the world will end because of humans, or that it's your job as a human being to intervene in nature and make it one fucking Bambi utopia.
You don't understand the realities of the world because you live in the richest place in the world and you talk only with rich people over the internet. everything you see supports your view that the system is fine. But if you travel a little you can see it's not.

DING DING DING

NO FUCKING SHIT SHERLOCK.

Because you know whose money bought the house? The bank's. The big corporation's. You fork over the raw 200k, and you can get the house all to yourself, no big corporations or banks attached.
May I remind you that the banks and corporations are not human?
Banks and corporations are organisations. Only after decades of brain-washing can people think that banks and corporations have rights. You complain about the government taking taxes, but the government is an organisation as well, but a democratic one instead of an oligarchic one.
So why do you cry against the dictatorship of the people and praise the dictatorship of the corporations?

How can you be so fucking stupid as to complain that a bank owns something they bought?
Because "they" bought it with my money.

You're right I am.

When I buy it, it's mine.

I don't buy shit to share it with all you fucking people, I don't buy it to make the Chadwick Commonwealth Society of America where you can all come in and lavish yourselves with my wears.

The shit I buy is mine, because I earned it. Period.

How can you be stupid enough to on one hand go "Boo hoo no one gets to own things" and THEN try to advocate social ownership?
I advocate communal ownership of the means of production, I don't advocate social ownership of your wears, it wouldn't make sense. The problem are the corporations, not the people.

Way to drag yourself into ridiculous extremeties.

"WELL IF U OWN THE PATENT ON SUMTHING U CANT OWN THE PATENT ON THEN ITS REAL FUCKED UP!"

Yeah, that's why you can't own the patent on it genius.

If you bought the beach, it's yours. If you don't want people on it, tough shit. Who the fuck are they to tell you what to do wtih your property? Why should you be forced to appeal to every Tom, Dick, and Larry that wants to go skinny dipping?
The problem is that the beach is a natural resourse. You didn't build it. So you buy it from who? From the one who declared it's his? By which right does he claim property on something natural? What if I claim the sun? Can I charge you for sun light?

people like this don't regard beaches as natural resources, they think only in terms of commodities. For example, fresh water. I'd regard it as a resource for everyone , whereas he'd regard it as potential profits for a select few.

I doubt capitalism would hold out so well if it were surrounded by hostile communist nations that were more advanced than them.

Maybe those nations are more advanced because they are capitalist...... :rolleyes:

Anyone communist is no better then a nazi in my eyes, in the USSR and in Communist China, there was a much bigger genocide then in Nazy Germany.

I recently took a vacation out if the U.S. I thought I tolerated Captialism (like i really have an option living in this country OR like others have one living in any nation considered to be developed) but i now find myself loathing it.
I'm not sure what i'd replace it with, but i know for sure it isn't the best way.
Capitalism has destroyed so many a pure nationality. Has squeezed every ounce of value out of anything it can touch. And has infected/contaminated many a culture. It's so contagious, that it's now reworked many a foreign market or economy so that the bigger picture is wealth and not well-being.
I fear that such an infection of our world by this insidious device will only lead to destruction, war and social collapse.

Can it be modified to start fixing world economy?
Can it be overhauled to benefit humankind both today and tomorow?
Can it ever mean a level approach to all pertinent issues facing the world (environment, the poor and helpless, peace)?

Really, in the end, when we're all on our deathbeds, does it matter how much money we have or have made? can we take it with us? Will it make our deaths better/easier for our loved ones?

You left on a capatilist devise. You will never get back on a socialist devise (thank God, and we are allowed to use that 3-letter word in our country).

I recently took a vacation out if the U.S. I thought I tolerated Captialism (like i really have an option living in this country OR like others have one living in any nation considered to be developed) but i now find myself loathing it.
I'm not sure what i'd replace it with, but i know for sure it isn't the best way.
Capitalism has destroyed so many a pure nationality. Has squeezed every ounce of value out of anything it can touch. And has infected/contaminated many a culture. It's so contagious, that it's now reworked many a foreign market or economy so that the bigger picture is wealth and not well-being.
I fear that such an infection of our world by this insidious device will only lead to destruction, war and social collapse.

Can it be modified to start fixing world economy?
Can it be overhauled to benefit humankind both today and tomorow?
Can it ever mean a level approach to all pertinent issues facing the world (environment, the poor and helpless, peace)?

Really, in the end, when we're all on our deathbeds, does it matter how much money we have or have made? can we take it with us? Will it make our deaths better/easier for our loved ones?

You are a meaningless part of WE. And WE will watch you, if you dare to try to return, with your traitorus venom.

I recently took a vacation out if the U.S. I thought I tolerated Captialism (like i really have an option living in this country OR like others have one living in any nation considered to be developed) but i now find myself loathing it.
I'm not sure what i'd replace it with, but i know for sure it isn't the best way.
Capitalism has destroyed so many a pure nationality. Has squeezed every ounce of value out of anything it can touch. And has infected/contaminated many a culture. It's so contagious, that it's now reworked many a foreign market or economy so that the bigger picture is wealth and not well-being.
I fear that such an infection of our world by this insidious device will only lead to destruction, war and social collapse.

Can it be modified to start fixing world economy?
Can it be overhauled to benefit humankind both today and tomorow?
Can it ever mean a level approach to all pertinent issues facing the world (environment, the poor and helpless, peace)?

Really, in the end, when we're all on our deathbeds, does it matter how much money we have or have made? can we take it with us? Will it make our deaths better/easier for our loved ones?Where did you go on a vacation? The third world? Most of those losers tried to implement a Keynesian System (lousy compromise of Capitalism and Socialism) The western World can support such a system, but if your poor you can't. The Keynesian system is the fault that half of the world lives in poverty.

Did you go to North Korea? I doubt it. First of all because it's hard to get into (they prefet for everyone not to see how bad everything is in a planned economy) and second of all, because you would probably immediatly realize how lucky you are to have grown up in the (fairly, yet not enough) Capitalist West.

I can't help but notice how many people complain about capitalism and how unfair it is because evil America-centric multi-national corporations are paying low wages to hungry people. If that's what you think, you're almost half-right. There's much wrong in the world, but it's not because free-market capitalism exists. It's because it largely doesn't. The bulk of the problem is the corrupt kleptocracies that have too much control over these people's lives and the US government that keeps them in power.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/walker1.html

Where did you go on a vacation? The third world? Most of those losers tried to implement a Keynesian System (lousy compromise of Capitalism and Socialism) The western World can support such a system, but if your poor you can't. The Keynesian system is the fault that half of the world lives in poverty.

Did you go to North Korea? I doubt it. First of all because it's hard to get into (they prefet for everyone not to see how bad everything is in a planned economy) and second of all, because you would probably immediatly realize how lucky you are to have grown up in the (fairly, yet not enough) Capitalist West.
This has more to do with colonization than with Keynes.
Keynes is not responsible for the lack of education, food or medecine. Are you suggesting that by implementing capitalism hunger and lack of education will magically disappear?

I can't help but notice how many people complain about capitalism and how unfair it is because evil America-centric multi-national corporations are paying low wages to hungry people. If that's what you think, you're almost half-right. There's much wrong in the world, but it's not because free-market capitalism exists. It's because it largely doesn't. The bulk of the problem is the corrupt kleptocracies that have too much control over these people's lives and the US government that keeps them in power.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/walker1.html

Due to the inadequacy of the welfare system, the beggers had to go to sleep. They have to get up early tomorrow, because Welfare is closed on Thanksgiving (Every holiday is their day off, including Columbus Day, that they PROTEST).

I can't help but notice how many people complain about capitalism and how unfair it is because evil America-centric multi-national corporations are paying low wages to hungry people. If that's what you think, you're almost half-right. There's much wrong in the world, but it's not because free-market capitalism exists. It's because it largely doesn't. The bulk of the problem is the corrupt kleptocracies that have too much control over these people's lives and the US government that keeps them in power.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/walker1.htmlThis site is very strange. It says the US is supporting socialist dictators in order to have less capitalist competition. It also says the US supported Stalin on purpose.

Yes Psylos, the Keynesian system needs taxations to exist (because of it's socialism) taxations have a negative impact on the economy. Now that doesn't matter much in the western world, thanks to full capitalism in the industrial age a good economy was build up (you can question some of the practices back then.) a economy that could support a Keynesian System, there were depressions, but those were over a pretty small time range, people suffered, but the infrastructure and the education didn't, so the economy was easily build up again after a depression.

However in the third world, there's a entire-economy (which is currently pretty primitive) up and running, the economy isn't going so well. People don't have much money, so they can give little money to the government (which is already pretty instable) to provide social security, and money that comes from other nations is usually only available in times of emergency, or is used by the leaders to get nice SUV's and Villa's.

Through Capitalism you can build up a good economy from nearly nothing, just take a look at Israel (ignoring the whole Palestine conflict) within 60 years a industrialized nation was build up from nearly nothing, AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) this didn't happen with extensive social security systems and heavy taxations and sitting on your ass and doing nothing, this happened through hard work (enslavement like some people here prefer to call it.)

I agree that it's a good thing that demand for high effiency vehicles is so high, but I'm forced to wonder why the automakers are doing such a terrible job at meeting that demand. I'm not suggesting a need for more market intervention, it's just hard to believe they're really that bad a predicting demand. Perhaps, we're starring at the unintended consequences of previously initiated ongoing market intervention. It would certainly be easier for new companies to compete against established auto-makers if the industry wasn't so highly regulated.

Finally, someone with whom I can hold an intelligent conversation! I think the reason auto manufacturers are slow to react is because they have to reconfigure entire production lines to accomodate a fundamental change to their product. This not only costs millions and millions of dollars, but also has to be custom made. Companies that produce big-ticket items like vehicles are loathe to make such a huge capital investment without a reasonable expectation of a return on that investment. However, now that the Prius seems to be a popular alternative to gas powered vehicles, you are seeing Honda, GM, and others trying to jump on the bandwagon. Markets are not completely efficient, obviously, but it is disconcerting that others want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Actually, Coca-Cola does not have a patent on their formula. Their name is trademarked. Legally, you can copy their exact formula molecule per molecule, but you can't use their trademark to sell it. I like Coke, and I drink the brand name stuff because it reliably tastes the way I expect Coke to taste.

Point well taken.

I'm pretty sure War and Peace is public domain. You could do that I suppose, but nobody would believe you wrote it and you certainly couldn't make any by doing that.

Probably a bad example. The point I was trying to make was, intellectual property rights need to be protected.

It really is nice to be able to hold a rational discussion with someone without them resorting to the logic of a 7-year-old! Thanks!

Wrong. I'm amazed because people are so fucking stupid.



Yeah? That's fatalistic horse shit thrown out by people who want to feel guilty. You're the same breed as the jack offs who think that the world will end because of humans, or that it's your job as a human being to intervene in nature and make it one fucking Bambi utopia.



DING DING DING

NO FUCKING SHIT SHERLOCK.

Because you know whose money bought the house? The bank's. The big corporation's. You fork over the raw 200k, and you can get the house all to yourself, no big corporations or banks attached.

How can you be so fucking stupid as to complain that a bank owns something they bought?



You're right I am.

When I buy it, it's mine.

I don't buy shit to share it with all you fucking people, I don't buy it to make the Chadwick Commonwealth Society of America where you can all come in and lavish yourselves with my wears.

The shit I buy is mine, because I earned it. Period.

How can you be stupid enough to on one hand go "Boo hoo no one gets to own things" and THEN try to advocate social ownership?



Way to drag yourself into ridiculous extremeties.

"WELL IF U OWN THE PATENT ON SUMTHING U CANT OWN THE PATENT ON THEN ITS REAL FUCKED UP!"

Yeah, that's why you can't own the patent on it genius.

If you bought the beach, it's yours. If you don't want people on it, tough shit. Who the fuck are they to tell you what to do wtih your property? Why should you be forced to appeal to every Tom, Dick, and Larry that wants to go skinny dipping?


Hey there PAL, i see you have an excellent way of communicating. You should run for Ambassador to the U.N. Yeah, we'd get a lot done real quick with you in there. Either you're 14 or you have absolutely no social tact at all. It's amazing how many people lack the communication skills to hold a civil discussion. I can't help but wonder, "where's mom and dad - shouldn't these kids be at school?" then i rememeber a 5th grader can speak more respectfully than some of these higher-thinking challenged pecs. In discussion, usually an intelligent person refutes ideas with their stated facts to support or disporve it - they don't spew profanity in attempt to .... what intimidate? didn't work if it was the goal - you've actually just singled yourself out as a lowly unitelligible babbler.

You are a meaningless part of WE. And WE will watch you, if you dare to try to return, with your traitorus venom.

who are you speaking of? the armed republic of Loc Tav I?

DO you really want to break the peace? and start a war with thine allies?

Where did you go on a vacation? The third world? Most of those losers tried to implement a Keynesian System (lousy compromise of Capitalism and Socialism) The western World can support such a system, but if your poor you can't. The Keynesian system is the fault that half of the world lives in poverty.

Did you go to North Korea? I doubt it. First of all because it's hard to get into (they prefet for everyone not to see how bad everything is in a planned economy) and second of all, because you would probably immediatly realize how lucky you are to have grown up in the (fairly, yet not enough) Capitalist West.

step back and try to stay in the present. Don't think about profits or bills or taxes or even civilization. think about this planet without the human animal - wouldn't it be a 'chill' place? no industry, no pollution, no overcrowding, no mass consumption. These are the things, the costs of the human animal.
ever see the matrix? Remember that mammals find a natural balance with their surroundings and humans do not. We move to an area and mass reproduce and consume and consume until there's no resource left and we have no choice but to spread to another area - REMEMBER what other organism behaves like this? A VIRUS.

step back and try to stay in the present. Don't think about profits or bills or taxes or even civilization. think about this planet without the human animal - wouldn't it be a 'chill' place? no industry, no pollution, no overcrowding, no mass consumption. These are the things, the costs of the human animal.
ever see the matrix? Remember that mammals find a natural balance with their surroundings and humans do not. We move to an area and mass reproduce and consume and consume until there's no resource left and we have no choice but to spread to another area - REMEMBER what other organism behaves like this? A VIRUS.

No civilization, no Tolstoy, no Blackadder, no beer.
No offense, but bullshit argument

So what do you want? That we once again become primitive tribes? Civilization is inevitable. And besides, even then we will chop wood to build a house, even then we will hunt for food.

It's in our best intrest to live in somekind of a balance with nature, it's in our best intrest to keep the forests, to keep animals and to keep sea's clean. You don't honestly think that the corporations are on some kind of a suicide mission, to destroy Planet Earth. What would they profit from a horrible environment, from so much smog that their brand new white limosine is black after one trip to the office?

So what do you want? That we once again become primitive tribes? Civilization is inevitable. And besides, even then we will chop wood to build a house, even then we will hunt for food.

It's in our best intrest to live in somekind of a balance with nature, it's in our best intrest to keep the forests, to keep animals and to keep sea's clean. You don't honestly think that the corporations are on some kind of a suicide mission, to destroy Planet Earth. What would they profit from a horrible environment, from so much smog that their brand new white limosine is black after one trip to the office?

I don't think they corporations are on a suicide mission. I do think they're not concerned with something that doesn't directly affect them either right now or in the near future. Humans take research demostrating irrevocable damage to the environment by our civilization with a grain of salt - like it's fictional. Like the next generation can fix it, we'll kepp doing what we've always done. truth is, someoen has to step up and take responsibility soon or it WILL be too late to do anything. EVER see the new Lost in Space?
Even with great advances in recycling and conservation, earth still couldn't be saved in time.
At this point, you're indeed correct that it's almost unforeseeable that humans will be able to enact ANYTHING to turnback the current damage let alone reverse the effect s of civilization WITHOUT revoking certain freedoms and privilieges we deem personal rights (reproduction quotas like in CHina and Japan, consumption caps, budget quotas, export quotas, etc.)

My piont is that though there's the occasional glimmer of hope when Big business pledges to be 'more' careful and mindful, real progress can only come with real large scale attention and commitment.
where that leaves Capitalism in it's present state - appears to be bleak.

Well, I've already tried unsuccessfully to get the thread poster to talk about EVIDENCE of how capitalism doesn't work, but all I got was whiny platitudes and attacks that had nothing to do with evidence, or exclusively with capitalism, OR with even defining what "works" or not.

I know it's not the best economic system because it's based entirely on the idea that someone, somewhere along the line, has the screws put to them. That's what you call 'profits'.

Sigh. Yes, anyone who makes a profit does so by putting the screws to the MAN! Profit is evil! Profit is slavery!

Actually, profit is what an individual gets as a return on some kind of investment. For example, you are posting on a message board (investing time and energy) and presumably you get some kind of good out of it or else you wouldn't do it. That good that you get out of it is profit.

Another example, I have 2 apples, Jane has 2 oranges. Jane doesn't like oranges and I don't like apples, so we trade, and our profit each is 2 fruit that we like in exchange for 2 fruit we didn't. Now please tell me where this idea is "based entirely on the idea" that someone "along the line" suffers?

I can pretty much imagine where you'll go with a response on this... something about hard working immigrant fruit pickers? Well, we'll see.



The idea that some dude in a suit should be able to mark up the useless crap he's peddling by a few hundred percent, the same stuff he and his fellows blackmail foreign villagers into producing for a pittance.

Okay, and by "useless crap" you actually mean, "every commodity, good and service produced and traded in our economic system?"


More often than not, it's the slave labourers in sweatshops, the migrant farmers paid a fraction of their worth, or the unemployed North American workers who are screwed. But they're free...free, free to spend their few remaining dollars on overpriced, useless crap produced by Indonesian children.

Useless crap like food, water, clothing, shelter, transportation. Yes. It'd be better if they had no dollars to spend on useless crap. Same with everyone! HAIL KARL MARX! NO ONE SHOULD SPEND MONEY BECAUSE I THINK WHAT THEY BUY IS STUPID AND USELESS!

;)

The poster may not know which system is best, but certainly they're capable of spotting bum deals for what they are.

Sure, if you want to blame all the social problems of the world on an economic system. I could do the same, but blame Muslims or Jews. Or communists. I'd be equally right.

This site is very strange. It says the US is supporting socialist dictators in order to have less capitalist competition. It also says the US supported Stalin on purpose.

Well, what else, we supported him by accident?

FDR: WHOOPSie daisy, how did I find myself here at this Yalta Conference.
Stalin: Gimme stuff.
FDR: Oops, lend-lease extended to USSR! OMG how did that happen?

:D

Maybe those nations are more advanced because they are capitalist......


Oh right. Industrialization had nothing to do with it, neither did historical conditions. The only thing that matters is your black and white view of reality.


Anyone communist is no better then a nazi in my eyes, in the USSR and in Communist China, there was a much bigger genocide then in Nazy Germany.

Because we all know communism advocates genocide ... somehow ...

@The God King Eru-sama

Hmm, do you want to take a look at Korea. In the north we have North Korea, it has support from both China and Russia. In the south we have South Korea. It has support from Japan and the US. The situations in which they started seem just about equal. But 60 years after they were devided, North Kore is starving (with biggest number of people that have died of starvation behind Mao's great leap forward and the Ukrainians under Stalin.) South Korea has become one of the more advanced nations of the world.

Communism doesn't advocates it, and I'm sure that Karl Marx didn't intended it, but somehow communists always end up killing people. Lenin was a mass-murdered, Stalin was a even bigger mass-murderer, Mao also had a hand in mass-murdering (Although the nationalists weren't any better, I admit) the North Koreans mass-murdered.

Well, I've already tried unsuccessfully to get the thread poster to talk about EVIDENCE of how capitalism doesn't work, but all I got was whiny platitudes and attacks that had nothing to do with evidence, or exclusively with capitalism, OR with even defining what "works" or not.



Sigh. Yes, anyone who makes a profit does so by putting the screws to the MAN! Profit is evil! Profit is slavery!

Actually, profit is what an individual gets as a return on some kind of investment. For example, you are posting on a message board (investing time and energy) and presumably you get some kind of good out of it or else you wouldn't do it. That good that you get out of it is profit.

Another example, I have 2 apples, Jane has 2 oranges. Jane doesn't like oranges and I don't like apples, so we trade, and our profit each is 2 fruit that we like in exchange for 2 fruit we didn't. Now please tell me where this idea is "based entirely on the idea" that someone "along the line" suffers?

I can pretty much imagine where you'll go with a response on this... something about hard working immigrant fruit pickers? Well, we'll see.





Okay, and by "useless crap" you actually mean, "every commodity, good and service produced and traded in our economic system?"



Useless crap like food, water, clothing, shelter, transportation. Yes. It'd be better if they had no dollars to spend on useless crap. Same with everyone! HAIL KARL MARX! NO ONE SHOULD SPEND MONEY BECAUSE I THINK WHAT THEY BUY IS STUPID AND USELESS!

;)



Sure, if you want to blame all the social problems of the world on an economic system. I could do the same, but blame Muslims or Jews. Or communists. I'd be equally right.



Well, what else, we supported him by accident?

FDR: WHOOPSie daisy, how did I find myself here at this Yalta Conference.
Stalin: Gimme stuff.
FDR: Oops, lend-lease extended to USSR! OMG how did that happen?

:D

The evidence you seek is what? documented material in the media or a publication? You already stated you wouldn't even consider it for the source chosen would obviously reflect the suppliers bias. so what evidence could we provide for you? Attempts at pointing out societal trends that perpetuate the ill traits of capitalism (or vice versa) you've discounted as "whiny complaining". Attempts at disconnected view or a viewpoint from outside the system (as best tat can be seeing we're all engaged inthe system and hence biased one way or the other by it) ALSO have not satiated your incessent DEMAND for proof. You attack anything not complying with your views - not ackowledging any other view but your own unbudging one.

Such arrogance and discussion devoid of any molecule of diplomacy or civili debate only warrants an avoidance of participation in your requests. why bother conversing with someone who doesn't bother to contemplate others views or where they may be generated from?
I guess you just ignored the post attempting to provide the HUMAN VIRUS angle in attempts of better portraying such obviously opposign views to your own. Let me guess, it was so trivial and full ofwhiny platitudes you didn't bother to read it through. No, dear person, your agenda isn't about conversation, civil discussion, or porgress. It's about defending against a perceived attack upon your beleifs - truth is i never singled out your views - you singled out others (specifically mine because it did not confrom with yours). You're about shirking responsibility for actions by rationalizing the supposed necessities of them. KEY WORD: RATIONALIZING. Which is attempting to make something that is commonly known to be ..... not kosher or right , to be right and justified.
You are indeed a waste of time - the profit here is identifying such sapps on intellect and logic. Identifying those who warp anything noble and good in premise into faulty and ilconceived in practice - WAIT - that's Capitalism.

The evidence you seek is what? documented material in the media or a publication? You already stated you wouldn't even consider it for the source chosen would obviously reflect the suppliers bias. so what evidence could we provide for you?

A good place to start with is defining what a "working" system is; how would you recognize one if you saw it? but no, I just get IT DOESNT WORK BLAH BLAH BLAH POOR PEOPLE. That doesn't cut it for me, and I'm sorry if holding you to high standards makes you uncomfortable.


Attempts at pointing out societal trends that perpetuate the ill traits of capitalism (or vice versa) you've discounted as "whiny complaining".

Because you were unsuccessful at attributing any of these traits to capitalism, and unsuccessful at showing how even if they were, they were signs of a flawed system. All that was left was whiny complaining. I call 'em like I see 'em.

Attempts at disconnected view or a viewpoint from outside the system (as best tat can be seeing we're all engaged inthe system and hence biased one way or the other by it) ALSO have not satiated your incessent DEMAND for proof. You attack anything not complying with your views - not ackowledging any other view but your own unbudging one.

Well, its not MY views that are the topic of this thread. Your point was, correct me if I'm wrong, that capitalism doesn't work and that there is some evidence for it. (That's what "evidently" implied.) I ask for attempts to prove that, but I get mere insistances that its true. I don't accept hypotheses as proof, nor circular reasoning as valid.


Such arrogance and discussion devoid of any molecule of diplomacy or civili debate only warrants an avoidance of participation in your requests.

Arrogance because my views are unbudging? And I suppose yours are the very model of open-minded fluidity, yes? Because you're better than me, right?


I guess you just ignored the post attempting to provide the HUMAN VIRUS angle in attempts of better portraying such obviously opposign views to your own. Let me guess, it was so trivial and full ofwhiny platitudes you didn't bother to read it through.

Well, actually, yes. OMG Agent Smith compares us to viruses! Humanity is a plague on the planet!

Interesting analogy, what did that have to do with anything?

No, dear person, your agenda isn't about conversation, civil discussion, or porgress. It's about defending against a perceived attack upon your beleifs - truth is i never singled out your views - you singled out others (specifically mine because it did not confrom with yours).

I'm rubber and you're glue.

Posting a stereotypical anticapitalist rant = conversation, civil discussion and progress? You have a lot to learn about the reality of this forum, I see.

I singled your propositions out for what they were, and I've yet to see them defended in any way other than the usual - emotive platitudes that assume the conclusion is true and THEN argue.

You say capitalism doesn't work. It's your job to show that it doesn't.

Making analogies about viruses, sprinkling large doses of condescension on me, praising yourself for how open-minded you are while informing me of how obviously close-minded I am - none of that cuts it toward that goal.

You don't want to back up your statements, you don't have to. And, to be honest, you won't - in my opinion, you cannot - because the truth is that capitalism works.

You're about shirking responsibility for actions by rationalizing the supposed necessities of them. KEY WORD: RATIONALIZING. Which is attempting to make something that is commonly known to be ..... not kosher or right , to be right and justified.
You are indeed a waste of time - the profit here is identifying such sapps on intellect and logic. Identifying those who warp anything noble and good in premise into faulty and ilconceived in practice - WAIT - that's Capitalism.

Rationalizing? Please, spare me the internet psychoanalysis.

And if thats what you think capitalism means, it's no wonder you have no idea how to debate it.

Am I waste of time to you? Good, then maybe next time you'll avoid giving me illogical fodder to chew up and spit out. I thought we'd agreed on that already, actually - thats why my post was not directed at you.

:headbang: Not quite sure I get what you mean.

You travelled? Where? I fail to see the relevancy. Are you upset at how much American "culture" has infultrated other countries? In that case, your problem's not quite capitalism as a whole, but American corporations.

The problem with saying something's bad but without coming up with an alternative is that it weakens your argument conciderably. Expecially because there really ISN'T a system that's been used that's worked better than capitalism, despite it's flaws.

Such as, take communism. Sounds great on paper, in reality, it doesn't work. At least, it hasn't. That's because democracy (which goes hand and hand with capitalism) has a system of checks and balances built in to prevent power from being too abused, at least, when it's applied properly. However, communism doesn't have checks and balances. I suppose you could make it work, but so far, it hasn't.

Face it, capitalism is the only thing so far that's been proven to work.

The real answer is greater government control over what corporations can do, in order to prevent the kind of abuses that are the real problem.

A good place to start with is defining what a "working" system is; how would you recognize one if you saw it? but no, I just get IT DOESNT WORK BLAH BLAH BLAH POOR PEOPLE. That doesn't cut it for me, and I'm sorry if holding you to high standards makes you uncomfortable.



Because you were unsuccessful at attributing any of these traits to capitalism, and unsuccessful at showing how even if they were, they were signs of a flawed system. All that was left was whiny complaining. I call 'em like I see 'em.



Well, its not MY views that are the topic of this thread. Your point was, correct me if I'm wrong, that capitalism doesn't work and that there is some evidence for it. (That's what "evidently" implied.) I ask for attempts to prove that, but I get mere insistances that its true. I don't accept hypotheses as proof, nor circular reasoning as valid.



Arrogance because my views are unbudging? And I suppose yours are the very model of open-minded fluidity, yes? Because you're better than me, right?



Well, actually, yes. OMG Agent Smith compares us to viruses! Humanity is a plague on the planet!

Interesting analogy, what did that have to do with anything?



I'm rubber and you're glue.

Posting a stereotypical anticapitalist rant = conversation, civil discussion and progress? You have a lot to learn about the reality of this forum, I see.

I singled your propositions out for what they were, and I've yet to see them defended in any way other than the usual - emotive platitudes that assume the conclusion is true and THEN argue.

You say capitalism doesn't work. It's your job to show that it doesn't.

Making analogies about viruses, sprinkling large doses of condescension on me, praising yourself for how open-minded you are while informing me of how obviously close-minded I am - none of that cuts it toward that goal.

You don't want to back up your statements, you don't have to. And, to be honest, you won't - in my opinion, you cannot - because the truth is that capitalism works.



Rationalizing? Please, spare me the internet psychoanalysis.

And if thats what you think capitalism means, it's no wonder you have no idea how to debate it.

Am I waste of time to you? Good, then maybe next time you'll avoid giving me illogical fodder to chew up and spit out. I thought we'd agreed on that already, actually - thats why my post was not directed at you.

Debate? that's what you call your approach? Maybe in the manner some Asian Parlimentary folk deem it - next thing you'd have is a food fight because you can't get exactly what you want.

You want an answer out of the ECONOMIST magazine - go read it. You want my answers to your questions? Ask them in intelligble and civil format and you'd get them. We are done now 'cause you've proven the point LADY. This is why there's vast divide amongst Americans right now - one side wants to alk it over the other wants to further their agenda - one side wants to find midground the other wants their way or nothing. How many folks have responded to you here in this thread? Wait no one, because you HAVE directed (really, leaving my name out deems it not directing it anyone - PLEASE!) and you're not a poster anyone, even those with like ideas, wants to engage. SO then, by ignoring you i'd HYPOTHETICALLY be denying you power.

LOC TRAV:

Er, I've responded to quite a few posts in this thread and vice versa. See above.

And you yourself are showing you lack the ability NOT to respond to my posts, so your statement that no one here wants to "engage" with me is demonstrably incorrect.

AND, it is fallacious reasoning to use the fact that people do or do not reply to me in your argument at all. What does it matter if people respond to me? That means I'm more right, or something? I think not!

Lastly... even though you undoubtedly have amorous feelings about me (I'm well-loved, obviously)... I am not a LADY. Thanks for yet another ad hominem that does, indeed, show the rift in America caused by people such as yourself.

So excitable.

It's funny 'cause it's not me getting all wound up.

lol

So excitable.

It's funny 'cause it's not me getting all wound up.

lol

indeed, this time it isn't. all wound up - about what though? really it's side-tracked from the original point. That's called high-jacking. So i've highjacked my own thread so now it's about formats.

Capitalism - what better a device is there? how about Global Altruism. Wait what's that? It's about the driving force being stability world-wide. It's about security World-wide. That's not possible you say - why? Because many do not see anything 'broke' with what we do now. We're prospering right? Well actually, from a US standpoint, we're on the verge economic Catastrophe. Why? Not soley capitalism or is it? Has our hunger for profit (from gasoline to cheap labor) stretched thin our ability to take care of ourselves? Has that hunger for secure cheap gas caused yet more angst amongst the people of the lands we war with to secure it? Has the neighbors of those lands been adversely affected by our meddling?
Has that drive for cheap labor cause outsourcing? or destroyed employer loyalty so that it's OK to replace an experienced high paid worker with a young significantly lowered paid worker all in the name of saving the profit margins?

No, i guess these things aren't do to this present state of Capitalism. Nor do they even touch upon the devastation mass consumption provides for on the planet. Really. Do specific accounts with titles and references make these sentiments any more valid than they are now? For some - nothing is valid unless it comes from the Hometown Media source or the preferred National source. And to that i'll say - excuse my contriveance. I guess if you can't see the proof that ICE on a wood floor in 80 degree weather will cause harm to that floor, then it doesn't happen - just like if a tree falls in the forrest with no one around to hear it - it doesn't make a sound.

I don't think they corporations are on a suicide mission. I do think they're not concerned with something that doesn't directly affect them either right now or in the near future. Humans take research demostrating irrevocable damage to the environment by our civilization with a grain of salt - like it's fictional. Like the next generation can fix it, we'll kepp doing what we've always done. truth is, someoen has to step up and take responsibility soon or it WILL be too late to do anything. EVER see the new Lost in Space?
Even with great advances in recycling and conservation, earth still couldn't be saved in time.
At this point, you're indeed correct that it's almost unforeseeable that humans will be able to enact ANYTHING to turnback the current damage let alone reverse the effect s of civilization WITHOUT revoking certain freedoms and privilieges we deem personal rights (reproduction quotas like in CHina and Japan, consumption caps, budget quotas, export quotas, etc.)

My piont is that though there's the occasional glimmer of hope when Big business pledges to be 'more' careful and mindful, real progress can only come with real large scale attention and commitment.
where that leaves Capitalism in it's present state - appears to be bleak.

The urge for the you and (other?) left wingers to improve the environment are admirable, they are well meant, but ineffective and will never work.

How do you think that an Kyoto-pact will work, it gives us a shocking decrease of 0,05 celsius, and what do we spend on it (we, the europeans and russians, the usa was so smart to stay the hell out of it) 100 millions of dollars. Why don't you let the people themselve try to improve the environment, give them tax-cuts and give them the choice, use green-power, or buy solar-panels, or isolate your house. If nobody does it then it's clear that it's the people's will to destroy the environment.

The environment isn't going worse, the whole greenhouse effect is total BS. We are going out of a small ice age, which started about 800, 700 years ago, offcourse the temperature goes up then. Were there any industries before that small ice age, which triggered that ice age or are the cause of that warm period before that? I don't think so. The human involvement on the environment is over-estimated. Offcourse we can harm it, and we do. But not as much as everyone says it is.

Global Altruism

Altruism is a myth, the human is egotistical (in a good way,) in the first place they serve themselves not others. And that's a good thing. If I would serve and sacrifice myself for them then how far would humanity would've gotten?

Altruism is a myth, the human is egotistical (in a good way,) in the first place they serve themselves not others. And that's a good thing. If I would serve and sacrifice myself for them then how far would humanity would've gotten?

I could just as easily say it's not a myth, but why engage in a pointless "is-isn't" exercise - if you've made your mind up as to how everybody else thinks and feels, I guess there's nothing to discuss with you.

It so happens that I feel the human is not inherently egotistical once they've reached maturation in the fullness of time. Excessive egoism, egoism pursued to the exclusion of other things, is a sure sign of arrested development. There's nothing good about it, save for self-gratification, a truly singular goal.

Were you to serve, rather than demand service, you'd have a much better idea as to how far humanity could get. As it stands, you could only ever guess at best.

step back and try to stay in the present. Don't think about profits or bills or taxes or even civilization. think about this planet without the human animal - wouldn't it be a 'chill' place? no industry, no pollution, no overcrowding, no mass consumption. These are the things, the costs of the human animal.

So what do you want? Human extinction? You go first. Gee, maybe I'm a little to human-centered, but what's so great about no pollution if you're not present to enjoy it? If you think the world would be a great place if you were the only human go watch Tom Hanks in "Cast Away." You wouldn't last a month. Without at least several million people on the planet, your life would be much harder. In 1958 Leonard E. Read described roughly how many people are involved in making one pencil (http://www.theadvocates.org/library/i-pencil.html). Imagine how many people are involved in making one computer.


ever see the matrix? Remember that mammals find a natural balance with their surroundings and humans do not. We move to an area and mass reproduce and consume and consume until there's no resource left and we have no choice but to spread to another area - REMEMBER what other organism behaves like this? A VIRUS.

First, humans are mamals. It's quite natural for all animals to consume too many resources from time to time. Usually, this causes depopulation. Once most of the population dies, the resources return and the population goes back up. Because we're so smart, humans have managed to avoid depopulation for tens of thousands of years. It's possible that we may be able to stabilize our population and avoid depopulation altogether. It sounds to me like you don't want that. It's also natural for one species to kill off another, we're just really really good at it. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that it's normal.

The urge for the you and (other?) left wingers to improve the environment are admirable, they are well meant, but ineffective and will never work.

How do you think that an Kyoto-pact will work, it gives us a shocking decrease of 0,05 celsius, and what do we spend on it (we, the europeans and russians, the usa was so smart to stay the hell out of it) 100 millions of dollars. Why don't you let the people themselve try to improve the environment, give them tax-cuts and give them the choice, use green-power, or buy solar-panels, or isolate your house. If nobody does it then it's clear that it's the people's will to destroy the environment.

The environment isn't going worse, the whole greenhouse effect is total BS. We are going out of a small ice age, which started about 800, 700 years ago, offcourse the temperature goes up then. Were there any industries before that small ice age, which triggered that ice age or are the cause of that warm period before that? I don't think so. The human involvement on the environment is over-estimated. Offcourse we can harm it, and we do. But not as much as everyone says it is.



Altruism is a myth, the human is egotistical (in a good way,) in the first place they serve themselves not others. And that's a good thing. If I would serve and sacrifice myself for them then how far would humanity would've gotten?


What? maybe you're confused about ice ages and there causes. In earth science at the collegiate level you'll learn that Ice Ages are total reverses in climate - thsu creating ICE and cold and interuption of the usual seasons. they also occur simultaneously with Magnetic field shifts. They are a mechanism of the earth - for what we may never know (perhaps to kill off the leachorous fleas of the planet)
industry and the introduction of harmful chemicals into the atmosphere hands down is going to affect the environment.

[QUOTE=Battery Charger]Because we're so smart, humans have managed to avoid depopulation for tens of thousands of years.QUOTE]

Except for those piffling little things like plague, war, famine, etc.

Wow, we're smart.

A rise in temperature isn't suprising (and totally normal) after a small ice age. You didn't disprove that argument.

Prove to me that that corporations have caused a major change in our climate. You can't, our knowledge on "climatology" is limited, very limited. It's an emerging science, one of the youngest sciences around. Making claims and spending hundred millions of dollars and something we don't even know for sure is ridicolous.

One theory, proposed by two dutch scientists and one english scientists say that the temperature is decisive for the rate of CO2 and not reversed (like the green house theorie says.) it just gives an example how devided all science is about this issue and that the greenhouse theory isn't proven.

Oh and Dobbs Town, you want to say that 2000 years ago there were more people on earth then now....

Oh and Dobbs Town, you want to say that 2000 years ago there were more people on earth then now....

No, although my impression is that you'd like me to.

Will that make you happier?

A rise in temperature isn't suprising (and totally normal) after a small ice age. You didn't disprove that argument.

Prove to me that that corporations have caused a major change in our climate. You can't, our knowledge on "climatology" is limited, very limited. It's an emerging science, one of the youngest sciences around. Making claims and spending hundred millions of dollars and something we don't even know for sure is ridicolous.

One theory, proposed by two dutch scientists and one english scientists say that the temperature is decisive for the rate of CO2 and not reversed (like the green house theorie says.) it just gives an example how devided all science is about this issue and that the greenhouse theory isn't proven.

Oh and Dobbs Town, you want to say that 2000 years ago there were more people on earth then now....

I'm floored - you actually think that humans do know harm to the environment?
that everything that happens or has increased in it's frequency of happening is natural?
that the human effect on our surroundings is minimal? what the hell are they teaching in schools. I'm all for Critical thinking, which questions the facts and demostrates them as supported assumptions, but this is proposterous. 3 scientists verses how many? Let me ask this, do they work for that new lab that's supposedly already cloned a human?

I could just as easily say it's not a myth, but why engage in a pointless "is-isn't" exercise - if you've made your mind up as to how everybody else thinks and feels, I guess there's nothing to discuss with you..

Global altruism is as mythical as the aryan super man that Hitler dreamt about simply because it does not exist, cannot exist, and will never exist. For the most part, human beings act in their own best interest and that of those they are closest to. It is in their nature. "Global altruism" is not, and it isn't part of our nature for far many other more important reasons other than us not wishing it to be so.

It so happens that I feel the human is not inherently egotistical once they've reached maturation in the fullness of time. Excessive egoism, egoism pursued to the exclusion of other things, is a sure sign of arrested development. There's nothing good about it, save for self-gratification, a truly singular goal.

Those who have not reached your deep and impassioned concern for your fellow man aren't mature? Give me a break. People who act in their own best interests more often than not also serve humanity. Dr. Abraham Gesner was motivated by curiosity and compensation. He invented kerosene which replaced whale oil as the predominant fuel of the day, thus saving a species he may or may not have given a shit about.

Were you to serve, rather than demand service, you'd have a much better idea as to how far humanity could get. As it stands, you could only ever guess at best.

I'm not sure where the "global altruism" theory of the world would get us, but I'm sure not as far as capitalistic societies have gotten us. All the good deeds have to be financed or provided somehow, and currently the best sources are those who have engaged in enterprise.

I'm floored - you actually think that humans do know harm to the environment?
that everything that happens or has increased in it's frequency of happening is natural?
that the human effect on our surroundings is minimal? what the hell are they teaching in schools. I'm all for Critical thinking, which questions the facts and demostrates them as supported assumptions, but this is proposterous. 3 scientists verses how many? Let me ask this, do they work for that new lab that's supposedly already cloned a human?


You ignore the argument that climatology is a young science and that even within that science there are differing points of view about global warming and its sources. The scientific community is not infallible....look at the treatment of those who have differed within the establishment. Bjorn Lomborg was practically castrated within the community for arguing that things are actually getting better or that Kyoto was an ineffectual way to improve the lot of people on this planet, rich and poor alike. And you can't argue that his beef was ideological since he bought into the "litany" before he tried to debunk Julian Simon only to find out that Simon was correct. The scientific community simply failed to refute many (if not all) of Lomborg's assertions.

You need the capital to buy shares. If you own 0.0001% of a big corporation, you own nothing, because you have no voice in the administrative board. The man who own the 51% is using your money to further his own goal and you're just lucky if his goal is the same as yours. Investing less than a billion on the share market is no better than betting on a horse race.
The people you talk about who started from nothing and who now own big corporations did not start from nothing. They are all located in the same area. Bill Gates was not born in India, he was born in the richest area in the world. He invested $50 000 from his pocket to buy the DR-DOS and they sold it $1 billion to IBM. He now owns something like 7% of Microsoft. The rest is owned by the banks, which in turn are owned by the big capitalists.
So no, there is no equal opportunity. If you don't have $50 000 at birth and if you live in Angola, you'll be a worker all your life.



Are you saying that Bill Gates is just a pawn of the banks? Bill Gates owns 10% of the outstanding shares, more than any other person. Over half are owned by institutions, such as mutual funds.

How is putting in less than a billion in the market no different than gambling? The average savings, no matter what size, doubles about every seven years.

If you live in Angola, you are under a system that does not permit/support entrapraneurs.

No, although my impression is that you'd like me to.

Will that make you happier?

So the population has growed over the last thousands of years, then don't talk BS. Yes there were famines, but the population has growed.

The greenhouse effect isn't proven, climatology is BS science which isn't advanced, we have a minimal knowledge of the environment, it's impossible for you to proof the greenhouse effect (and to proof how big the impact is), since we all just don't know.

Please stop watching the Matrix and the day after tommorrow, and get some books.

Because we're so smart, humans have managed to avoid depopulation for tens of thousands of years.

Except for those piffling little things like plague, war, famine, etc.

Wow, we're smart.

And throughout it all overall human population never signifactly dropped. Other species peak. We haven't peaked in a long time. Perhaps, tens of thousands of years is bit much, but it's still been quite a while. This would not be the case if we had monkey brains.

Scandanavia is made up of capitalist countries. The rate of taxation is a lot higher than America, but the mode of ownership is basically the same so they are capitalist states. Americans call them socialists because they tax more and spend more on health & education. This is the same reasoning that allows America to be called facist by some, because it spends more on the military and prisons.


Skandinavia is not capitalistic. It's Sosial Democratic, a mixiture of
Capitalism, Communism, Enroventalism, etc.

Edit: but you're right about the tax rate. In finland it's between
18% - 60%, the poor paying less the rich paying more. So it's
possible that one can be richer than other by working hard or
posessing talent. But when one is he pays more taxes to
goverment who gives the money to the less fortuned
and takes care of people who can't affort it.

Personally, I would rather excel based on my own skill and benefit from it in any way I choose, with the power I earned getting the money...

...then work hard in a hive for the good of people I have never met, and live my days 'happily' chewing on mass-produced tasteless food, sitting in my barren den (lacking in any sort of ornate furniture) waiting 58 weeks for a kidney transplant I know I probably will not get under the wonderful medicare system and reading 'quotes from chairman mao' for the 5th time because it was compulsory.

Obviously an exaggeration, but come on!

Communism does not work, and it almost never has. I agree, perfect communism would work, but that is a very lame argument, because every system of government would work if it were perfect, including capitalism. And by the way, capitalism works great forplaces like America, switzerland, Hong Kong, new zealand...etc etc...

Wrong. I'm amazed because people are so fucking stupid.



Yeah? That's fatalistic horse shit thrown out by people who want to feel guilty. You're the same breed as the jack offs who think that the world will end because of humans, or that it's your job as a human being to intervene in nature and make it one fucking Bambi utopia.



DING DING DING

NO FUCKING SHIT SHERLOCK.

Because you know whose money bought the house? The bank's. The big corporation's. You fork over the raw 200k, and you can get the house all to yourself, no big corporations or banks attached.

How can you be so fucking stupid as to complain that a bank owns something they bought?



You're right I am.

When I buy it, it's mine.

I don't buy shit to share it with all you fucking people, I don't buy it to make the Chadwick Commonwealth Society of America where you can all come in and lavish yourselves with my wears.

The shit I buy is mine, because I earned it. Period.

How can you be stupid enough to on one hand go "Boo hoo no one gets to own things" and THEN try to advocate social ownership?



Way to drag yourself into ridiculous extremeties.

"WELL IF U OWN THE PATENT ON SUMTHING U CANT OWN THE PATENT ON THEN ITS REAL FUCKED UP!"

Yeah, that's why you can't own the patent on it genius.

If you bought the beach, it's yours. If you don't want people on it, tough shit. Who the fuck are they to tell you what to do wtih your property? Why should you be forced to appeal to every Tom, Dick, and Larry that wants to go skinny dipping?

Oh dear, you've just earnt yourself a 2 day forumban.

I'm beginning to think it does no good to argue this point; the anti-capitalists have a completely different paradigm than the capitalists do.

In the anti-capitalist world, people are victims being shamelessly manipulated by the evil corporations. Your place in life is not your fault: it's the fault of your skin color, or your parents, or your job, or the government, or a million other things.

In a capitalist's world, people are responsible for themselves (just like in real life!).

How do you reason, when anti-capitalists are so unable to perceive reality?

The anti-capitalism posts are *generally* filled with vapid statements that mean little once you dig into them. The arguments are primarily presuppositions with nothing of substance to back up their claims; things like "Capitalism makes people slaves." It's easy to throw out senseless platitudes; it's much harder to make a logical argument supporting them.

Every anti-capitalist argument I've seen so far is based on faulty presuppositions. I'm beginning to believe that you cannot effectively argue pro-capitalism with anti-capitalists for the same reason you cannot argue right to life with a serial killer. There is no common ground of understanding. Additionally, there's a REASON their point of view is so far off: there is apparently some failure of critical thinking and/or observation in the individual. If they COULD think critically, they wouldn't make their senseless arguments to begin with. And thus, this same failure prevents your arguments from reaching them. It's like trying to explain the color "yellow" to a person who's been blind since birth.

That's been my experience with them as a group, anyway.

Skandinavia is not capitalistic.

Just don't tell any of the traders on the Oslo Stock Exchange

My opinion:
Capitalism is slavery (work where I want you to work, how I want it, when I want it or starve to death) and people love being a slave more then anything. The word "freedom" is one of the most overused of all, once living in capitalism say how much they enjoy their freedom, but don´t have a slightest idea of what freedom is. Of course, comparing to fundamentalist dictatorships and socialist countries, capitalism is the "most free", but people are still slaves.
So, What I would say is, talk to people, warn then that they are being used by corporations, but give up trying to "change the world". People don´t want the world to be changed, again, people love to be slaves and they will do anything to continue working mindless forever and ever.
You seem to think that life, not capitalism is slavery. If nobody worked, then we would all die. I don't see anyone telling me to "WORK FOR ME I WILL RAPE YOUR FAMILY" or any of that bullshit. You seem to think that if you do not work on an employer's terms, they still owe you something. Sorry, but they don't.

Just because people are lazy, doesn't mean that capitalism doesnt work. Yes, there ARE people who lose out, but a little welfare and some charity will help you get back on your feet if you're DEVOTED to it.

So the population has growed



The greenhouse effect isn't proven, climatology is BS science which isn't advanced, we have a minimal knowledge of the environment, it's impossible for you to proof the greenhouse effect (and to proof how big the impact is), since we all just don't know.


You must mean Global Warming, not the greenhouse effect, otherwise I'd just have to laugh at you.

Blurple, it's kind of funny how you class people who are anti-corporation as anti-capitalist. Quite frankly, that's an unfounded generalization. I, myself, am a Jeffersonian Capitalist mixed in with some SLIGHTLY socialist policies (like government construction jobs for those who absolutely cannot find work) and a very minimalist government.

You must mean Global Warming, not the greenhouse effect, otherwise I'd just have to laugh at you.

Actually, global warming, caused in part by the greenhouse effect has been proven. Even the fascist Bush Administration has admitted it (try cnn.com archive or something).
But are they doing anything to stop it? No.

In capitalism, profit tramples all over nature, human rights and peace. Anything is done for money, even fake wars for security. And we all know what I'm talking about.

In capitalism, profit tramples all over nature, human rights and peace. Anything is done for money, even fake wars for security. And we all know what I'm talking about.

Aha, so you are saying that because there exists greed, capitalism is bad? Because there exist corruption in government, capitalism is bad? Because governments wage war for reasons other than they give, capitalism is bad?

Look, your problem is the stubborn blame of a system of economics for a problem inherent to civilization. Do you really think if we just outlawed capitalism and switched to, say, a communist utopia, not one of the above things would happen? Governments would be pure? No one would make war for the acquisition of limited resources (and all resources are limited)? Human rights, nature and peace would be held in global inviolate?

Chuckle, chuckle.

Now I'm going to address the main point of the thread one last time.

Capitalism does work.

Thank you, goodnight.

There are huge, massive downsides to any kind of economic policy whatsoever. However, Capitalism is the best. It allows for the most motivation for growth. In a capitalistic society, people are really and truly judged by how hard they worked: money=status. Those with the most money are often (but not always) those who have worked the hardest.

Money, as much as people hate to say it, can be a great judge of the character of a person. You should read Ayn Rand- while dry, her books talk alot about the rich.

However, the rich always, always always always, abuse their power over others in a capitalistic society. Example: going to war with a country who had never harmed us and really never could for yet more MONEY for the rich. (for all you slow people out there, its iraq).

However, no other economic method is as successful. This is, sadly, the best the human race can do.

In adam smiths writing u just tell by reading it that capitilism is very selfish. in simple words he say do wat u want b/c for better or worse it might help the econmy and the people but if not hey its all good *NOTE-this is just a simple summary of what he said*

The best place to see the dark side of capitilism is Africa. Capitilist countrys went there mined the dimanods and gold and left the country in ruins. at least when the US goes they leave something for the people. In a metaphore most capitilist country take the ingredents to make a chowder for the straving country, but at least the US leave them some broth to leave off. Capitilism will be around until freedoms and rights are taken away and people realize it then something else will come up. Communism was suppose to tbe the next level after capitilism but nobody has done it b/c no one know what a true communist is. the 2 true communist that lived were Lein and El Che. El Che was a true good man. Like his ideas or not u had to respect his character. my father meet el che and his daughters his daughters were just like him but after that no person has follow his steps. So my friend u saw the truth unlike many but there is nothing u can do about it the system has to destroy it's self and i do not think neither of us will be here by the time that happens, but then again the way things are going i could be wrong.

Money, as much as people hate to say it, can be a great judge of the character of a person. You should read Ayn Rand- while dry, her books talk alot about the rich.


:eek: Ayn Rand's books aren't dry! They're literary masterpieces as well as extremely inspiring and enlightening! :)

Down with the king!

and you figured this out when?

El Che was a true good man. Like his ideas or not u had to respect his character. my father meet el che and his daughters his daughters were just like him but after that no person has follow his steps.
Are you TRULY serious. The man who served as Castro's executioner?! Your "good man" singled handedly murdered hundreds of people. Murdered mind you not fought bravely against like Hollywood might want you to believe. No, murdered as in blindfolded, hands tied, shot in the head, murdered. I sure as hell don't respect his character, and I have to wonder what slack grip on truth you have to say that that this asshole was a "good man." El Che, another in a long line of crappy Stalin wannabes.

stalin lived in his home like a king when other people where doing his dirty work, castro did the same and murdered many more people then el che. El che belived everyone was = and fought in the pitts for what he belived in. yes he killed, but how many has bushed killed as govener and now as president? NONE b/c he makes other people do his dirty work. he's not like those :mp5: in colombia who kill with real no movetive. And besides Marx's did say a revolution was needed uptain communism. But after the fighting was over he stood in cuba as a = with the people until he left for south america to spread communism even more before (where i belive castro sent some one to kill him) (he was more liked then castro). So yea i do look up to him and i do know his history. but i look up to the man not the history.

:eek: Ayn Rand's books aren't dry! They're literary masterpieces as well as extremely inspiring and enlightening! :)

I'm curious as to which part made them literary masterpieces. . .perhaps it was the part where she referred to altruism as a "doctrine of hatred for all mankind", or perhaps where she was idiotic enough to refer to Rome as a "welfare state", or perhaps it was where she in the same breath linked the impulses of Jesus and Ghandi with those of the Holocaust and the gulag?

In truth, I have a hard time ascertaining what Rand had a more tenuous grasp of: history, philosophy, or economics. The woman reacted to her stay in Russia by (rightly) rejecting Stalinism, but in the worst possible way, which was to effectively turn into a shill for the most egregious excesses of modern capitalism.

Capitalism does work.
Oddly enough though, the wealthiest, most environmentally friendly countries, with the best civil rights records are all capitalist. Take your pick as to where you would want to live, North Korea, Cuba, China, France, Australia, the United States. Capitalism is not a Utopia, because capitalist don't hold the idiotic notion that all people are equal in all things. I recognize that I'm going to be richer than some people, but poorer than others. But what sort of idiotic notion is it to believe that you are entitled to the fruits of someone elses labor?

Globalist capitalism is not the same as isolationist capitalism, which I support.

I'm curious as to which part made them literary masterpieces. . .

Well, I regard her works as extremely well written, breathtaking, engulfing and thoroughly enjoyable. All in all a great read, even if you don't agree with her philosophy.

perhaps it was the part where she referred to altruism as a "doctrine of hatred for all mankind",

This is her philosophy, and I happen to agree with it. It's not easy to explain an entire philosophy in a couple of seconds, but I'll just say that rational egoism isn't nearly as bad as it is portrayed to be and that it does not rule out compassion.

or perhaps where she was idiotic enough to refer to Rome as a "welfare state",

I don't really remember her ever having said that, but it is of course very much possible.
I could see some socialist-leaning elements and definitely a large amount of collectivism in ancient Roman society. But yes, it could be argued back and forth and I agree it's not a good idea to transpose contemporary politics into an ancient Roman context.

or perhaps it was where she in the same breath linked the impulses of Jesus and Ghandi with those of the Holocaust and the gulag?

Jesus, as well as Hitler both sought to gain power over the individual and saw the destruction of selfishness and individualism as the evil they had to and tried to eradicate.
The Bible has inspired more death and ethnical/religious cleansing than Mein Kampf has. The difference was that Jesus Himself was a pacifist, but a collectivist and advocate of global altruism nonetheless.

I'm not going to comment on Gandhi as I don't know shit about him :)

In truth, I have a hard time ascertaining what Rand had a more tenuous grasp of: history, philosophy, or economics. The woman reacted to her stay in Russia by (rightly) rejecting Stalinism, but in the worst possible way, which was to effectively turn into a shill for the most egregious excesses of modern capitalism.

Well, I think it would be rather impossible to argue that Rand didn't have a thorough knowledge of philosophy or economics, as she completely revolutionized both with her writings. And I would say that she made a VERY positive impact.

The fact of the matter is that capitalism is the most efficient and properous way to conduct an economy that people have yet to come up with. However, the problems involved (what to do with the poor, etc.) are nothing new. They have been around since people have been in any sort of civilization. The solutions are definately non-capitalist, but the problem today is that everyone wants the government to fix it all. That will just flat out not work. Any solution must be voluntary, not forced.

I believe in social programs for those who need them, and being in Canada, i live in a country that is more socialist than the US, but i also think some capitalism is necessary to a functioning society. I just don't think it needs to go the extremes it sometimes does. I will be the first to admit that I look at certain products and wonder why the hell anyone would want them, but the fact is that people have the right to buy what they want with the money they earn. We all own things that are not necessary to our survival. I own tons of books and CD's and quite a few movies. I don't need any of those things to live, but my life would be much less interesting without them. I make the choice to buy everything i own, if i think something is stupid, i won't buy it. I made the choice not to get a university degree, though i did attend university, so if i can't find a job that will get me more than 30 something thousand a year, that is no one else's fault, i chose my path in life. I realize that many people have less options, they didn't all have good lives, which is why, as i said, i do believe in social programs. It's also why i give to charity. It is possible to enjoy your money but still share it with other people.

I recently took a vacation out if the U.S. I thought I tolerated Captialism (like i really have an option living in this country OR like others have one living in any nation considered to be developed) but i now find myself loathing it.
I'm not sure what i'd replace it with, but i know for sure it isn't the best way.
Capitalism has destroyed so many a pure nationality. Has squeezed every ounce of value out of anything it can touch. And has infected/contaminated many a culture. It's so contagious, that it's now reworked many a foreign market or economy so that the bigger picture is wealth and not well-being.
I fear that such an infection of our world by this insidious device will only lead to destruction, war and social collapse.

Can it be modified to start fixing world economy?
Can it be overhauled to benefit humankind both today and tomorow?
Can it ever mean a level approach to all pertinent issues facing the world (environment, the poor and helpless, peace)?

Really, in the end, when we're all on our deathbeds, does it matter how much money we have or have made? can we take it with us? Will it make our deaths better/easier for our loved ones?

Yeah damn that Wal-Mart with its 300 gallon drum of laundy detergant for only $3.99! Damn Best buy with their 1000 inch plasma screens for $49.00!

What the hell is your point?

Besides, its not about when you die, think of your children, Im sure they will want money to help their kids and themselves. Its not about when you die its how much you enjoy life, sure money isnt everything, but Im not an idiot who thinks it is nothing.

sorry to say it, but all one needs to do is TRAVEL and it's very evident that material wealth and how to obtain more of it AT ANY COST is an entrenched mindset among many peoples.

Do you honestly want me to spell out the where's and whys?

Oh yeah i forgot, unless there's written proof, not subject to media spin, conveniently provided for any reader to peruse, then it's not proveable nor valid. ---- come now, you think any source provided is going to satiate your thirst fro proof? You know as well as I, that in these specific forums, all proof is questioned and refuted with the refuters own personal sources that say "yay" or "Neigh" to its vaildity. there's no source that someone can find absolutely nothing biased or wrong with - so why bother.

Personal experience my friend, that and common sense. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a high scholl graduate to figure out that an indigenous people that was 5 years ago soley reliant on their own sources of revenue and their own practices of renvenue generation that are other than Capitalistic, are now the very embodiment of capitalism has been affected if not absorbed by it.

I was in Italy this summer, I much prefered America and its system, not that Italy wasnt cool though, you guys are awesome :D ! I just prefer sitting down to dinner at a restuarant and getting free water. And free bread at fancier restuarants.

Plus stuff in Italy was expensive (Im not talking about because of the weak dollar just it costs more than it does here.)

I believe in social programs for those who need them, and being in Canada, i live in a country that is more socialist than the US, but i also think some capitalism is necessary to a functioning society. I just don't think it needs to go the extremes it sometimes does. I will be the first to admit that I look at certain products and wonder why the hell anyone would want them, but the fact is that people have the right to buy what they want with the money they earn. We all own things that are not necessary to our survival. I own tons of books and CD's and quite a few movies. I don't need any of those things to live, but my life would be much less interesting without them. I make the choice to buy everything i own, if i think something is stupid, i won't buy it. I made the choice not to get a university degree, though i did attend university, so if i can't find a job that will get me more than 30 something thousand a year, that is no one else's fault, i chose my path in life. I realize that many people have less options, they didn't all have good lives, which is why, as i said, i do believe in social programs. It's also why i give to charity. It is possible to enjoy your money but still share it with other people.


I agree with u but in the end we're going to die right? so the meanless stuff we buy is just a waste, now think of this on ur death bed will u be thinking of all the stuff u earned in life or the stuff u learned in life? In the end nothing truely matters it just a big waste of time until the big sleep. it's depressing but hey its true and its something that will happen all of us sooner or later. So fat or skinny ur going to die, rich or poor ur going to die. yes the fat man might die sooner but hey wat happens if the skinny man is run over by a car tommower. the rich might have better insures then the poor man but if he gets AIDs he's going to lose his imunnitys and then he'll die too. So yea nothing really matters its just a waste of time. :( sorry but hey we're still here so lets just :fluffle: and be :p and not :mad: or :headbang:







Besides, its not about when you die, think of your children, Im sure they will want money to help their kids and themselves. Its not about when you die its how much you enjoy life, sure money isnt everything, but Im not an idiot who thinks it is nothing.


money IS NOT EVERYTHING but seeing how the world is and how it is runned we make it everything. so yea maybe in the end that is why i like the communist THEORY (magic word THEORY so please don't chew me up and spit me out for that last part)

Hey, i agree with you that none of our material possessions will matter when we are dead, neither will anyone we know because we can't take them with us. Buddhism teaches that and my belief system leans more towards Buddhism than anything else. However, even Buddhists don't say we shouldn't enjoy our material possessions, just that we shouldn't create unrealistic attachments to them, and i don't. The people and things in my life are not the be all end all of my existence, and when i am on my death bed, i will be thinking about who i was as a person in my life, not what i had. That being said, moments are fleeting and life doesn't last forever, i am going to enjoy my days while i have them. Other people mean a lot to me, and i think it's important to help them. I think love is important, my friends and family mean more to me than anything, but i will not be a well rounded person if i never take time out for myself.

To add to the last part of your post, i think Communism is a beautiful theory, and i consider myself to be a Socialist. I'm just not averse to Capitalism.

Hey, i agree with you that none of our material possessions will matter when we are dead, neither will anyone we know because we can't take them with us. Buddhism teaches that and my belief system leans more towards Buddhism than anything else. However, even Buddhists don't say we shouldn't enjoy our material possessions, just that we shouldn't create unrealistic attachments to them, and i don't. The people and things in my life are not the be all end all of my existence, and when i am on my death bed, i will be thinking about who i was as a person in my life, not what i had. That being said, moments are fleeting and life doesn't last forever, i am going to enjoy my days while i have them. Other people mean a lot to me, and i think it's important to help them. I think love is important, my friends and family mean more to me than anything, but i will not be a well rounded person if i never take time out for myself.

I agree, when I am on my death bed, I will be thinking of all the people I knew and helped and loved, and all the good times I had. And reflect on that, until darkness seddles in.

If I die on a bed.

I agree with u but in the end we're going to die right? so the meanless stuff we buy is just a waste, now think of this on ur death bed will u be thinking of all the stuff u earned in life or the stuff u learned in life? In the end nothing truely matters it just a big waste of time until the big sleep. it's depressing but hey its true and its something that will happen all of us sooner or later. So fat or skinny ur going to die, rich or poor ur going to die. yes the fat man might die sooner but hey wat happens if the skinny man is run over by a car tommower. the rich might have better insures then the poor man but if he gets AIDs he's going to lose his imunnitys and then he'll die too. So yea nothing really matters its just a waste of time. :( sorry but hey we're still here so lets just :fluffle: and be :p and not :mad: or :headbang:

That's rather extremely nihilistic, isn't it?
Why focus on death when life is right in front of you? Why not accomplish great things?

money IS NOT EVERYTHING but seeing how the world is and how it is runned we make it everything. so yea maybe in the end that is why i like the communist THEORY (magic word THEORY so please don't chew me up and spit me out for that last part)

In Capitalism, if you feel that money is not that important, you're free to mind your own business and not try to accumulate wealth (how you would fare would depend on the wealthiness of your family or on luck like winning the lottery or something :)), whereas in the communist theory, you wouldn't have that freedom. You'd have to work anyways.

In Capitalism, if you feel that money is not that important, you're free to mind your own business and not try to accumulate wealth (how you would fare would depend on the wealthiness of your family or on luck like winning the lottery or something :)), whereas in the communist theory, you wouldn't have that freedom. You'd have to work anyways.


you work for the better of the people and that is the greatest accomplishment ever. but again u and i know that will never happen. so lets just enjoy life get along for the most part and say fuck it. hey thats a great motto to life..... just fuck it (its like nike's "just do it") :D

you work for the better of the people and that is the greatest accomplishment ever. but again u and i know that will never happen. so lets just enjoy life get along for the most part and say fuck it. hey thats a great motto to life..... just fuck it (its like nike's "just do it") :D

Wouldn't it be better to live for your own sake instead of living for the sake of the anonymous other..
Well that's my opinion of course :)

And I hope that the day will never come that everyone works for "the common good" :eek:

I won't just fuck it and not live for myself and only myself though. I'd fuck Britney Spears though :cool:

u either are slaves to the market in capitalism, or to the state in communism. to all you ppl there that dont want to be slaves:

SUPPORT YOURSELVES
dont rely on other people
FARM, its the best way

SUPPORT YOURSELVES
dont rely on other people
FARM, its the best way

Then you're a slave to the environment - a drought and you're screwed.

I won't just fuck it and not live for myself and only myself though. I'd fuck Britney Spears though :cool:


naaah dude when i say fuck it i mean just forget all this shit live life, be a good person (how u see fit) and everything else just fuck it. I just got a crappy car, we're going to get it check tommore if the guy saids its not mechincly good then fuck it i'm just throw it away, no stress.

Yeah damn that Wal-Mart with its 300 gallon drum of laundy detergant for only $3.99! Damn Best buy with their 1000 inch plasma screens for $49.00!

.
dude... where do you live, i want a 50 dollar plasma tv, they cost thousands where i live... :)

Globalist capitalism is not the same as isolationist capitalism, which I support.

Why is that? If it is beneficial for New York and LA to trade, why not New York and London? Who cares about a stupid imaginary line...

Socialism works.
No, socialism doesn't work. The nation that came the closest to socialism was Chile under Salvador Allende. He single-handedly economically weakened Chile to the point where Augustín Pinochet had a much easier time of taking Chile over. Ask any Chilean how well socialism works.
The USSR rocked.
Oh? So you think extensively long lines in grocery stores for simple meal items, waiting days to make a simple telephone call within Moscow, political repression, abject poverty, and waiting for years to get a house or a car rocked? You have some warped values.
Capitalist Russia sucks.
Capitalism is having problems in Russia mainly because the Soviet Union didn't properly prepare itself for a transition to capitalism. China got at least a ten-year head start on the Soviet Union in terms of capitalist reforms, and the Chinese economy is now booming. Had the Soviet Union followed China's economic example more closely, there may not have been such an economic whirlwind after Gorbachev resigned. As it stands, Russia is still learning the capitalist economic system, which isn't terribly easy for a people long accustomed to economic and political communism.
Those who are about to bump Stalin can go away. They don't know what WW2 was.
You're not going to get rid of us that easily. If anything, you're ignorant of both World Wars if you fail to see how negatively a communist Russia impacted world events in the decades following World War II. Had Alexander Kirinsky managed to stay in power after Tsar Nicholas II was ousted, there may have been no Soviet Union to speak of, and no ensuing Cold War. Kirinsky was rather a moderate leader, in fact, during his six months as provisional President of Russia before the Second Russian Revolution. By contrast, Lenin and his successor, Stalin, unleashed a brutality upon the Russian people that made the Tsars look tame. Lenin and Trotsky killed off dissidents in show trials and by massacring rebels (look up the Kronstadt Rebellion, for example, if you don't believe me), Lenin started the ridiculous "five year plan" quotas which turned out to be economically ineffectual (some suspect that's the way Lenin really wanted it), and Stalin brutally cracked down on Ukrainian farmers/money lenders, who before Stalin made a decent living.

Now, after all these facts in front of you, how can you make the silly assertions you just made, unless you're taking the mick out of all of us?