NationStates Jolt Archive

What of the people who don't want a job?
Like... everybody?
Me for instance. I just want money, but I don't want to work.

Like... everybody?
Me for instance. I just want money, but I don't want to work.

What of the people who don't want a job? Don't need one? Are being supported by their spouse?

Some people are going to school, others are living off their parents/spouse/family etc... I sincerely doubt that France is counting them as unemployed.

What of the people who don't want a job? Don't need one? Are being supported by their spouse?

Some people are going to school, others are living off their parents/spouse/family etc... I sincerely doubt that France is counting them as unemployed.
No indeed. You have to be looking for a job and be above 25.

Anyway, what do you think of those who don't want to work but who still get money like from the 3rd house they rent?

No indeed. You have to be looking for a job and be above 25.

Anyway, what do you think of those who don't want to work but who still get money like from the 3rd house they rent?

Smart people who worked hard and saved their money to ensure a good use of their capital.

Besides, that what is going to happen to the house I'm living in right now, what with it becoming one of three homes...

So France doesn't count the 18 year old who is looking for a job as unemployed huh? Sounds a bit like them covering up their unemployment rate. America, if you are 18 and looking for a job but don't have one you are unemployed. In France you're not hmm? Intersting.

Smart people who worked hard and saved their money to ensure a good use of their capital.

Besides, that what is going to happen to the house I'm living in right now, what with it becoming one of three homes...
What about those who inherited?

What about those who inherited?

As noted earlier by someone else, 90% of the rich in America are selfmade.

http://www.timesizing.com/2uedefns.htm

Forget about america. We're talking about Capitalism.

It is fairly easy to understand though. I don't see how it can be expressed in simpler terms.
I guess I remain unconvinced. Let me try to restate your proposition in my terms.

If I work on an assembly line and put wheels on a Ford, I should be paid the value of the product. Is that right? If my colleague down the line puts in an engine, he should also be paid the value of the product. Is that also right?

Labor is only one of the factors in pricing a product. Raw materials, capital equipment, and overhead also figure in. Again I ask, how does a fair wage represent exploitation, except because it sounds good.

I guess I remain unconvinced. Let me try to restate your proposition in my terms.

If I work on an assembly line and put wheels on a Ford, I should be paid the value of the product. Is that right? If my colleague down the line puts in an engine, he should also be paid the value of the product. Is that also right?

Labor is only one of the factors in pricing a product. Raw materials, capital equipment, and overhead also figure in. Again I ask, how does a fair wage represent exploitation, except because it sounds good.
The problem is the ownership of this material, capital equipement and everything. Who can appropriate a river or something which is natural and sell it? In my opinion, this material is public and only the state can rent it. And if it falls on private hands, it shouldn't last after the death of that private person or he will use it to acquire new wealth and finally form a ruling class by controling important resources. It should be rented by the state.

So the workers are exploited by the state and exploit the state because they are part of it. There is no problem when you are exploited by the state so much as there is a problem when you are exploited by a lord, because it is slavery in the later case.

Seriously, I had someone tell me that it would be America's downfall and that capitalism is inherently evil! Now I know people throw around that phrase like 'I love you' on an episode of Oprah but it got me wondering. Am I missing something here? Is this guy just a stinking red? [No offence meant, just a joke]

Is capitalism wrong, evil, etc. Even if it's not evil, in what ways is it flawed? Please inform me as I'd love to know more.
evil can be done under a capitalist system, just as evil can be done under any other system, but capitalism itself is not evil.

evil can be done under a capitalist system, just as evil can be done under any other system, but capitalism itself is not evil.

Capitalism is a Great Idea™. The only drawback of course is when the people who make the money from the system choose to use that money in evil ways.

Of course, all men are prone to these temptations, so the officers that control the economy in a Socialist state also have the opportunity to use money for good or evil.

The problem is the ownership of this material, capital equipement and everything. Who can appropriate a river or something which is natural and sell it? In my opinion, this material is public and only the state can rent it.

rent it from whom? from all citizens who live on that land? from all citizens of that province or state? from all citizens of the country? from all persons in the world?


And if it falls on private hands, it shouldn't last after the death of that private person or he will use it to acquire new wealth and finally form a ruling class by controling important resources. It should be rented by the state.

so all private land owners use their land to form a ruling class by controlling resources? and giving the state power over those resources by voiding individual ownership rights will avoid a ruling class?


So the workers are exploited by the state and exploit the state because they are part of it. There is no problem when you are exploited by the state so much as there is a problem when you are exploited by a lord, because it is slavery in the later case.
i think there is a problem if you are exploited, period. it would be better to live in a system of mutual benefit and willing exchange, rather than submitting to exploitation by a lord, a dynasty, a government, or "the people." exploitation is lousy no matter who is doing the exploiting, and it doesn't get less lousy just because the exploiters happen to be your fellow citizens.

The problem of capatlism is thats its morally unjustifable, how can you justify one person making money off many ( yes thats the basic economic priciple behind it, when some one works for a capatlist factory, their effectivy whoring them selves by selling labour they could better them selves with for less than its worth, marx called it alienation) were as Communism runs the factory so evey worker has a share in it, and so no one person recives all the profits and then shares them out like in capatlism, the profits are shared out from the onset.

Thats not to say communism works partically well, im just saying its more moraly justfiable than capatlism.

The problem of capatlism is thats its morally unjustifable, how can you justify one person making money off many ( yes thats the basic economic priciple behind it, when some one works for a capatlist factory, their effectivy whoring them selves by selling labour they could better them selves with for less than its worth, marx called it alienation) were as Communism runs the factory so evey worker has a share in it, and so no one person recives all the profits and then shares them out like in capatlism, the profits are shared out from the onset.

Thats not to say communism works partically well, im just saying its more moraly justfiable than capatlism.um, actually, no. that's not what either system is about. you might want to read up on some economics and a little history (perhaps try reading Marx, for instance) before you decide on the "moral validity" of these two systems. you're free to think communism is more "morally justifiable," but first you should be sure that you understand what communism and capitalism actually are.

rent it from whom? from all citizens who live on that land? from all citizens of that province or state? from all citizens of the country? from all persons in the world? I'm sorry it may not be correct. My native language is not english. I ment the state rent to citizens, not from. Is that correct or is there another word for that?

so all private land owners use their land to form a ruling class by controlling resources? and giving the state power over those resources by voiding individual ownership rights will avoid a ruling class?
yes, provided the state is controlled by the people.

i think there is a problem if you are exploited, period. it would be better to live in a system of mutual benefit and willing exchange, rather than submitting to exploitation by a lord, a dynasty, a government, or "the people." exploitation is lousy no matter who is doing the exploiting, and it doesn't get less lousy just because the exploiters happen to be your fellow citizens.That is not possible. Exploitation is not negative. You are a working force. If this force is not exploited, then it is wasted.

um, actually, no. that's not what either system is about. you might want to read up on some economics and a little history (perhaps try reading Marx, for instance) before you decide on the "moral validity" of these two systems. you're free to think communism is more "morally justifiable," but first you should be sure that you understand what communism and capitalism actually are.
He is right though. That is exactly what both systems are about.

I would point out to all those who are making the morality arguement, that morality is relative to the individual and it is very hard to just say something is 'wrong' on a moral justification.

The Socialist and Communist Morality system are one of hundreds of such systems, this is not including personal morality differences. I would suggust not getting on the moral high horse, it's not exactly a wonderful all-knowing position is it.

um, actually, no. that's not what either system is about. you might want to read up on some economics and a little history (perhaps try reading Marx, for instance) before you decide on the "moral validity" of these two systems. you're free to think communism is more "morally justifiable," but first you should be sure that you understand what communism and capitalism actually are.

Ive read Das Kapital thank you very much and allthough this makes me no expert i do study a level economics, i have a grasp of both thank you very much, and all that really matters when applying a theory to a group of people be it capatlism, communism, socalism what ever is how moraly justifiable it is. Communsim if you look at it from a utilitarian or humanist point of view is more moraly justifable becuase more people benefit directly (in theory)

Im not saying communism works in pratice, as good an economist as marx was he was lacking in the poltical philospy department, i strugled to find any politics in das kapital.

I would point out to all those who are making the morality arguement, that morality is relative to the individual and it is very hard to just say something is 'wrong' on a moral justification.

The Socialist and Communist Morality system are one of hundreds of such systems, this is not including personal morality differences. I would suggust not getting on the moral high horse, it's not exactly a wonderful all-knowing position is it.
Well it is the position defended here because capitalists are schyzophrenic about it. They defend capitalism on the ground that it brings wealth to the masses but evidently it doesn't. Supposing that concentrating the wealth in a few hands is moral is ok, but pretending that capitalism isn't doing that is hypocrit.

Well it is the position defended here because capitalists are schyzophrenic about it. They defend capitalism on the ground that it brings wealth to the masses but evidently it doesn't. Supposing that concentrating the wealth in a few hands is moral is ok, but pretending that capitalism isn't doing that is hypocrit.

I suppose lassie fair capatalism could in theory bring wealth to evey one, however this slips as soon as possible into coprate capatlism due to the surviveal of the fittest nature of it without goverment intervetion, then people get fucked over, namely the poor as becuase they cant consume are worth nothing to a capatlist.

Well it is the position defended here because capitalists are schyzophrenic about it. They defend capitalism on the ground that it brings wealth to the masses but evidently it doesn't. Supposing that concentrating the wealth in a few hands is moral is ok, but pretending that capitalism isn't doing that is hypocrit.

Who has done that? It gives wealth to those that work for it and denies it to those who won't. Much more morally justifiable than giving an equal share of wealth to all people.

Seriously, I had someone tell me that it would be America's downfall and that capitalism is inherently evil!

That was me, so I guess I'd better weigh in... even though you guys seem to be doing pretty well without me. ^_^

Now I know people throw around that phrase like 'I love you' on an episode of Oprah but it got me wondering. Am I missing something here? Is this guy just a stinking red? [No offence meant, just a joke]

No offense taken, even if you were serious. The only things you could call me that would offend me are Christian or capitalist. :P

Is capitalism wrong, evil, etc. Even if it's not evil, in what ways is it flawed? Please inform me as I'd love to know more.

Greed is evil. Capitalism promotes greed. It's really that simple. Everyone else overthinks it in terms of economy and stuff, but when it comes down to it it's a black-and-white issue. :rolleyes:

This is part of the problem, capatalists belive its not about morals just money, thats why people get screwed over. Again i must reiterate im not a communist, im a socalist.

This is part of the problem, capatalists belive its not about morals just money, thats why people get screwed over. Again i must reiterate im not a communist, im a socalist.

Which means you are for the theft of, ahem, redistribution of wealth. Yes, theft is a morally justifiable action now... :rolleyes:

Which means you are for the theft of, ahem, redistribution of wealth. Yes, theft is a morally justifiable action now... :rolleyes:

If it wrong to take something back that was made by unjust means, for example the CEO fortune that is made off the back of Mexican labours.

No I’m not for forced redistribution of wealth or collectivisation just nationalised industry, high taxes and better public services, something no American politician since FDR has ever tried as they all have a subtle lack of spines, so most Americans are scared of it because they’ve never experienced a equalitarian government.

If it wrong to take something back that was made by unjust means, for example the CEO fortune that is made off the back of Mexican labours.

You claim it was made via unjust means. I don't. Maybe you should recommend that that CEO doesn't set up shop in Mexico and instead gets American workers who need to be paid more, which means the product costs more and less people can afford it. And lets not forget about all the poor Mexicans who are now poorer because they don't have a job.

No I’m not for forced redistribution of wealth or collectivisation just nationalised industry, high taxes and better public services, something no American politician since FDR has ever tried as they all have a subtle lack of spines, so most Americans are scared of it because they’ve never experienced a equalitarian government.

Yes lets see, pro-high taxes, nationalized industry, "better" public services (whatever the hell that means). And not forced redistribution of wealth or collectivization? Really? Sounds like you are to me, what with the policies you say you are for.

The world is ruled by accountants. That's people who can add AND subtract!

All that matters is the bottom line, but the whole cost of products aren't accounted for. The environmental impact, pollution and refuse isn't accounted for. Neither is the health of the consumer, nor the job security of the employees.

The system is inherently corrupt when countries and companies aren't playing on a level playing field.

But instead of complaining about it, do something.

Buy produce that's as local as possible. Buy organic produce. Support ethical companies, support green power.

If you do all this your cost of living will go up fractionally, but your food will be healthier, your clothes will be superior and if we all do it our taxes will come down because there'll be less local unemployment.

You claim it was made via unjust means. I don't. Maybe you should recommend that that CEO doesn't set up shop in Mexico and instead gets American workers who need to be paid more, which means the product costs more and less people can afford it. And lets not forget about all the poor Mexicans who are now poorer because they don't have a job.

Yes i am actually your arguement is shit and if you read das kaptial youd see he shoots it to peices 200 ish years ago, Just becuase they dont have american jobs dosent mean there are no jobs, the lack of american firms will allow mexican ones to grow and if the goverment is socalist they will be forced to give them a desent wage and if we finaly kill free trade it wont matter that some one else is paid less and so is more competative and so this process of de globalisation and so on will propagate itself, As for making stuff cost slighlty more, oh shit no i cant buy more shit i really dont need, this is the problem with consumerism, you dont need a tv, a phone really but when you want one youll be happy to get one for half the price as long as it fuck some one over somewhere, id be happy to have to save up for a few years for a tv if i knew it made the actually person who made it life better.


Yes lets see, pro-high taxes, nationalized industry, "better" public services (whatever the hell that means). And not forced redistribution of wealth or collectivization? Really? Sounds like you are to me, what with the policies you say you are for.

When i meant forced i meant soildering bursting down the door and taking it, thats the communist meathod. Yes as for unvolutary reditribution yes, becuase people should not be allowed to hoard money, they dont need while others starve and die of preventable disease.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT MORALS. IT ALL ABOUT WHATS RIGHT, you cannot justify capatlism with morals, unless you use the stupid oh at least they have jobs arguemtent, yes they have jobs but for jack shit money that effetivly makes them slaves.

The world is ruled by accountants. That's people who can add AND subtract!

You are thinking of bookkeepers, not accountants.

All that matters is the bottom line, but the whole cost of products aren't accounted for. The environmental impact, pollution and refuse isn't accounted for. Neither is the health of the consumer, nor the job security of the employees.

Environmental impact, pollution, refuse, health of the consumer, job security etc... are all accounted for actually. Some of them (such as pollution/environmental impact) because you can get cash for accounting for them and others (consumer health impact) because you don't want to be sued. Job security meanwhile is accounted for because frankly Companies don't want to have to retrain new people all the time. It costs a company money to hire and train you, you are an investment. Companies like to secure their investments.

The system is inherently corrupt when countries and companies aren't playing on a level playing field.

How does companies, and countries, playing on on an unlevel field cause corruption?

Yes i am actually your arguement is shit and if you read das kaptial youd see he shoots it to peices 200 ish years ago, Just becuase they dont have american jobs dosent mean there are no jobs, the lack of american firms will allow mexican ones to grow and if the goverment is socalist they will be forced to give them a desent wage and if we finaly kill free trade it wont matter that some one else is paid less and so is more competative and so this process of de globalisation and so on will propagate itself, As for making stuff cost slighlty more, oh shit no i cant buy more shit i really dont need, this is the problem with consumerism, you dont need a tv, a phone really but when you want one youll be happy to get one for half the price as long as it fuck some one over somewhere, id be happy to have to save up for a few years for a tv if i knew it made the actually person who made it life better.

Why don't you go ahead and format that with sentences and paragraphs so it makes some sense.

When i meant forced i meant soildering bursting down the door and taking it, thats the communist meathod. Yes as for unvolutary reditribution yes, becuase people should not be allowed to hoard money, they dont need while others starve and die of preventable disease.

Right, because investing in companies etc... is 'hoarding" money.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT MORALS. IT ALL ABOUT WHATS RIGHT, you cannot justify capatlism with morals, unless you use the stupid oh at least they have jobs arguemtent, yes they have jobs but for jack shit money that effetivly makes them slaves.

How old are you? Or are you not familiar with the concept that cost of living varies from country to country? Indeed from state to state within a country?

Well it is the position defended here because capitalists are schyzophrenic about it. They defend capitalism on the ground that it brings wealth to the masses but evidently it doesn't. Supposing that concentrating the wealth in a few hands is moral is ok, but pretending that capitalism isn't doing that is hypocrit.

Capitalism does bring wealth to people just disparately according to merit and various factors. Course, there's the poverty trap and all but that is too blanketly blamed...

Besides the Working Class are 'Chav's' (if your British you know what I mean) in the majority, do you want to give the Chav's money and power in all seriousness?

Communists and Socialists tend to take the Moral High Ground for no reason, thats why I said that really. It was to sort of say, don't bother because it's relative. It's rather like PETA and the Meat Eaters (like meh).

Is capitalism wrong, evil, etc.

Capitalism, the system is not inherently wrong. Its the love of money it can generate that is wrong. Capitalism taken to its cultural extreme is evil. Love of money is evil. Capitalism can generate all sorts of crimes through this love of money. The primary ones being theft, deception, fraud etc. Basicly people stealing money and goods.

Why don't you go ahead and format that with sentences and paragraphs so it makes some sense.

I’m sorry but theirs no need to get into pedantics about it, if your actually interested in this debate I’m sure you can put up without a few lil indents

Right, because investing in companies etc... is 'hoarding" money.

Perhaps a poor choice of words, but then again why not, if you have medicine and everyone around you is sick, is it not wrong to give it out.


How old are you? Or are you not familiar with the concept that cost of living varies from country to country? Indeed from state to state within a country?

I’m 17 as a matter of fact and yes I am familiar with the concept of relative wealth, but have you ever been to china or India I have, have you seen the housing that a relatively middle class person lives in, yes the cost of living differs but not by enough to suddenly make a person who lives in a sweat shop as relatively rich as a British man working in a factory.

Capitalism, the system is not inherently wrong. Its the love of money it can generate that is wrong. Capitalism taken to its cultural extreme is evil. Love of money is evil.

Damn, I am evil. :rolleyes:

You are thinking of bookkeepers, not accountants.


Wow, I thought accountants could do arithmetic too!


Environmental impact, pollution, refuse, health of the consumer, job security etc... are all accounted for actually. Some of them (such as pollution/environmental impact) because you can get cash for accounting for them and others (consumer health impact) because you don't want to be sued. Job security meanwhile is accounted for because frankly Companies don't want to have to retrain new people all the time. It costs a company money to hire and train you, you are an investment. Companies like to secure their investments.


The cost of recycling or disposing of the packaging or the product once it's life is up isn't part of the original cost.
No company knows the environmental impact of their product!
For instance, micro particles of plastics are being found in seafood. We're eating the seafood, so what's the impact there? What happens as more and more microparticles are produced?


How does companies, and countries, playing on on an unlevel field cause corruption?

I mean the system is corrupt, not that people are corrupt. The system doesn't work because the cheapest product will generally win. And the cheapest product is made with the cheapest, least trained labour. Has the least conscience about environmental impact.

What I'm really saying is, although the system is inherently bad for us, if you have a conscience you can do something about it as a consumer.

The local shop or farmer store would be happy to receive your money, and your money remains local.

Damn, I am evil. :rolleyes:
Only your love for money is evil, not you.

I’m sorry but theirs no need to get into pedantics about it, if your actually interested in this debate I’m sure you can put up without a few lil indents

MS Word counts 185 words and no periods. Learn what a sentence is.

Perhaps a poor choice of words, but then again why not, if you have medicine and everyone around you is sick, is it not wrong to give it out.

Depending on the disease etc... I think you'll find that no one who asks for medical care is actually turned down when it comes to something life threatening. Doctors actually complain about it all the time because they end up getting stiffed.

I’m 17 as a matter of fact and yes I am familiar with the concept of relative wealth, but have you ever been to china or India I have, have you seen the housing that a relatively middle class person lives in, yes the cost of living differs but not by enough to suddenly make a person who lives in a sweat shop as relatively rich as a British man working in a factory.

The same? No they don't live the same. Does everyone have to live the same? No. Does it take time for their standard of living to increase? Yeah. Do I care that the difference exists? Not really.

Is it wrong, and immoral, to expect someone in America to give up what they worked for to increase the standard of living of someone else in China? Yes that is wrong and immoral to expect.

The cost of recycling or disposing of the packaging or the product once it's life is up isn't part of the original cost.
No company knows the environmental impact of their product!
For instance, micro particles of plastics are being found in seafood. We're eating the seafood, so what's the impact there? What happens as more and more microparticles are produced?

Riight. Because you know, that is the one and only kind of enviormental impact...

I mean the system is corrupt, not that people are corrupt. The system doesn't work because the cheapest product will generally win. And the cheapest product is made with the cheapest, least trained labour. Has the least conscience about environmental impact.

The best product at the best price will win. Otherwise we'd all be driving KIAs.

What I'm really saying is, although the system is inherently bad for us, if you have a conscience you can do something about it as a consumer.

The local shop or farmer store would be happy to receive your money, and your money remains local.

You buy a car? Money didn't stay local. A computer? Didn't stay local. Electricity? Didn't stay local. A book? Didn't stay local and on and on and on. But then I don't really care if you want to spend your money with a "conscience" and spend it locally.

The best product at the best price will win. Otherwise we'd all be driving KIAs.What do you think about Microsoft selling word processing software for Windows? They control both the OS and word processing market. How can better and cheaper products compete?

MS Word counts 185 words and no periods. Learn what a sentence is.


Sigh, what can i say in the heat of the moment, eveyone makes mistakes. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me one day.


Depending on the disease etc... I think you'll find that no one who asks for medical care is actually turned down when it comes to something life threatening. Doctors actually complain about it all the time because they end up getting stiffed.


Again getting awfully Pedantic to back your point up, it was an illustration not a hypothetical scenario


The same? No they don't live the same. Does everyone have to live the same? No. Does it take time for their standard of living to increase? Yeah. Do I care that the difference exists? Not really.


Dose eveyone want to live the same, or well. Yes, yes they do, and what right do have to deny them.


Is it wrong, and immoral, to expect someone in America to give up what they worked for to increase the standard of living of someone else in China? Yes that is wrong and immoral to expect.

Is it not just as immoral not to help these people all your can, considering most of Americans international and so internal wealth is build of free trade some thing which dose find the cheapest source of labour and squeeze it as hard as it can to get all the goodness out, so perhaps yeah, yeah you should give up your by proxy ill-gotten gains to help these people, who have as much right as you to live just as comfortable a life.

Sigh, what can i say in the heat of the moment, eveyone makes mistakes. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me one day.

Nope, you're British.

Again getting awfully Pedantic to back your point up, it was an illustration not a hypothetical scenario

And you are going towards the extreme. Many many rich people donate very large sums of money to hosptials and charities. They do help people with their medicine.

Dose eveyone want to live the same, or well. Yes, yes they do, and what right do have to deny them.

I don't deny it. I simply don't go out of my way to sacrifice my income to make their life better.

Is it not just as immoral not to help these people all your can, considering most of Americans international and so internal wealth is build of free trade some thing which dose find the cheapest source of labour and squeeze it as hard as it can to get all the goodness out, so perhaps yeah, yeah you should give up your by proxy ill-gotten gains to help these people, who have as much right as you to live just as comfortable a life.

No one has any right to live a comfortable life.

And you are going towards the extreme. Many many rich people donate very large sums of money to hosptials and charities. They do help people with their medicine. They donate nothing compared to what they cost.

What do you think about Microsoft selling word processing software for Windows? They control both the OS and word processing market. How can better and cheaper products compete?

Software ends up being a trickier market because once something is made it costs almost nothing to keep on making it. That aside if someone sat down and made a better product than say the entire MSOffice package and then priced it at half that of Microsoft I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft had to drop their prices as well.

Essentially the entire format of computers ends up tending towards a monopoly and it is a very hard thing to break up.

Software ends up being a trickier market because once something is made it costs almost nothing to keep on making it. That aside if someone sat down and made a better product than say the entire MSOffice package and then priced it at half that of Microsoft I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft had to drop their prices as well.

Essentially the entire format of computers ends up tending towards a monopoly and it is a very hard thing to break up.Like the train system, the phone lines, oil, or electricity.
the US government had to intervene on several occasions on the last century to breack up monopolies. Capitalism naturally evolves toward monopolies. Before the government stomp on Microsoft, they will exploit their consumers and employees to hell, because the share holders are king.

No one has any right to live a comfortable life.


Maybe not the right to have it on a plate, but the right to have realistic chance to make it for them selves, some thing poor people the world over and denied.

Riight. Because you know, that is the one and only kind of enviormental impact...


The phrase 'for instance' means 'as an example'.


The best product at the best price will win. Otherwise we'd all be driving KIAs.

Nonesense, the cheapest generally wins. That's why McDonalds is so omnipresent.
Own brand beans at 10p a tin or organic beans at 55p a tin? I buy the organic beans, because 10p for a tin of beans is obscene in my mind. And I recycle the tin.


You buy a car? Money didn't stay local. A computer? Didn't stay local. Electricity? Didn't stay local. A book? Didn't stay local and on and on and on. But then I don't really care if you want to spend your money with a "conscience" and spend it locally.

I bought a second hand car from a local dealer. But that's beside the point, I am not saying everything has to be local. You buy the car you like and the computer you like. These are high quality purchases that will last a long time.
But you buy food every day, the more consumable a product the more likely you are to forgo quality for price. This is what should change.

If I buy a book, it's either from a charity shop or it's a new novel from an author I admire. In which case the publisher and the author get's the money which is right and just, same with music and other forms of entertainment.

They donate nothing compared to what they cost.

Hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars?

Eh?

Maybe not the right to have it on a plate, but the right to have realistic chance to make it for them selves, some thing poor people the world over and denied.

The people the world over are under the rule of dictatorships and many various forms of governments. If they can't/won't topple their governments and create something they want they end up with what they have. Especially when if a country like say, America, invades one of those countries to change things, like say Iraq, the world tells America to not do that.

All people deserve is a chance. If they blow that chance, tough shit. Communism creates an enviorment where there is no chance at anything.

The people the world over are under the rule of dictatorships and many various forms of governments. If they can't/won't topple their governments and create something they want they end up with what they have. Especially when if a country like say, America, invades one of those countries to change things, like say Iraq, the world tells America to not do that.

All people deserve is a chance. If they blow that chance, tough shit. Communism creates an enviorment where there is no chance at anything.

Bah we are both to byast to get any futher here, plus i want to go down the pub now, so i guess well just have agree to disagree.

Capitalism is wrong in the sense that it takes advantage of the weak and nieve and leaves them to wither and die if they can't keep up with the increasing demands of this lifestyle. Which becomes more and more common as coporations grow taller and small buisnesses and the farming industry are practicaly unheard of now in this country. (That being the U.S..)

Capitalism is good in the sense that it keeps us "busy" from giving into our inherity "evil" nature and destroying one another in some more primitive fashion. Our nation is one that is entirely too large to ever consider a communism. Indian tribes were maybe that of a hundred people or so, Amish people live with thier families and maybe like.. one neighbor. But we have procreated SO much that a non-buisness settlement is this country is unfeesable to say the least..

My answer? We deffinitly need to be "knocked down a peg" by a few other hostile countries. I'm talking no-name states of union like Koriea and Cuba, our supirior nation against a bunch of small "villains" will cancel one another out but ultimately those dictators will die and our country will be batterd and broken and THEN we can start a succesful communism with the few remaining survivors.. But it would have to be watched very closely as corruption is easier then crack to get addicted too..

You can tell how I feel about capitalism by the way I run my country "The Colony of Carbdown". Which is bassicaly a revised socialism right now.

Concerts? You try buying a Reyn Spooner Hawaiian shirt for less than 60 bucks :p
Those aren't made in 3rd world countries.

Now over 40 years later, Reyn Spooner® is still producing aloha shirts, with every garment cut and sewn in our own Hawaii workrooms just minutes from the original Waikiki Beach location.

Those aren't made in 3rd world countries.

I could have sworn it said Malaysia.... eh, I'm probably thinking of a different shirt.

Essentially the entire format of computers ends up tending towards a monopoly and it is a very hard thing to break up.
Actually, it's very, very simple to break up. Get rid of the software patents. Keep copyright, but ditch the patents. The reason for this is that there are only so many ways to do something even though they can be programmed in many different ways. You have companies like microsoft submitting patents for things the have not intention of producing, so that they can license it when someone else wants to go all the way through. Besides, when you think about what software actually is you really can't have patents for it as it is not a physical medium.

Yeah, so we should just let these companies throw our workers away, even though they were there first, and did nothing to warrant a layoff?

Sounds about right.

Now, I'm all for a global economy, but it would have to be eased in... You can't just up and ruin people's lives to further a cause that will happen anyway.

So YOU believe that a Company OWES YOU a Job, just because YOU are willing to do it?

If YOU PRICE YOURSELF out of the MARKET and the Company can get the same work for MUCH CHEAPER then WHAT Right of YOURS have they infringed on by giving the Job to someone who is willing to work for far cheaper than YOU are?

Why is it Americans didn't have a problem with outsourcing jobs as long as it was WE that were getting and not giving them away, and now that it is happening to US we have a problem with it?!?!

I can see why there are some things that the World SHOULD have a problem with some of the attitudes taken by the Majority or even a Minority in this Country...

If we want to demand fair and equal trade we have to live up to BOTH ends of that agreement.

Regards,
Gaar

Capitalism, when regulated is not a problem. "Free market" economies are a problem, and I'll explain why.
A corporation's only loyalty- its ONLY loyalty- is to its shareholders, who expect it to make them money. They aren't good or evil, they are machines for producing money for shareholders.
Now, since that is their job, if the governments don't move to keep things fair, they'll use every advantage that they possibly can.

Market Failures.

Actually there was a 100% tax.

source it.

why is it that most critics of the ussr have no frelling clue about basic facts about the place? i mean, there were some really obvious structural problems with the entire system, even beyond ethical considerations, but you people can't address them because you have no idea what they were.

So YOU believe that a Company OWES YOU a Job, just because YOU are willing to do it?

If you're willing to work, and you have the skills, you should be up for a job.

If YOU PRICE YOURSELF out of the MARKET and the Company can get the same work for MUCH CHEAPER then WHAT Right of YOURS have they infringed on by giving the Job to someone who is willing to work for far cheaper than YOU are?

Excuse me? It's not my fault that corporations pay people shitty wages and inflate their profit margins. Then, if their margins shrink by any small amount, they'll throw your job away and get an overseas worker who'll do the job for ten cents an hour. That's ruthless exploitation of both parties, and it just isn't right.

Why is it Americans didn't have a problem with outsourcing jobs as long as it was WE that were getting and not giving them away, and now that it is happening to US we have a problem with it?!?!

Because nobody knew the real problems outsourcing would cause. Simple as that.

I can see why there are some things that the World SHOULD have a problem with some of the attitudes taken by the Majority or even a Minority in this Country...

What, just because we want fair pay and fair treatment? The fact that we don't want to be treated like slaves and tools is somehow a bad thing?

If we want to demand fair and equal trade we have to live up to BOTH ends of that agreement.

Yeah, and then we'd have to pay the overseas workers the same as our own. See what I mean?

Regards,
Gaar

Don't give me "regards" unless you actually mean it. And your pissy attitude isn't one that I could get along with very easily.

source it.

why is it that most critics of the ussr have no frelling clue about basic facts about the place? i mean, there were some really obvious structural problems with the entire system, even beyond ethical considerations, but you people can't address them because you have no idea what they were.

The tax rate in the USSR wasn't 100%, because nobody owned anything that could be taxed. What he means is, when government controls all the property and assets of everybody, they are taxing 100%, if we take taxation to mean forced taking of money from the populace.

Capitalism, when regulated is not a problem. "Free market" economies are a problem, and I'll explain why.
A corporation's only loyalty- its ONLY loyalty- is to its shareholders, who expect it to make them money. They aren't good or evil, they are machines for producing money for shareholders.
Now, since that is their job, if the governments don't move to keep things fair, they'll use every advantage that they possibly can.

Assuming basic rules are laid down to prevent fraud and force, corporations must also be loyal to the law, not deliberately lying about their products or assaulting their customers to get money. If you're talking about "free market" and referring to lawless pillaging, where there really is nobody to step in against violence and theft, then yeah, regulation is necessary.

Assuming basic rules are laid down to prevent fraud and force, corporations must also be loyal to the law, not deliberately lying about their products or assaulting their customers to get money. If you're talking about "free market" and referring to lawless pillaging, where there really is nobody to step in against violence and theft, then yeah, regulation is necessary.
Why is it that few of the leftists can understand that when we mean "free market," we still want laws against force or fraud? Not sure 'bout you Dogburg, but I'm not an anarcho-capitalist like all the lefties make me out to be

Why is it that few of the leftists can understand that when we mean "free market," we still want laws against force or fraud? Not sure 'bout you Dogburg, but I'm not an anarcho-capitalist like all the lefties make me out to be

I am positive that a large portion of the posters on here are totally oblivious to the technical meaning of a free market. They see the word "free" and only assign social value to it.

I think capitalism is not flawless, but it is the best and most realistic economic system we've so far come up with. I think its biggest flaw is that it gives rise to corporatism.

Capitalism means the people, rather than the government, control the capital.
Funny that many socialists tend to say the same thing about socialism/communism.

There are so many problems with capitalism that I don't even know where to start. Not even mentioning things like sweatshops and famines caused by capitalism or forms of essentially capitalist economics disguised as socialism (coughstalincough), there are some very glaring problems with capitalism.

The first is undoubtedly élitism. The system seems to genuinely believe that all poor people are poor due to laziness and all rich people are superhuman. This élitism leads to some massive injustices. It should be obvious that pro-athletes are not superhuman or extraimportant, but capitalism treats them so.

Then there is the mindset of greed and competition that capitalism promotes. You wonder why there is so much crime; it's because we have such a competitive and greedy (in other words, capitalist) culture. We are so focused on short-term gain at the expense of others that we don't see the benefits of coöperation.

Of course, there is also the rampant simulation and illusion inherent to capitalism. Consider the TV shows and school classes you have. They all present a rosy picture of capitalism and give us an illusion of happiness. That is, of course, why everyone loves capitalism, anyway.

There are so many problems with capitalism that I don't even know where to start. Not even mentioning things like sweatshops and famines caused by capitalism or forms of essentially capitalist economics disguised as socialism (coughstalincough), there are some very glaring problems with capitalism.

The first is undoubtedly élitism. The system seems to genuinely believe that all poor people are poor due to laziness and all rich people are superhuman. This élitism leads to some massive injustices. It should be obvious that pro-athletes are not superhuman or extraimportant, but capitalism treats them so.

Then there is the mindset of greed and competition that capitalism promotes. You wonder why there is so much crime; it's because we have such a competitive and greedy (in other words, capitalist) culture. We are so focused on short-term gain at the expense of others that we don't see the benefits of coöperation.

Of course, there is also the rampant simulation and illusion inherent to capitalism. Consider the TV shows and school classes you have. They all present a rosy picture of capitalism and give us an illusion of happiness. That is, of course, why everyone loves capitalism, anyway.


Hey, I am perfectly well off. You people make it sound like everyone in a Capitalist country is a slave...

Hey, I am perfectly well off. You people make it sound like everyone in a Capitalist country is a slave...
You only think you are well off. It's just an illusion that would disappear if communism were ever practiced in it's pure and ideal form.

Then again you might be talking about living in the U.S. We are fading fast as a capitalist nation and rapidly becoming one of those Euro-Socialist-Welfare states.

If you're willing to work, and you have the skills, you should be up for a job.

That wasn't the question, and you know it...

The question is if you think they OWE you a Job simply because you can do it, regardless of the pay?


Excuse me? It's not my fault that corporations pay people shitty wages and inflate their profit margins. Then, if their margins shrink by any small amount, they'll throw your job away and get an overseas worker who'll do the job for ten cents an hour. That's ruthless exploitation of both parties, and it just isn't right.

Wrong. It isn't THEIR fault that YOU have priced YOURSELF out of a FREE MARKET!

Because nobody knew the real problems outsourcing would cause. Simple as that.

What you mean is we didn't CARE as long as the ill affect was not felt by US. But now that WE are the victims we don't like it!

Pretty simple MINDED if you ask me.


What, just because we want fair pay and fair treatment? The fact that we don't want to be treated like slaves and tools is somehow a bad thing?

YOU want to be treated "fair" by not treating business fair? How does that work?

Yeah, and then we'd have to pay the overseas workers the same as our own. See what I mean?

So now you want to "force" other Countries to live by the standards we set in the U.S.?

So much for FREE TRADE and COMPETITION!

Again, very simple minded indeed.

Regards,
Gaar

You only think you are well off. It's just an illusion that would disappear if communism were ever practiced in it's pure and ideal form.

Then again you might be talking about living in the U.S. We are fading fast as a capitalist nation and rapidly becoming one of those Euro-Socialist-Welfare states.

I live in Panama, thank ye very much.However, I am American. I love America and all it stands for, but I believe the american people have become fat, gun-totting, rich slobs.

That wasn't the question, and you know it...

The question is if you think they OWE you a Job simply because you can do it, regardless of the pay?




Wrong. It isn't THEIR fault that YOU have priced YOURSELF out of a FREE MARKET!



What you mean is we didn't CARE as long as the ill affect was not felt by US. But now that WE are the victims we don't like it!

Pretty simple MINDED if you ask me.




YOU want to be treated "fair" by not treating business fair? How does that work?



So now you want to "force" other Countries to live by the standards we set in the U.S.?

So much for FREE TRADE and COMPETITION!

Again, very simple minded indeed.

Regards,
Gaar


I wanna ask you something before I reply with more answers: What the fuck is your problem?

Hey, I am perfectly well off. You people make it sound like everyone in a Capitalist country is a slave...

In light of the suffering of children in sweatshops in some other capitalist countries, such thinking practically borders on sociopathy.

I wanna ask you something before I reply with more answers: What the fuck is your problem?

So YOU consider it a "problem" when someone refutes YOUR assertions?

Why is that?

Am I not entitled to my opinion, just as you are?

Regards,
Gaar

Not in the least. You just have a very pissy attitude for no fucking reason.

You're acting like a bitch when there is no need.

I live in Panama, thank ye very much.However, I am American. I love America and all it stands for, but I believe the american people have become fat, gun-totting, rich slobs.
That's funny. My mistake that is. I read Panama City and stopped. Panama City, FL is a big vacation destination for us Georgians.

So anyhow, you think we have become Canadians with guns? Oh the shame.

Not in the least. You just have a very pissy attitude for no fucking reason.

You're acting like a bitch when there is no need.

So it's ok for YOU to swear up a storm, but not ok for me to "act pissy"?!?!

Just how does that work, in your mind?

Regards,
Gaar

Seriously, stop being such a ninny.

Seriously, stop being such a ninny.

You wouldn't mind stopping with the personal attacks solely and get back to some point would you?

I don't mind your little "comments" as long as you are making SOME POINT while making them...

Regards,
Gaar

I did make plenty of points. I'm not the one who's being the intolerable intolerant, here.

Maybe you should invest in a mirror.

I did make plenty of points. I'm not the one who's being the intolerable intolerant, here.

Maybe you should invest in a mirror.

Again, you are welcome to your OPINION...

But let's not try and state it as some FACT that isn't in dispute, ok?

I am sure that, your posts that had no point what-so-ever and instead were posted to just attack someone personally can be viewed by some as being "intolerable intolerant" (whatever that means), can they not?

And I refuted EACH of those points, which instead of addressing you decided to go on a personal attack. Why is that?

Regards,
Gaar

Both of you grow up. At least when I insult people I'm still making points while I do it.

Both of you grow up. At least when I insult people I'm still making points while I do it.

Maybe YOU could point out when I haven't done just as YOU suggest?

I'll wait here...

Regards,
Gaar

Maybe you're in such a pissy mood because you think I wanna change this country. Or, maybe it's because you just think I'm a "Communist", though I'm nothing of the sort.

We could've had a decent argument had you decided to act respectfully, and not like a little raging shit. The way you write your posts makes it look like you're a very whiny, very spoiled little brat.

Maybe YOU could point out when I haven't done just as YOU suggest?

I'll wait here...

Regards,
Gaar

You continue to engage him no? You made an argument and /edit/ he /edit/ responded with crap. Ask him to deal with the arguement and if he doesn't leave it at that.

Like I said in the post above, I'd continue the argument if he stopped being such a dork.

Sadly, that seems a bit far-fetched.

Like I said in the post above, I'd continue the argument if he stopped being such a dork.

Sadly, that seems a bit far-fetched.

He argued a point and called you simple minded at the same time. You can't take being called simple minded? :shrug:

Hell yeah I can take a simple insult, I'd just appreciate it if he stopped with the way he replies. You know, with the CAPS and the insinuations.

He's acting like a really lame Statist.

You continue to engage him no? You made an argument and responded with crap. Ask him to deal with the arguement and if he doesn't leave it at that.

What crap? Again you accuse me of something without supplying any evidence to support.

I DID just what you suggested, did I not?

Perhaps it is YOU that hasn't read this thread in its entirety and instead choose to respond without being fully informed?

Again, if I have posted something that was JUST an attack, please point it out, rather than just accuse me of it without anything to support your assertion.

If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it and move on, but I don't have to take YOUR word that I have done what YOU say I have, do I?

Regards,
Gaar

What crap? Again you accuse me of something without supplying any evidence to support.

I DID just what you suggested, did I not?

Perhaps it is YOU that hasn't read this thread in its entirety and instead choose to respond without being fully informed?

Again, if I have posted something that was JUST an attack, please point it out, rather than just accuse me of it without anything to support your assertion.

If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it and move on, but I don't have to take YOUR word that I have done what YOU say I have, do I?

Regards,
Gaar

Ahem there is a word missing in that sentence. "He responded with crap."

My apologies for the typo.

Hell yeah I can take a simple insult, I'd just appreciate it if he stopped with the way he replies. You know, with the CAPS and the insinuations.

He's acting like a really lame Statist.

So it's ok for you to cuss, but I can't use CAPS?!?!

ROTFLMAO

Something tells me you can't continue to support your position and therefore needed to "change" the subject...

But hey, I have learned to expect as much from your type, it's all well and good for you to throw around the insults, but when someone bests you even at that you have to find SOME way out.

Regards,
Gaar

If you two want to debate, debate. If you want to complain about who started what, complain about who started what.

Potaria can easily simply address the points you made in a polite manner and move things along.

Urantia can easily ignore the remarks about his character and simply wait till Potaria addresses what was said rather than complain about someone acting "pissy."

If you two want to debate, debate. If you want to complain about who started what, complain about who started what.

Potaria can easily simply address the points you made in a polite manner and move things along.

Urantia can easily ignore the remarks about his character and simply wait till Potaria addresses what was said rather than complain about someone acting "pissy."

I don't care if he is polite or not, I would just like him to make a point when he posts and not just attack me...

Is that too much to ask?

And HE was the one saying "pissy", I just quoted him.

Regards,
Gaar

I don't care if he is polite or not, I would just like him to make a point when he posts and not just attack me...

Is that too much to ask?

Nope

And HE was the one saying "pissy", I just quoted him.

Regards,
Gaar

Thats what I said as well...

Thats what I said as well...

My fault, I apologize...

I am just being a bit defensive right now with all the personal attacks.

I feel like I have to respond to EVERY POINT lest someone say I was JUST INSULTING someone, without making a point.

Again, my apologies.

Regards,
Gaar

The tax rate in the USSR wasn't 100%, because nobody owned anything that could be taxed.

like wages, for example?

Why is it that few of the leftists can understand that when we mean "free market," we still want laws against force or fraud? Not sure 'bout you Dogburg, but I'm not an anarcho-capitalist like all the lefties make me out to be

I'm in agreement with you by asserting that prevention of theft and murder were legitimate government functions, but the sort of regulation that other guy was talking about probably isn't.

The biggest evil about capitalism is that it's an inherently exploitative economic system. Instead of focussing on the developed countries enjoying the benefits of this system, even though all those countries have many more victims of economic exploitation than those who benefit.

I suggest you consider the situation of the many undeveloped countries, where illiteracy, hunger, illness, great poverty are endemic. There is no possibility of those countries developing to the degree that the predominantly westyern countries enjoy. Capitalism simply does not allow for a limited amount of resources and wealth to be distributed equally around the world. That would be socialism....and of course we don't want any of that commie crap ehh? Even though China is heading to be the worlds economic superpower. Seriously capitalism fails miserably when measured against other economic/political systems like Socialism, Communism and Anarchy.

The biggest evil about capitalism is that it's an inherently exploitative economic system. Instead of focussing on the developed countries enjoying the benefits of this system, even though all those countries have many more victims of economic exploitation than those who benefit.

I suggest you consider the situation of the many undeveloped countries, where illiteracy, hunger, illness, great poverty are endemic. There is no possibility of those countries developing to the degree that the predominantly westyern countries enjoy. Capitalism simply does not allow for a limited amount of resources and wealth to be distributed equally around the world. That would be socialism....and of course we don't want any of that commie crap ehh? Even though China is heading to be the worlds economic superpower. Seriously capitalism fails miserably when measured against other economic/political systems like Socialism, Communism and Anarchy.

I would like to know how many people have read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, who is basically the founding Father of Capitalism?

Then I would like them to critique the points made as the basis for Capitalism before they say things like "Capitalism doesn't allow for..." and that sort of thing.

And after that, perhaps they might SHOW me where a Socialist or Communist Country HAS allowed for what it is they are saying that Capitalism doesn't allow for?!?!

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

Wealth of Nations
Adam Smith

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

Seems quite a cynical system there.

In fact, the two systems DO argue each other based on the same point: People are egoistical. Communists think this should be changed somehow, while Capitalists think that this is impossible and we have to live with it.

Ironically, those are the same capitalists who go on to call themselves 'idealists' and all those liberal moonbats 'cynics'.

I would like to know how many people who have read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, who is basically the founding Father of Capitalism?

Then I would like them to critique the points made as the basis for Capitalism before they say things like "Capitalism doesn't allow for..." and that sort of thing.

And after that, perhaps they might SHOW me where a Socialist or Communist Country HAS allowed for what it is they are saying that Capitalism doesn't allow for?!?!

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

Wealth of Nations
Adam Smith
As well as reading Adam Smith, I have aslo read Marx, Bakunin, Malatesta and Kropotkin amongst others.

More than that however, I have saw, first hand, experience of the direct victims of poverty within countries in Asia, Africa, even some places in Europe. It is those countries, who will most likely never receive any of "the benefits of capitalism"

Is capitalism wrong, evil, etc. Even if it's not evil, in what ways is it flawed? Please inform me as I'd love to know more.
The primary problem with capitalism is the same problem most religions have ... some of its aherents are idiots.

Have any of you ever thought beyond the constraints that are put on our thinking??????

There are more alternatives to capitalism than old-fasioned communism, go find .....

as somebody working in academia at a major university, i meet people from other countries on a regular basis. i've actually worked with more Europeans and Chinese individuals than i have with Americans in the last year. the interesting trend i have noticed is that the individuals who grew up in communist countries are the most vehemently opposed to communism. the Bulgarian/Russian fellow i work with is more pro-capitalist than even the most ardent Red Stater.

as somebody working in academia at a major university, i meet people from other countries on a regular basis. i've actually worked with more Europeans and Chinese individuals than i have with Americans in the last year. the interesting trend i have noticed is that the individuals who grew up in communist countries are the most vehemently opposed to communism. the Bulgarian/Russian fellow i work with is more pro-capitalist than even the most ardent Red Stater.I have a different experience. I went several times to Romania and Bulgaria. I've spent a years in Romania. I have a very close friend from Romania (it is a nearly brother). Constantinopolis here is from Romania. The people I met were not that happy with capitalism.
I can see several explanations. Maybe the people you meet are the pro-capitalist because you only meet the ones who learn english (and have access to anglo-saxon propaganda), or maybe you only meet those who are interested in going to america...

I have a different experience. I went several times to Romania and Bulgaria. I've spent a years in Romania. I have a very close friend from Romania (it is a nearly brother). Constantinopolis here is from Romania. The people I met were not that happy with capitalism.
I can see several explanations. Maybe the people you meet are the pro-capitalist because you only meet the ones who learn english (and have access to anglo-saxon propaganda), or maybe you only meet those who are interested in going to america...

The people I met in Poland who were older (and used to having the support of the state) didn't like capitalism - they wanted communism because they didn't have to do anything for themselves under that system and they were used to that. The younger people liked capitalism, by and large.

I also noticed that people who were not as smart, not as driven, and not as hard working tended to like communism, as they were having real trouble being successful under capitalism.

Capitalism has one problem - if you can't compete (or are not willing to compete), then life will suck you dry.

I don't really mind that happenning to people who are just not willing to compete. But, there are some people, who through injury or mental incapacity or disease cannot compete. The system is unfair to those people.

Yeah, less luxuries, but at least not at the expense of exploited overseas workers. If you ever studied anthropology/sociology you'd understand how global capitalism keeps people in poverty, as opposed to lessening it.Really? You learned about economics when you were supposed to be studying antropology and sociology?

Define "living as a number". And then explain how you'd be more of a number in socialism than in a capitalist world where your boss refers to you as a "human resource".Read We The Living by Ayn Rand. Don't worry, it's relatively short.

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, left-wingers are far more likely to support civil rights and personal freedoms than right-wingers are.
What in the hell does that have to do with anything? There are those who support civil liberties, those who support economic freedom, and those who think they're both important.

A bourgeois is someone who lives with the money he gets from his capital. He is essentially a renter.
A proletarian is someone who live with the money he gets from working. Most of the time he has a salary.
The means of production are the capital which is necessary to produce wealth.
Okay so an add executive who earns $400k/yr is the proletarian while a taxi cab driver is the bourgeois?
That definition of the "means of production" is not nearly comprehensive enough to meet my satisfaction. Is a pickup truck considered the means of production?

Okay so an add executive who earns $400k/yr is the proletarian while a taxi cab driver is the bourgeois?
That definition of the "means of production" is not nearly comprehensive enough to meet my satisfaction. Is a pickup truck considered the means of production?
Yes, yes ans yes.

The people I met in Poland who were older (and used to having the support of the state) didn't like capitalism - they wanted communism because they didn't have to do anything for themselves under that system and they were used to that. The younger people liked capitalism, by and large.

I also noticed that people who were not as smart, not as driven, and not as hard working tended to like communism, as they were having real trouble being successful under capitalism.

Capitalism has one problem - if you can't compete (or are not willing to compete), then life will suck you dry.

I don't really mind that happenning to people who are just not willing to compete. But, there are some people, who through injury or mental incapacity or disease cannot compete. The system is unfair to those people.
Some people are very very clever but can't sell themselves.
Because in this society, it is all about appearance. You can be as clever as einstein, but if you don't look clever, you're fucked. It is all about looking like the standard suit businessman killer.

I don't see the connection between you and Representative Schmidt in that scenario.
In this scenario, Schmidt is my elected official. He is partly responsible for the decisions that must be made regarding the nations oil refineries. For me to judge his actions to determine if I should vote to re-elect him, I need to know a few things about how oil refineries are to be run. I'd rather leave such things to the professionals. I don't want the responsibilty of owning a little piece of every productive enterprise in the country.

Sure. All inovation will stop the day we nationalise the industry.
Where are you getting those opinion from?
Have you ever seen a Russian car?

What is the problem with capitalism? The problem is that it presupposes that the main motive of any human action is profit, and this turned out to be the maximization of profit in this time and age... This is not the only problem about capitalism, still it provides a starting point as to understanding why it is not ok about capitalism. This passage by Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, makes my point clear to an extent.
...

Clear as mud.

No one here is arguing for laissez-fair
Speak for yourself.

Capitalism means the people, rather than the government, control the capital. Exceptions are made, of course, but that's the gist. The businessmen possess the money, rather than the bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats vote democrat, while businessmen vote republican, normally. There you have the reason many liberals are anti-capitalist.
Absolutely true.

Have you ever seen a Russian car?
Have you ever seen a brazilian car?
what about the sputnik? What about that for an inovation?

In light of the suffering of children in sweatshops in some other capitalist countries, such thinking practically borders on sociopathy.
I agree that sweatshops are not OK, but to fix the problem requires merely adjustments to minimum wage, workers' and trade laws, not a total eradication of capitalism.

Really? You learned about economics when you were supposed to be studying antropology and sociology?

Is it so hard to understand?!! Anthropology and sociology incorporates economics, but in a way more critical of classical economic ideology.

I agree that sweatshops are not OK, but to fix the problem requires merely adjustments to minimum wage, workers' and trade laws, not a total eradication of capitalism.
Small progresses over a long period of time vs a revolution.
Progressive socialism vs revolutionary communism.

I'm ok with both ideologies. I'm just not ok with those who want to go back to capitalism, destroying all the progress which has been made over the last 200 years. We have to fight to defend what has already been acquired. Minimum wages, ban on child labor and everything. I wouldn't mind small steps to be made to continue the progress.

as somebody working in academia at a major university, i meet people from other countries on a regular basis.
Funny, you recently said that you work in an abortion clinic (in one of those abotion threads).

As well as reading Adam Smith, I have aslo read Marx, Bakunin, Malatesta and Kropotkin amongst others.

More than that however, I have saw, first hand, experience of the direct victims of poverty within countries in Asia, Africa, even some places in Europe. It is those countries, who will most likely never receive any of "the benefits of capitalism"

Hmmm...

It seems most people are unaware that China is doing so well BECAUSE they have began to adopt certain parts of Capitalism...

http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/miyakodayori/057.html

http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/843.cfm

http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_39/b3648087.htm

So it seems that the World largest remaining Communist Country is turning to CAPITALISM to make their Economy work, I wonder why that is if Communism is so much better?

Regards,
Gaar

The primary problem with capitalism is the same problem most religions have ... some of its aherents are idiots.

This could be said about everything...

I wonder why someone would even state such a thing?

Flame Bait perhaps?

Regards,
Gaar

Seems quite a cynical system there.

Showing someone that an Exchange is also in their best interest is cynical?

How is that?

Regards,
Gaar

The problem is the ownership of this material, capital equipement and everything. Who can appropriate a river or something which is natural and sell it? In my opinion, this material is public and only the state can rent it. And if it falls on private hands, it shouldn't last after the death of that private person or he will use it to acquire new wealth and finally form a ruling class by controling important resources. It should be rented by the state.

Who said anything about rivers?

...There is no problem when you are exploited by the state so much as there is a problem when you are exploited by a lord, because it is slavery in the later case.What's the difference?

If you're willing to work, and you have the skills, you should be up for a job.
Ideally, I suppose, but nobody owes you a job no matter how qualified you are.

as somebody working in academia at a major university, i meet people from other countries on a regular basis. i've actually worked with more Europeans and Chinese individuals than i have with Americans in the last year. the interesting trend i have noticed is that the individuals who grew up in communist countries are the most vehemently opposed to communism. the Bulgarian/Russian fellow i work with is more pro-capitalist than even the most ardent Red Stater.
Red Stater? Are you implying some connection between the Republican party and free market economics? It's mostly myth. The only connection I can think of is Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html).

We have to fight to defend what has already been acquired. Minimum wages, ban on child labor and everything. I wouldn't mind small steps to be made to continue the progress.
What do you have against child labor? Is this necessarily a socialist/communist belief that children should not be allowed to work?

What do you have against child labor? Is this necessarily a socialist/communist belief that children should not be allowed to work?

Not allowed to work? It's more a matter of being safe from being forced to work. Do you know any 10 year olds who would choose to work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop? I think not. Children should be to actually be children rather than start working (for appalling hours and wages in many nations) at such a young age.

To put it another way, child labor laws are there to protect children the same way child pornography laws do. Both exist to prevent children from being exploited and forced into something they don't want to do. Surely, you don't believe child pornography should be legalized?

Note: As an anarchist, I don't believe in laws, but until capitalism is abolished, labor laws are necessary

First of all, the source of the problem is the fact that the means of production are private property. Capitalist society is divided in two social classes: the bourgeoisie (the owners/employers - those who own means of production) and the proletariat (the workers/employees - those who do not own means of production). The bourgeoisie (which is a tiny minority compared to the proletariat) is the ruling class, since it effectively owns and controls the entire economy. It has overwhelming wealth and power compared to the proletariat. But the bourgeois do not acquire their wealth through their own work. They acquire it by exploiting the work of others - by extracting a profit from their employees. Allow me to explain:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or the amount of work that went into it. That product - the fruit of the employee's labour - becomes the property of the employer.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. In capitalism, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and how much money they are willing to work for. So, as I mentioned above, the wage has nothing to do whatsoever with the value of the product he produces, or the amount of work he puts into it.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

Capitalists might argue that you are free to quit your job and go work for another employer. But ALL employers must exploit their workers in order to make a profit, so your only "choice" is whether you will be exploited by one employer or by the other employer across the street (and the skilled middle-class employees in rich western nations might not feel exploited, but that doesn't change the fact that they are exploited as much as any other workers). Capitalists might also argue that employees are free to start their own business and become employers themselves. But this argument doesn't even stand up to common sense: How exactly can you have more employers than employees? How can you have more bosses than workers? The fact is that in any capitalist society, the employers (the bourgeoisie) will always be a minority and the employees (the proletariat) will always be the majority. Some proletarians might have the opportunity to move up into the bourgeoisie, but they are very few compared to the proletarians who don't have that opportunity. Success stories are the exceptions, not the rule.

Oh, please don't tell me you really believe that.

You do, don't you?

If it was satire it'd have been less lucid.

This assumption that the rich have stolen from and exploited the poor is flawed. Despite you saying it is the exception, what's the one thing almost everyone in a job guns for? Promotion. Apparently, it happens often enough for people to really be trying hard for and wanting it. Second, the idea of being paid according to the amount of labor you put in is nigh-perfect, until we reach a system where nobody needs to work at all. Why? Well, if I can produce say 12 units of labor, and you can produce 15, why should we both only get 10 units in return? I should get 12, you should get 15, that's the only remotely fair way to run things.

I agree that capitalism should be carefully monitored, but it's really not as bad as these commies seem to think. However;


I'm ok with both ideologies. I'm just not ok with those who want to go back to capitalism, destroying all the progress which has been made over the last 200 years. We have to fight to defend what has already been acquired. Minimum wages, ban on child labor and everything. I wouldn't mind small steps to be made to continue the progress.

Seems to be confusing sensible laws to prevent exploitation with insane laws removing personal incentive, destroying personal wealth, weakening the family unit, and so forth. Minimum wages = good, child labor laws = good, taxes beyond those required for defense and policing = bad, all state = bad except policing and defense. :confused:

Not allowed to work? It's more a matter of being safe from being forced to work. Do you know any 10 year olds who would choose to work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop? I think not. Children should be to actually be children rather than start working (for appalling hours and wages in many nations) at such a young age.

To put it another way, child labor laws are there to protect children the same way child pornography laws do. Both exist to prevent children from being exploited and forced into something they don't want to do. Surely, you don't believe child pornography should be legalized?

Note: As an anarchist, I don't believe in laws, but until capitalism is abolished, labor laws are necessary

So, how does anarchy work without capitalism? You take what you want. There are no laws to stop you. And I'm reasonably confident that child pornography isn't a huge industry, yanno? I think people would carry on without the incentive of displaying all their personal information to the authorities if they try and sell it. :rolleyes:


Please. Come back after you've taken a cursory glance at anything remotely real. Like reality. Or the real world. A few axioms, perhaps? Earth, not Wonderland?

NOTHiNG

So, how does anarchy work without capitalism? You take what you want. There are no laws to stop you.

Anarchism is actually a form of socialism. I suggest you read up on the economics of anarchism.

And I'm reasonably confident that child pornography isn't a huge industry, yanno? I think people would carry on without the incentive of displaying all their personal information to the authorities if they try and sell it.

Perhaps not in the American empire, but ultimately, if child labor is OK, then child pornography is as well.

Anarchism is actually a form of socialism. I suggest you read up on the economics of anarchism.

Perhaps not in the American empire, but ultimately, if child labor is OK, then child pornography is as well.

Actually, Anarchy sounds like a form of HYPOCRISY if it HAS to do "something" just because something else exists, doesn't it?

And are you really going to try and compare Anarchy, which is basically the ABSENCE of Political Authority and is Political disorder and confusion to Socialism, which has fairly well defined means for its Social Order in that it either gives everyone equal "ownership" or gives it's Authority to some Central Body to do the same thing?

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, Anarchy sounds like a form of HYPOCRISY if it HAS to do "something" just because something else exists, doesn't it?

And are you really going to try and compare Anarchy, which is basically the ABSENCE of Political Authority and is Political disorder and confusion to Socialism, which has fairly well defined means for its Social Order in that it either gives everyone equal "ownership" or gives it's Authority to some Central Body to do the same thing?

Regards,
Gaar

You don't really know what anarchy or socialism is..

You don't really know what anarchy or socialism is..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Anarchy

1) Absence of any form of political authority.
2) Political disorder and confusion.
3) Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2) The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Anarchy

1) Absence of any form of political authority.
2) Political disorder and confusion.
3) Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2) The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
yeah, i've always seen a slight disagreement between these concepts. i believe Letila uses the first definition of "anarchy" when refering to his politics, and that definition seems to directly conflict with the definition of socialism that i encounter from my resources.

but hey, it's more fun to make up terms than to just use the boring old dictionary and moldy textbooks with "traditional" definitions of words!

yeah, i've always seen a slight disagreement between these concepts. i believe Letila uses the first definition of "anarchy" when refering to his politics, and that definition seems to directly conflict with the definition of socialism that i encounter from my resources.

but hey, it's more fun to make up terms than to just use the boring old dictionary and moldy textbooks with "traditional" definitions of words!
It helps if we can all agree on a meaning for the words before we start to argue about the meaning of words... :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

It helps if we can all agree on a meaning for the words before we start to argue about the meaning of words... :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar
be careful what you wish for...some of the "definitions" people use around here can be debatable in and of themselves.

be careful what you wish for...some of the "definitions" people use around here can be debatable in and of themselves.
Yeah, tell me... I have seen a few already.

Simply amazing what people say about some words and what they "mean"!?!?

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, tell me... I have seen a few already.

Simply amazing what people say about some words and what they "mean"!?!?

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar
it might be a good idea if all General Forum posters could agree on a common public source (like dictionary.com) for terms, at least for the purposes of these discussions. i've found that dictionary.com is good because it provides definitions from several different dictionaries, and it's free and accessable to anybody. if we could all just agree to that kind of truce, i think it would save a lot of time.

(in response to "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."):Seems quite a cynical system there.

In fact, the two systems DO argue each other based on the same point: People are egoistical. Communists think this should be changed somehow, while Capitalists think that this is impossible and we have to live with it.

Ironically, those are the same capitalists who go on to call themselves 'idealists' and all those liberal moonbats 'cynics'.
i've never understood why people view it as a bad thing that capitalism admits self-interest as a primary drive. i've always seen that as a healthy state of mind; you take care of yourself first, and you ensure that all the choices you make are going to be what is best for you. consideration for others is not necessarily in conflict with this, because modern society has developed such that pleasent interactions with other humans is often necessary to maintain maximal personal health and comfort.

i also don't see why we should prefer a system in which one person is compelled to make an adverse decision (from their own perspective) in order to benefit others, rather than a system in which individuals strive for dealings that are mutually agreeable.

yeah, i've always seen a slight disagreement between these concepts. i believe Letila uses the first definition of "anarchy" when refering to his politics, and that definition seems to directly conflict with the definition of socialism that i encounter from my resources.

but hey, it's more fun to make up terms than to just use the boring old dictionary and moldy textbooks with "traditional" definitions of words!

letila (and myself) use the terms as they have been used by (some parts of) the general socialist movement since damn near the start of it. anytime we use the word 'anarchy' we are almost certainly using it in something similar to definition 1b in the oxford english dictionary:

anarchy
1. a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.
b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder).

2. transf. Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any sphere. a. gen.
b. Non-recognition of moral law; moral disorder.
c. Unsettledness or conflict of opinion.

though even that is at best a rough summary of the actual meaning.

and for socialism, we use it in the broad sense of including other forms of social ownership of the means of production beyond state ownership. the 'collectively' part of the definition used above covers that quite nicely actually.

it might be a good idea if all General Forum posters could agree on a common public source (like dictionary.com) for terms, at least for the purposes of these discussions. i've found that dictionary.com is good because it provides definitions from several different dictionaries, and it's free and accessable to anybody. if we could all just agree to that kind of truce, i think it would save a lot of time.

beyond the point about dictionaries being a terrible thing to base arguments about politcal theories on, i'd just like to say that dictionary.com sucks, as some of its ads have a nasty habit of crashing my browser.

beyond the point about dictionaries being a terrible thing to base arguments about politcal theories on, i'd just like to say that dictionary.com sucks, as some of its ads have a nasty habit of crashing my browser.
well, if you've got another free and easily-accessed resource, that's fine with me. i realize that political definitions tend to be more complex than the ones they get in "standard" dictionaries, but i would rather we all agree on a single source than continue to have pointless arguments due to confusion over who is using which defintion.

and for socialism, we use it in the broad sense of including other forms of social ownership of the means of production beyond state ownership. the 'collectively' part of the definition used above covers that quite nicely actually.
Setting aside anarchy for a moment...

So does the System you live under mainly operate as a Socialist economy or a Capitalist economy?

Which has superiority? i.e. are there many more privately owned Industries or many more Socially owned Industries?

Regards,
Gaar

well, if you've got another free and easily-accessed resource, that's fine with me. i realize that political definitions tend to be more complex than the ones they get in "standard" dictionaries, but i would rather we all agree on a single source than continue to have pointless arguments due to confusion over who is using which defintion.

well, there's
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/
which is essentially the same as dictionary.com

and there is an online version of the compact oxford english dictionary at
http://www.askoxford.com/

and there's a whole bunch more around too. personally, i kinda like my hard copy "new shorter oed".

Setting aside anarchy for a moment...

So does the System you live under mainly operate as a Socialist economy or a Capitalist economy?

Which has superiority? i.e. are there many more privately owned Industries or many more Socially owned Industries?

Regards,
Gaar

what, now?

well, there's
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/
which is essentially the same as dictionary.com

and there is an online version of the compact oxford english dictionary at
http://www.askoxford.com/

and there's a whole bunch more around too. personally, i kinda like my hard copy "new shorter oed".
i also have my prefered personal hard copies, but i figure we should try to arive at some General consensus to save us all a lot of trouble...i don't really care what it is, since i'll use whatever people like best, but i am so tired of finding out that a 15-page debate was really just a matter of muddled semantics. such a buzz kill, that.

what, now?
Sorry, I see you live in the U.S. so it is a moot question.

I was basically asking... how can Sysytems, which are largely Capitalistic economies, call themselves "Socialist" Countries simply because they have a couple of Social Industries?

If the majority of a System is Capitalistic, with a few Social ideals blended in, how do some think they can refer to it as a Socialistc System?

Regards,
Gaar

but i am so tired of finding out that a 15-page debate was really just a matter of muddled semantics. such a buzz kill, that.

tell me about it. as near as i can figure, this has been 80% of the debate around anarchism/libertarian socialism for like 50 years. boring as fuck.

There is much more in life than money and economy. Satan gave us lots of intellect, when He created us, why shouldnt we use it to improve our lives collectively, without supressing others to slavery of our precious euros? :fluffle:

... I dont see the point of this never ending argument about capitalism :headbang: . Few (none) of us will ever be that rich that capitalism would be an option. Im not saying that communism works either, people are just too stupid for making it work instead of turning it into a capitalism.
There might be some other options too. :upyours: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

well, there's
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/
which is essentially the same as dictionary.com

and there is an online version of the compact oxford english dictionary at
http://www.askoxford.com/

and there's a whole bunch more around too. personally, i kinda like my hard copy "new shorter oed".
Tried Socialist on your "oxford" site twice and it went to a "page cannot be displayed" both times, and it took a while. Much slower than most sites I use.

I'll bookmark it, but it isn't going to help much if it doesn't come up with an answer when I use it.

Regards,
Gaar

I was basically asking... how can Sysytems, which are largely Capitalistic economies, call themselves "Socialist" Countries simply because they have a couple of Social Industries?

If the majority of a System is Capitalistic, with a few Social ideals blended in, how do some think they can refer to it as a Socialistc System?

as near as i can tell, its because of a rather large extension of the term 'socialism' to include any sort of system with a progressive income tax, a few socialized/nationalized industries, and a major political party that openly calls itself socialist (or even social democratic).

don't know myself, i think calling countries like that 'socialist' just serves to muddy things up even further.

Tried Socialist on your "oxford" site twice and it went to a "page cannot be displayed" both times, and it took a while. Much slower than most sites I use.

I'll bookmark it, but it isn't going to help much if it doesn't come up with an answer when I use it.

yeah, its being ridiculously slow right now. server issues, i assume. its normally better.

Well, if capatalism is undercooked a lot can be wrong with it! You can pick up all sorts of nasty stuff and end up with a really bad case of the crawling creeps. Up a creek without a paddle.

I keep hearing from everyone that in a Capitalist society, only the corporations have any money.

Is anyone else laughing their asses off with me? Perhaps you're just losers. Has that ever occured to you before?

I have plenty of money, unless you only consider billions as deserving the term money. :rolleyes:

And it's not the corporations who are trying to take it from me.

It's the IRS.

I keep hearing from everyone that in a Capitalist society, only the corporations have any money.

Is anyone else laughing their asses off with me? Perhaps you're just losers. Has that ever occured to you before?

I have plenty of money, unless you only consider billions as deserving the term money. :rolleyes:

And it's not the corporations who are trying to take it from me.

It's the IRS.
well, it makes sense that people who can do well under capitalism will tend to like it a whole lot more than people who can't. can't really blame them for that.

well, it makes sense that people who can do well under capitalism will tend to like it a whole lot more than people who can't. can't really blame them for that.
http://childsuicide.homestead.com/files/elephant_in_living_room.jpg

I keep hearing from everyone that in a Capitalist society, only the corporations have any money.

Is anyone else laughing their asses off with me? Perhaps you're just losers. Has that ever occured to you before?

I have plenty of money, unless you only consider billions as deserving the term money. :rolleyes:

And it's not the corporations who are trying to take it from me.

It's the IRS.

In this terms I guess we mean billons of money, though you are speaking of a society. In a Capitalist society the production-tools are owned by a few, the capitalists that ownes the corporations, in a socialistic society the production-tools are owned by everybody, the workers or a collective.
In a socialistic society the power is in the hands of the people, and its a democracy and not a aristocracy.

I recommend you all to watch the corporation, http://www.thecorporation.tv
And read some political philosophy maybe, i should but havnt yet...

well, it makes sense that people who can do well under capitalism will tend to like it a whole lot more than people who can't. can't really blame them for that.

Even if by some minute chance they can't get a better deal from capitalism, there's no need for them to pretend that just because they can't, the only people who can are a tiny elite of landed-gentry bloodsucking dinner-jacket businessmen.

They can do better under capitalism, at least in its modern form. As long as you have anything which the public might be willing to buy - a skill, a product, an idea, anything - you can sell it and make a living. If you don't have any of these, well, you can star in a reality TV show or something.

Of course, if socialist politicians over-regulate industry and business, you can't sell your services so easily, in which case you'll have to scab government handouts.

In this terms I guess we mean billons of money, though you are speaking of a society. In a Capitalist society the production-tools are owned by a few, the capitalists that ownes the corporations, in a socialistic society the production-tools are owned by everybody, the workers or a collective.
In a socialistic society the power is in the hands of the people, and its a democracy and not a aristocracy.

I recommend you all to watch the corporation, http://www.thecorporation.tv
And read some political philosophy maybe, i should but havnt yet...
Personally, my "means of production" consists of a Sony Vaio with a broadband connection.

Erm, I own the computer outright. :p
This isn't the Industrial Age anymore, yyou know.

And I have seen The Corporation, and I have studied political philosophy... But thanks for the suggestion. :rolleyes:

well, it makes sense that people who can do well under capitalism will tend to like it a whole lot more than people who can't. can't really blame them for that.
Most everyone can "do well" under Capitalism...

It's the ones that want to "do nothing" and have someone else support them that aren't going to.

Regards,
Gaar

Most everyone can "do well" under Capitalism...

It's the ones that want to "do nothing" and have someone else support them that aren't going to.

Regards,
Gaar

Exactly. Virtually every person on the planet has some kind of skill, product or ability which they can market to the populace.

In this terms I guess we mean billons of money, though you are speaking of a society. In a Capitalist society the production-tools are owned by a few, the capitalists that ownes the corporations, in a socialistic society the production-tools are owned by everybody, the workers or a collective.
In a socialistic society the power is in the hands of the people, and its a democracy and not a aristocracy.

I recommend you all to watch the corporation, http://www.thecorporation.tv
And read some political philosophy maybe, i should but havnt yet...
um, my "means of production" is my mind and the skills i have developed. last time i checked, those belong to me.

seriously, where does this idea of the evil corporations owning all "means of production" come from? no corporation owns my means of production, nor that of my parents, nor that of my lover...it seems a great many people manage to escape the insideous and evil clutches of these wicked corporations, so why are there people still claiming such an escape is impossible under capitalism?

Exactly. Virtually every person on the planet has some kind of skill, product or ability which they can market to the populace.
but some people will be less able to succeed at this than others, because some people are simply less skilled, less driven, less intelligent, etc. it's just the result of natural competition; not everybody will end up equally well off, because humans aren't naturally equal in ability. thus, some people may be more inclined to support systems that artificially "equalize" conditions, because they know they will be less able to compete than others may be.

um, my "means of production" is my mind and the skills i have developed. last time i checked, those belong to me.

seriously, where does this idea of the evil corporations owning all "means of production" come from? no corporation owns my means of production, nor that of my parents, nor that of my lover...it seems a great many people manage to escape the insideous and evil clutches of these wicked corporations, so why are there people still claiming such an escape is impossible under capitalism?

Indeed, even factory workers own their own means of production, which in those cases is usually their strength or technical competence. They voluntarily license their skills to the evil factory owner.

but some people will be less able to succeed at this than others, because some people are simply less skilled, less driven, less intelligent, etc. it's just the result of natural competition; not everybody will end up equally well off, because humans aren't naturally equal in ability. thus, some people may be more inclined to support systems that artificially "equalize" conditions, because they know they will be less able to compete than others may be.Excellent.

http://www.summitbenefit.com/burns2.gif

Wow I had no idea this thread was still going or got this long. I really should have paid more attention to it, hehe.

Excellent.

http://www.summitbenefit.com/burns2.gif
i am very much enjoying these images...most witty. :)

but some people will be less able to succeed at this than others, because some people are simply less skilled, less driven, less intelligent, etc. it's just the result of natural competition; not everybody will end up equally well off, because humans aren't naturally equal in ability. thus, some people may be more inclined to support systems that artificially "equalize" conditions, because they know they will be less able to compete than others may be.

Although in the long term, over-prevalence of socialist policies will result in a reduction of wealth for everyone, including those who would not have been top dog in the capitalist system. Heavy regulation of industry and an extensive public sector will mean that private companies will start to set up shop in other countries instead, or just shut down completely. No more affordable fast food or mobile phones, just government-issue whatever they've got. And usually, that's not a lot.

Although in the long term, over-prevalence of socialist policies will result in a reduction of wealth for everyone, including those who would not have been top dog in the capitalist system. Heavy regulation of industry and an extensive public sector will mean that private companies will start to set up shop in other countries instead, or just shut down completely. No more affordable fast food or mobile phones, just government-issue whatever they've got. And usually, that's not a lot.
hey, you don't have to convince me...i'm all for capitalism, myself. i'm just trying to point out that, for some people, it's smart to support socialism or communism because they personally may benefit from it more than they would from capitalism.

Although in the long term, over-prevalence of socialist policies will result in a reduction of wealth for everyone, including those who would not have been top dog in the capitalist system. Heavy regulation of industry and an extensive public sector will mean that private companies will start to set up shop in other countries instead, or just shut down completely. No more affordable fast food or mobile phones, just government-issue whatever they've got. And usually, that's not a lot.
I'm in complete agreement. Heavy regulation is responsible for the "Outsourcing Crises". The same people who are for heavy regulation are against outsourcing. Excellent example of why liberal politics repeatedly fail to accomplish anything of lasting value in the real world (and real market).

hey, you don't have to convince me...i'm all for capitalism, myself. i'm just trying to point out that, for some people, it's smart to support socialism or communism because they personally may benefit from it more than they would from capitalism.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I'm just musing that apologists for socialism would in almost all cases not, in fact benefit from it more than they would from capitalism.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I'm just musing that apologists for socialism would in almost all cases not, in fact benefit from it more than they would from capitalism.
i don't know about that...people on the whole might benefit more, but i don't know if you can definitively say that the majority of "apologists" would personally benefit more from capitalism. i think it's the opposite; i think they probably are less well equipped to deal with a capitalist system, and they probably would be better off if their status could be artificially "equalized," i simply don't think that makes such a system right or just.

i don't know about that...people on the whole might benefit more, but i don't know if you can definitively say that the majority of "apologists" would personally benefit more from capitalism. i think it's the opposite; i think they probably are less well equipped to deal with a capitalist system, and they probably would be better off if their status could be artificially "equalized," i simply don't think that makes such a system right or just.

Well, there I disagree with you. I genuinely think that the vast majority of people in modern society would suffer as a result of extreme socialism being introduced. The total raping of business and industry would affect everybody, rich and poor.

Sure, in the short run everyone could reap the benefits of seized goods being redistributed, but after a few years dire shortages of pretty much everything would likely occur. To be honest, such shortages will most painfully affect the poor which socialism was supposed to give help to. Rich people can afford black-market contraband to be smuggled to them, replacing legitimate industries and products which have ceased to exist.

Rich people can afford black-market contraband to be smuggled to them, replacing legitimate industries and products which have ceased to exist.
Or, as we saw with the Soviet Nomenklaturas, an elite class will arise who have "special privaleges, like shopping in the "best stores" and being able to purchase designer jeans. :rolleyes:

Power to the people?

Well, there I disagree with you. I genuinely think that the vast majority of people in modern society would suffer as a result of extreme socialism being introduced. The total raping of business and industry would affect everybody, rich and poor.

Sure, in the short run everyone could reap the benefits of seized goods being redistributed, but after a few years dire shortages of pretty much everything would likely occur. To be honest, such shortages will most painfully affect the poor which socialism was supposed to give help to. Rich people can afford black-market contraband to be smuggled to them, replacing legitimate industries and products which have ceased to exist.
i guess it depends on how socialism might be implimented. i can see what you are saying, but i don't think that situation would necessarily result from ALL possible socialist systems.

but some people will be less able to succeed at this than others, because some people are simply less skilled, less driven, less intelligent, etc. it's just the result of natural competition; not everybody will end up equally well off, because humans aren't naturally equal in ability. thus, some people may be more inclined to support systems that artificially "equalize" conditions, because they know they will be less able to compete than others may be.

or because they see that capitalism doesn't reward people fairly or rationally. all are not equal in ability - these abilities that are rewarded by capitalism would (probably) form a bell curve in the population. but because of the sticky nature of wealth to the ownership of the means of production, wealth does not wind up distributed so that a few have a bit less and a few have a bit more, with most falling in the middle. it winds up highly concentrated in a tiny percentage of the population, so that a large majority of the population gets pretty much nothing comparatively. it is just not the case in any real sense that some people are thousands and thousands of times more 'able' than most people.

if you eliminated private ownership in the means of production and distribution in favor of direct worker ownership, but otherwise kept a market economy in place, then you would see a more fair distribution of the wealth created in that society - based on inclination and skill (and, of course, a bit of luck) without the radical skewing caused by elite ownership. you might call it an 'ownership society'.

my sense of justice leads me to go further than this. but it would be a good start.

or because they see that capitalism doesn't reward people fairly or rationally. all are not equal in ability - these abilities that are rewarded by capitalism would (probably) form a bell curve in the population. but because of the sticky nature of wealth to the ownership of the means of production, wealth does not wind up distributed so that a few have a bit less and a few have a bit more, with most falling in the middle. it winds up highly concentrated in a tiny percentage of the population, so that a large majority of the population gets pretty much nothing comparatively. it is just not the case in any real sense that some people are thousands and thousands of times more 'able' than most people.

if you eliminated private ownership in the means of production and distribution in favor of direct worker ownership, but otherwise kept a market economy in place, then you would see a more fair distribution of the wealth created in that society - based on inclination and skill (and, of course, a bit of luck) without the radical skewing caused by elite ownership. you might call it an 'ownership society'.

my sense of justice leads me to go further than this. but it would be a good start.

As we have been saying over the last few pages, in modern society, millions of people own their own means of production. There is a multitude of small business, self-employed and freelance persons in today's society. And even if you are working for a larger company, you still have jurisdiction over your own personal means of production - your skill, knowledge and what ever else you use to produce - the only difference is that you are choosing to license your skills to an employer.

Is capitalism wrong, evil, etc. Even if it's not evil, in what ways is it flawed? Please inform me as I'd love to know more.

The problem with pure capitalism is that the people exist for the benefit of the economic system rather than the economic system for the people. The well-being of the citizens and the success of the economy aren't always directly connected.
A balance must be maintained between socialism and capitalism.

As we have been saying over the last few pages, in modern society, millions of people own their own means of production. There is a multitude of small business, self-employed and freelance persons in today's society. And even if you are working for a larger company, you still have jurisdiction over your own personal means of production - your skill, knowledge and what ever else you use to produce - the only difference is that you are choosing to license your skills to an employer.

and that's just a silly way to change the subject. your skills and knowledge are not "the means of production". they are part of your labor, which is used on the actual means of production to transform materials into products.

means of production = the tools, machines, factories, land, etc
labor = human action

being a "self-employed" contract worker or whatever does not mean you own the means of production. it means that you sell your labor to those who do on terms different from those of their other workers (or just different from the model of full-time long-term employment in general).

of course, some sorts of work can be done by labor alone, or with very small-scale means of production. these are the types of things that are done by small-businesses or the truly self-employed.

and that's just a silly way to change the subject. your skills and knowledge are not "the means of production". they are part of your labor, which is used on the actual means of production to transform materials into products.

means of production = the tools, machines, factories, land, etc
labor = human action

being a "self-employed" contract worker or whatever does not mean you own the means of production. it means that you sell your labor to those who do on terms different from those of their other workers (or just different from the model of full-time long-term employment in general).

of course, some sorts of work can be done by labor alone, or with very small-scale means of production. these are the types of things that are done by small-businesses or the truly self-employed.

Most craftsmen today own their own tools and machines. They don't slave away for some cackling lunatic in a top hat, they go around with their own power tools, their own drills and wood and hammers and nails, and do what they do.

Regarding land, well, millions of people today own land. How are you going to determine which landowners are evil capitalists and which ones are just homeowners or small businessmen?

The problem with pure capitalism is that the people exist for the benefit of the economic system rather than the economic system for the people. The well-being of the citizens and the success of the economy aren't always directly connected.
A balance must be maintained between socialism and capitalism.

Actually, the capitalist economic system is indifferent to the success of the individual. But it is flush with opportunity. I could set you up, personally establish you in any number of businesses that would make you a lot of money. But they would require a lot of work.

Socialism kills the work ethic by decreasing the benefit that any particular individual received for excelling in their field - if someone else will get the same reward for being crappy, why bother to kill yourself and work harder?

Or, as we saw with the Soviet Nomenklaturas, an elite class will arise who have "special privaleges, like shopping in the "best stores" and being able to purchase designer jeans. :rolleyes:

Power to the people?

which is what goldman, berkman, kropotkin and other libertarian socialists were arguing all the way back in 1919 - and especially after 1921

Most craftsmen today own their own tools and machines. They don't slave away for some cackling lunatic in a top hat, they go around with their own power tools, their own drills and wood and hammers and nails, and do what they do.

got numbers on that? and what is the domain of things covered by your term "craftsmen"?

Regarding land, well, millions of people today own land. How are you going to determine which landowners are evil capitalists and which ones are just homeowners or small businessmen?

those who own land that they charge others to use or are using for the purpose of land speculation are the ones using their land as capital. same thing that makes one a capitalist in other realms of ownership too.


please stop pretending that i think of capitalists as a silent movie caricature of evil. it serves no purpose in the argument except as an ad hominem.

Socialism kills the work ethic by decreasing the benefit that any particular individual received for excelling in their field - if someone else will get the same reward for being crappy, why bother to kill yourself and work harder?

that's built into the definition of socialism now, is it?

got numbers on that? and what is the domain of things covered by your term "craftsmen"?


Nope, I haven't, I'm just talking from personal experience here. If I hire a plumber or electrician, he generally has a toolkit and he owns it.


those who own land that they charge others to use or are using for the purpose of land speculation are the ones using their land as capital. same thing that makes one a capitalist in other realms of ownership too.


What about a farmer who employs farm hands on his land? And even if he does all the work himself, he's still using his land to make profit.


please stop pretending that i think of capitalists as a silent movie caricature of evil. it serves no purpose in the argument except as an ad hominem.

I'm sorry. I'll cut down on the top hat jokes. Just as soon as I exact my evil plan! Mohahahaha!

No seriously. I'll cut down on them.

Ok, Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is the best thing the world has got.

I would go into greater detail, but I'm no economist, and I would fall before the educated reason of pretty much anyone on this subject.

Ok, Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is the best thing the world has got.

I would go into greater detail, but I'm no economist, and I would fall before the educated reason of pretty much anyone on this subject.

Don't worry, whatever educated reason I have agrees with you. No system is perfect. To assume that capitalism will make everybody wildly rich, healthy, happy and all that is just as naïve as thinking that any other system will do that.

What I do suggest is that capitalism in its present form is more likely to achieve results closer in that direction than any other general economic strategy.

Capitalism, when regulated is not a problem. "Free market" economies are a problem, and I'll explain why.
A corporation's only loyalty- its ONLY loyalty- is to its shareholders, who expect it to make them money. They aren't good or evil, they are machines for producing money for shareholders.
Now, since that is their job, if the governments don't move to keep things fair, they'll use every advantage that they possibly can.

I agree wholeheartedly (see my previous post on responsible capitalism, #250). As an economic system, capitalism definitely delivers the goods... it's up to government to ensure that wealth is redistributed fairly.

I agree wholeheartedly (see my previous post on responsible capitalism). As an economic system, capitalism definitely delivers the goods... it's up to government to ensure that wealth is redistributed fairly.

Ah, but can you have your cake and eat it too? Government redistribution automatically reduces the wealth which capitalism has delivered.

which is what goldman, berkman, kropotkin and other libertarian socialists were arguing all the way back in 1919 - and especially after 1921

And didn't Bakunin predict Marxism would fail long before the Russian revolution even occured?

Ah, but can you have your cake and eat it too? Government redistribution automatically reduces the wealth which capitalism has delivered.

Sure you can... the cake doesn't have to be huge to be tasty. Better everyone have a nice thick slice of cake rather than a few having a whole cake all to themselves while the rest starve.

Also, keep in mind we're talking about FAIR redistribution, which implies a lack of corruption... thus everyone gets what they need to live a comfortable (and I emphasize comfortable) lifestyle without having power over their neighbours. Of course, the same has to go for government as well... again, the redistribution has to be FAIR.

True, it's an ideological argument rather than a purely pragmatic one, but that's where the idea of responsible capitalism comes in.

hey, you don't have to convince me...i'm all for capitalism, myself. i'm just trying to point out that, for some people, it's smart to support socialism or communism because they personally may benefit from it more than they would from capitalism.I think that's wrong. First off, morally it's wrong to support robbing the rich just because you're poor, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Actually I think from a practical standpoint, it's also wrong because the overall productivity of an economy is significantly reduced by restrictions and redistributions. In places where there is substatial economic freedom, there is much more wealth to go around.

Well, there I disagree with you. I genuinely think that the vast majority of people in modern society would suffer as a result of extreme socialism being introduced. The total raping of business and industry would affect everybody, rich and poor.

Sure, in the short run everyone could reap the benefits of seized goods being redistributed, but after a few years dire shortages of pretty much everything would likely occur. To be honest, such shortages will most painfully affect the poor which socialism was supposed to give help to. Rich people can afford black-market contraband to be smuggled to them, replacing legitimate industries and products which have ceased to exist.Sounds like a book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451187849/qid=1112482670/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/102-4494913-3662569?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) I read once.

that's built into the definition of socialism now, is it?From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

..which I always list as a bad idea, which is why I can never get a negative score on my economic political compass...

Seriously, I had someone tell me that it would be America's downfall and that capitalism is inherently evil! Now I know people throw around that phrase like 'I love you' on an episode of Oprah but it got me wondering. Am I missing something here? Is this guy just a stinking red? [No offence meant, just a joke]


Nothing's wrong with capitalism. It's an episode in the evolution of human society. Capitalism just means that the primary concern is the capital or the profit, to be exact. You need to have capital if you want to start your own business. And starting your own business is about personal freedom - as opposed to working for your landlord (and give him your daughter for her first night with a man) or for the other factory owner. Capitalism and the finance system with it, enables capital to flow from people to people with borrowing and lending - if your ancestors haven't been slave owners or landlords or warlords and you couldn't inherit their loot.

There are also several flaws in capitalism.

Like the power of the former landlords, warlords, slave drivers, etc is still there, as they left their loot to their offspring who are now in a better position when it comes to capital than the former slaves and their offspring.

With time, capital will lose its importance and knowledge will become more important, and knowledge can be gained by anyone. For software, biotech, organic farming, and other stuff coming up, knowledge is more important than capital. Lots of infrastructure and buildings are already built and can be recycled, except if there is a war (after which we will have to start at the beginning again, with less resources available as before). Reduced natural resources like oil and coal (and related price hikes) make it more important to recycle buildings and other capital intensive things like factories and office furniture. Using resources in an intelligent way requires more intelligence (for the Americans here: no, I'm not talking about CIA and the other 14 "intelligence" agencies in the US, but rather about schools).


A couple of hundred years later capitalism will be history just like the Slave-based economies of Greece and Rome and the Lords, Popes, Kings and Knights of medieval Europe.

Don't be an idiot. Workers should keep the full value of their labour - no more no less. Capitalism always gives them less.

You dont be an idiot.

What about the value provided by the employer that organized said labor?

What about the value inherent in the risk the employer took by setting up the infrastructure to be able to provide the opportunity for people to work.

What about the risk the employer is taking with his capital? The employees must get paid, they get paid whether the business is doing well or not. Not so with the employers returns on his investment.

If employers are not compensated for their risk and effort, why will they take said risk. If the owner of a mcdonalds franchise is going to give all of the stores profits to the employees, why should he take the risk of setting it up? Why not just sit at home and sip vodka

In socialism, the state runs the economy and the people control the state. Which part of that don't you understand?

The part where you point out an example where socialism hasnt destroyed the lives of everyone except the rich and politically connected.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

necessitates that "someone else will get the same reward for being crappy"?

necessitates that "someone else will get the same reward for being crappy"?
I prefer to look at it as "striving to do the least, to get the most"...

No one wants to work harder than the next guy if you "know" you are getting the same reward.

But if I know that I can work harder than the next guy, or more efficiently, I get more... Well, I'll take the second way, thank you...

And it doesn't surprise me that some would prefer the first way, some people are just born lazy and want someone else to support them. I don't begrudge them such sentiments, I just don't want to be the guy in "their" system scrubbing all the toilets, because that's what someone else thought I was good at.

And before someone accuses me of not wanting to support people who cannot support themselves, I say that I do plenty for my fellow citizens and if someone is "truly needy" there are places here in the U.S. to get help, beyond what our Government does...

It just really spoils those things we do through our Government when people who could really do for themselves abuse the system. In Private Charity, there is much more accountability on all levels of the Giving.

Regards,
Gaar

No one wants to work harder than the next guy if you "know" you are getting the same reward.

possibly true. but how does "to each according to need (and 'want' as far as is possible)" necessitate everyone getting the same reward?

possibly true. but how does "to each according to need (and 'want' as far as is possible)" necessitate everyone getting the same reward?
I understand what you are saying...

But when you hear it from the People who espouse such sentiments it seems to mean to them that "need" means having their Housing, food and amenities all paid for...

Instead of perhaps staying in a shelter until you can afford a place of your own. It means eating at McDonalds, and not shopping as efficeintly as possible.

If people who didn't "need", didn't abuse they System there would be far more for those that do need.

My point is, that we U.S. citizens are very giving people and are more likely to give more when we see our money going to good causes and people who actually need it, not those who believe they "deserve" it.

Regards,
Gaar

Nope, I haven't, I'm just talking from personal experience here. If I hire a plumber or electrician, he generally has a toolkit and he owns it.

yeah, that probably holds for small-scale technical laborers of that sort. but i'm not sure how much of the total number of people doing similar jobs they account for - there are an awful lot of wage-laborers working for people like that, or for the large-scale capitalists.

What about a farmer who employs farm hands on his land? And even if he does all the work himself, he's still using his land to make profit.

producing wealth is not the problem. it is the goal.

however, if your farm (or any sort of workplace) is too big for you to run by yourself, then your claim of private ownership looks rather flimsy. why should you get to own that which you cannot use? and why should those that do use it have to pay you for the 'privilege'?

I understand what you are saying...

But when you hear it from the People who espouse such sentiments it seems to mean to them that "need" means having their Housing, food and amenities all paid for...

Instead of perhaps staying in a shelter until you can afford a place of your own. It means eating at McDonalds, and not shopping as efficeintly as possible.

If people who didn't "need", didn't abuse they System there would be far more for those that do need.

My point is, that we U.S. citizens are very giving people and are more likely to give more when we see our money going to good causes and people who actually need it, not those who believe they "deserve" it.

Regards,
Gaar

i've always felt that need was a very unfair way to distribute wealth, as well, because some people create more need for themselves through the choices they make. for instance, a person who chooses to have 6 kids is going to need a lot more to support their family than a person who chooses to have only one or two kids, but i don't see why the two-child family should have its wealth redistributed to support other peoples' children. if you choose to have kids you choose to take responsibility for their care, and i don't think it is reasonable to expect other peoples' labor to pay for your family.

And didn't Bakunin predict Marxism would fail long before the Russian revolution even occured?
C'est vrai.

And didn't Marx himself say that vanguardism would fail?

possibly true. but how does "to each according to need (and 'want' as far as is possible)" necessitate everyone getting the same reward?

Because the government (or "the people" or whatever you want to call it. The governing system) dictates what everybody needs, which means it will most likely issue a set of overalls, some shoes, whatever tools are necessary for the job they have been assigned, and whatever food and water per day is necessary for people to survive. Why give more? If the government gives one guy something luxurious like a clock or an automobile, it's going to have to give everyone one, since just giving it to the one person will make his comrades bitter. After all, isn't equality and equal distribution of wealth supposed to be a tenet of communism?

True prosperity is about going beyond what you need and into the realm of what you desire. That's how society has advanced. All you actually need to survive on a day to day basis is an antelope corpse between three and a stream of fresh water, but only having that provides a pretty grueling, unrewarding existence.

So people devised new hunting methods, so they could have more meat than they needed, and that made their lives more comfortable. Then people decided they wanted something to pass the time which they had saved by not needing to try so hard to grab an antelope, so they started to make pottery, cave paintings, musical instruments and so on. Art was born from a desire to have more than you actually need. You don't need art, but many would argue it's a great human development.

Of course, much more functional utilities and ideas were derived from this sort of development. You don't need medicine (at least on a day to day basis). You don't need a computer (although I imagine some people on the board would disagree :p ). You don't need space travel, cars or aeroplanes to stay alive, and yet they are all arguably great achievements for mankind.

If we were to apply a universal policy of "you get what you need", how many more great discoveries would we miss out on, simply because they weren't absolutely necessary for survival?

Because the government (or "the people" or whatever you want to call it. The governing system) dictates what everybody needs, which means it will most likely issue a set of overalls, some shoes, whatever tools are necessary for the job they have been assigned, and whatever food and water per day is necessary for people to survive. Why give more? If the government gives one guy something luxurious like a clock or an automobile, it's going to have to give everyone one, since just giving it to the one person will make his comrades bitter. After all, isn't equality and equal distribution of wealth supposed to be a tenet of communism?

True prosperity is about going beyond what you need and into the realm of what you desire. That's how society has advanced. All you actually need to survive on a day to day basis is an antelope corpse between three and a stream of fresh water, but only having that provides a pretty grueling, unrewarding existence.

So people devised new hunting methods, so they could have more meat than they needed, and that made their lives more comfortable. Then people decided they wanted something to pass the time which they had saved by not needing to try so hard to grab an antelope, so they started to make pottery, cave paintings, musical instruments and so on. Art was born from a desire to have more than you actually need. You don't need art, but many would argue it's a great human development.

Of course, much more functional utilities and ideas were derived from this sort of development. You don't need medicine (at least on a day to day basis). You don't need a computer (although I imagine some people on the board would disagree :p ). You don't need space travel, cars or aeroplanes to stay alive, and yet they are all arguably great achievements for mankind.

If we were to apply a universal policy of "you get what you need", how many more great discoveries would we miss out on, simply because they weren't absolutely necessary for survival?
also, some people plan their lives so that they can reduce their need and enjoy greater surplus from their efforts. to use the example of family planning again, some people choose to have small families or no children so that they can enjoy more personal comforts. some people choose to live in a small condo or apartment rather than a house, to cut down on what they need to spend on home maintenance. some people choose to live extremely spartan lives so they can put more of their money into savings for their future. but if everybody is simply going to be given what they need, then these choices could not be possible because everybody would only have what they need and their surplus would be redistributed.

I have to jump into this one.

Capitalism is not evil. Evil can be done under capitalism, but it can be done under Communism and Socialism just as easily.

Capitalism gives people freedom. They can choose where they want to live and work, or even if they want to work. They can choose to spend their money, hoard it, or give it to other people. Capitalism encourages innovation. If a company is having trouble competing, they will figure out a way to make a product better or cheaper than other companies or else they will be forced out of buisiness.

Capitalism gives incentive to work hard, because it gives people the ability to change improve their standard of living. You can work toward promotions and raises, invest in coorporations, or purchase capital to start your own buisiness.

People refer to the fact that America has many socialist policies, and this is correct, but that is not the fault of capitalism. It is well-intentioned people diluting capitalism with socialism, and the two do not work together.

Socialism on the other hand is incompatible with freedom and democracy. You do not have the ability to change jobs freely, and you lose the potential for vertical mobility. Your choices in what you can purchase are limited, and you cannot shop for a better price. Socialism cannot be democratic, because the planners have to truly consider the good of everyone.

If they are elected officials, they will be pressured by The Widget Industry to make decisions in their favor. They will lose the votes of the Widget Industry if they instead favor the Gadget Makers. To be effective, the leaders would have to be immune to that kind of interest, which means they cannot be elected.

Under socialism, there is no incentive to innovate, because there is no competition. The planners decide what needs to be made, and how much of it should be produced. It decides how many people are needed to work in an industry, and in what areas of the country.

To me, a person who values personal freedoms, I prefer Capitalism over Socialism.