Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well, isn't it?


JTzMqm2TwgE

No. IMO, this invites a 'survival of the greediest' mentality which divides rather than unites.

Originally posted by Mindship
No. IMO, this invites a 'survival of the greediest' mentality which divides rather than unites.

But that's what we have in this country now....and that's what the video shows is wrong with things.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
But that's what we have in this country now....and that's what the video shows is wrong with things. Because generally speaking, people are emotionally driven, short-term thinkers, not the long-term visionary rationalists the economic 'experts' propose.

As I had posted in your 'growing wealth gap' thread: it's as if, just as humans long ago began shaping the natural environment to their benefit, but to the detriment of other species, so it seems that the "financial elite" are thus shaping the financial environment, and to the detriment of those who don't worship the Almighty Dollar, those who think freedom can be used for other pursuits.

It is if your a "winner". If your the majority (which is supposed to rule) peasants, then its bad.

makes you thing, who speaks for the peasants?

Sometimes but most of the time no.

Seems the rich need to stop hoarding the money so much. I'm not saying that we just take it from them, but if they spent more on goods and services that would get more money flowing back in to the economy, right?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
It is if your a "winner". If your the majority (which is supposed to rule) peasants, then its bad.

makes you thing, who speaks for the peasants?

No one..... No one at all.

http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/queen_phillip.jpg

Well good news, if the Republicans get their austerity plus tax cuts proposals in, it'll be winner take all and never give back! They want to get rid of the already low taxes on capital gains meaning that the 23,000 richest people in America will no longer pay any taxes on income at all and with the repeal of the inheritance tax, all that money will stay in the family. Add to this the much abused tax exemption on wild life preserves that allows many rich people to not pay any property taxes because they have an indigenous animal or two grazing on the edge of their fence and you get something that the founders totally intended and would be great for america- a monied, politically powerful network of wealthy families that control everything.

IF, and only if, those who possessed the largest amount of capital really did reinvest it back into the economy and society at large, the way capitalism assumes they would, it could in fact be the best system for any nation.

that isn't the case, however

Originally posted by inimalist
IF, and only if, those who possessed the largest amount of capital really did reinvest it back into the economy and society at large, the way capitalism assumes they would, it could in fact be the best system for any nation.

that isn't the case, however



Yup, we need a world of Bill Gates.

Originally posted by Michael Collins
Yup, we need a world of Bill Gates. Why not?

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
Why not?

Why not indeed?

Oh, sorry this face usually means sarcasm, or are you being sarcastic now too?

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
Oh, sorry this face usually means sarcasm, or are you being sarcastic now too?

Not exactly, one man's philanthropist billionaire is another man's monopoly creating, corporate thief. Who knows what William Gates is?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_18XkaPdQZu4/Rq6tm60FnGI/AAAAAAAAEcQ/Q1_4qK5rZ94/s400/000000000aaaBGatesKIng.0

Originally posted by Michael Collins
Not exactly, one man's philanthropist billionaire is another man's monopoly creating, corporate thief. Who knows what William Gates is?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_18XkaPdQZu4/Rq6tm60FnGI/AAAAAAAAEcQ/Q1_4qK5rZ94/s400/000000000aaaBGatesKIng.0 At least he doesn't hoard the money. It can't be denied that he donates a hell of a lot of money and surely spends plenty too. Neither he nor people like him are the ones responsible for this nasty distribution of wealth. It's the people who get billions of dollars and then just keep it within their families for as long as possible.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
At least he doesn't hoard the money. It can't be denied that he donates a hell of a lot of money and surely spends plenty too. Neither he nor people like him are the ones responsible for this nasty distribution of wealth. It's the people who get billions of dollars and then just keep it within their families for as long as possible.

However, many believe he never respected the intellectual rights of others. I don't have enough information to make a decision on what he is: Altruistic hero or man who created a behemoth bully/crooked company and is feted as some genius who should be allowed to develop education, food and disease eradication policies.

http://legacythumbs.weheartit.netdna-cdn.com/20081230124733.jpg

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
At least he doesn't hoard the money. It can't be denied that he donates a hell of a lot of money and surely spends plenty too. Neither he nor people like him are the ones responsible for this nasty distribution of wealth. It's the people who get billions of dollars and then just keep it within their families for as long as possible.

Microsoft has a history in recent years of eliminating many of their middle and lower level people who once had very good paying jobs and subcontracting them to outside firms which pay far less.

Hang on, you said Originally posted by Michael Collins
Yup, we need a world of Bill Gates. in response to Originally posted by inimalist
IF, and only if, those who possessed the largest amount of capital really did reinvest it back into the economy and society at large, the way capitalism assumes they would, it could in fact be the best system for any nation.

that isn't the case, however

Bill Gates is an example of someone who possesses a relatively high percentage of America's capital and reinvests it in to the economy and society at large. Whether he's a crook or not doesn't really have any relevance to the topic of this thread.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well good news, if the Republicans get their austerity plus tax cuts proposals in, it'll be winner take all and never give back! They want to get rid of the already low taxes on capital gains meaning that the 23,000 richest people in America will no longer pay any taxes on income at all and with the repeal of the inheritance tax, all that money will stay in the family. Add to this the much abused tax exemption on wild life preserves that allows many rich people to not pay any property taxes because they have an indigenous animal or two grazing on the edge of their fence and you get something that the founders totally intended and would be great for america- a monied, politically powerful network of wealthy families that control everything.
Welcome the new Robber Barons.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
Hang on, you said in response to Bill Gates is an example of someone who possesses a relatively high percentage of America's capital and reinvests it in to the economy and society at large. Whether he's a crook or not doesn't really have any relevance to the topic of this thread.

Actually a relatively high percentage of america's capital would be the nine trillion lost from the federal reserve. thirty thousand per person.
Mr. Gate's though has given a large proportion of his fortune to charity, however, Bill Gates makes so much money it pretty much offsets what he gives away for philanthropic reasons and he fluctuates around the 50-60 billion mark in terms of his personal fortune. Mr. Gates says he intends to give almost his entire fortune away on death.. We will see.

Originally posted by Michael Collins
Actually a relatively high percentage of america's capital would be the nine trillion lost from the federal reserve. thirty thousand per person.
Mr. Gate's though has given a large proportion of his fortune to charity, however, Bill Gates makes so much money it pretty much offsets what he gives away for philanthropic reasons and he fluctuates around the 50-60 billion mark in terms of his personal fortune. Mr. Gates says he intends to give almost his entire fortune away on death.. We will see. That's way more than we can say for other obscenely wealthy people.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
That's way more than we can say for other obscenely wealthy people.

Hmmm, actually Warren Buffet and many others give shitloads away because they have shitloads to give away and they simply can't spend all they have.

Great. What's your point?

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
Great. What's your point?

I can't judge the moral relativism of the super rich.

That....doesn't make sense. Do you mean you can't judge the morals of the super rich?

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
That....doesn't make sense. Do you mean you can't judge the morals of the super rich?

Sort of , I mean it in the meta-ethical sense.

Uh, yeah, we used to have a system to force the rich to reinvest and it worked great for 50 years. It was called reinvest or we take 70-90 cents of every dollar you earn past $250,0000.

I think it would be smarter to raise that cap to $1 million to account for inflation, to add to that an 18% annual luxury tax on net worth for all individuals earning over $3 million per year. As for all the money lost in the last ten years, I still think a retroactive declaration of war and anti-profiteering executive order would be a great way to get a couple trillion back in a matter of months. And if they can't pay i back, they can pay it in installments of a 300% tax on income and capital gains on all guilty individuals for ten years. War powers can be cited to get past Article 1, Sections 9 and 10.

Originally posted by Michael Collins
who should be allowed to develop education, food and disease eradication policies.


why wouldn't he be allowed to do that?

Originally posted by Michael Collins
Sort of , I mean it in the meta-ethical sense.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_z5Ru9kCZGF8/THphKohIb4I/AAAAAAAABzU/TmfkPgHiMpo/s1600/facepalm_statue.jpg

Originally posted by inimalist
why wouldn't he be allowed to do that?



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_z5Ru9kCZGF8/THphKohIb4I/AAAAAAAABzU/TmfkPgHiMpo/s1600/facepalm_statue.jpg

Why wouldn't he or why shouldn't he? It's all a question of moral relativism really.

http://favim.com/orig/201106/10/africa-animal-facepalm-king-lion-lowe-Favim.com-70480.jpg

if you say so

The problem is you need a lot of poor people at the bottom of the see saw to keep the fat cats up.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well good news, if the Republicans get their austerity plus tax cuts proposals in, it'll be winner take all and never give back! They want to get rid of the already low taxes on capital gains meaning that the 23,000 richest people in America will no longer pay any taxes on income at all and with the repeal of the inheritance tax, all that money will stay in the family. Add to this the much abused tax exemption on wild life preserves that allows many rich people to not pay any property taxes because they have an indigenous animal or two grazing on the edge of their fence and you get something that the founders totally intended and would be great for america- a monied, politically powerful network of wealthy families that control everything.

I'm fine with the rich keeping more of their money, to be honest.

The fact is, taxes don't make the poor any less poor. That's why I can't understand the "Tax the rich more" calls.

Whether the rich keep it, or the Government takes it, the poor ain't getting it.

Originally posted by Mindship
No. IMO, this invites a 'survival of the greediest' mentality which divides rather than unites.

What alternative would you propose?

Greed/self interest is a pretty big part of human nature. It would be a boon to society if everyone worked for the betterment of everyone else, sure, but I can't think of a way to "force" people to think beyond themselves, their families, or their immediate communities... Or give up their unneeded luxuries, for that matter.

Originally posted by Michael Collins
Why wouldn't he or why shouldn't he? It's all a question of moral relativism really.

http://favim.com/orig/201106/10/africa-animal-facepalm-king-lion-lowe-Favim.com-70480.jpg

Oh dear.

http://www.b0rt.com/data/images/2011/04/allmystery-mg61164-1268955553-doublefacepalm.jpg

Originally posted by cdtm
What alternative would you propose?

Greed/self interest is a pretty big part of human nature. It would be a boon to society if everyone worked for the betterment of everyone else, sure, but I can't think of a way to "force" people to think beyond themselves, their families, or their immediate communities... Or give up their unneeded luxuries, for that matter.

The problem is the world no longer has the resourses to support that type of mentality. We also as a country need to do what's best for the majority of our citizens. Only government policy can correct these problems.

Originally posted by cdtm
Whether the rich keep it, or the Government takes it, the poor ain't getting it.

srsly?

Originally posted by cdtm
I'm fine with the rich keeping more of their money, to be honest.

The fact is, taxes don't make the poor any less poor. That's why I can't understand the "Tax the rich more" calls.

Whether the rich keep it, or the Government takes it, the poor ain't getting it. The federal gov. buys shit from private american companies all the time, so it would get to poorer workers if the government were to take it from those rich who hoard.

Originally posted by cdtm
What alternative would you propose?

Greed/self interest is a pretty big part of human nature. It would be a boon to society if everyone worked for the betterment of everyone else, sure, but I can't think of a way to "force" people to think beyond themselves, their families, or their immediate communities... Or give up their unneeded luxuries, for that matter.
I forget what the product was, but there used to be this commercial where the male voice-over said (with little kid, sing-song cadence), "I'm better than you are..." This mindset has to go. I'd start with that. We need to start embracing internal values (eg, compassion, honesty -- not just give them lip service), rather than embracing material possessions, especially if the main purpose of having them is to be "better then the next guy" (as opposed to a real need).

But alas, I suspect this mental switching would take at least a generation or two to take hold. This, or global revolution. If not, the world will continue to "shrink" and we will go the way of the Easter Islanders.

Originally posted by Mindship
I forget what the product was, but there used to be this commercial where the male voice-over said (with little kid, sing-song cadence), "I'm better than you are..." This mindset has to go. I'd start with that. We need to start embracing internal values (eg, compassion, honesty -- not just give them lip service), rather than embracing material possessions, especially if the main purpose of having them is to be "better then the next guy" (as opposed to a real need).

But alas, I suspect this mental switching would take at least a generation or two to take hold. This, or global revolution. If not, the world will continue to "shrink" and we will go the way of the Easter Islanders. My grandpa used to encourage me to strive to be better than the next guy. I always interpreted that as better intellectually and physically rather than through having more material possessions. srug

Originally posted by cdtm
I'm fine with the rich keeping more of their money, to be honest.

The fact is, taxes don't make the poor any less poor. That's why I can't understand the "Tax the rich more" calls.

Whether the rich keep it, or the Government takes it, the poor ain't getting it.

Why? They use more resources than everyone and pay less as a percentage than anyone (17% according to the IRS). Creating elite, wealthy families is anti-american and wealth inequality causes financial and political instability.

Inequality is what the system is all about. To 'capitalise' over the financially less. That's why poverty increases. A competitive economy is all about survival of the wealthiest.

Wealth is supposed to come from labour, that is the main justification of the system, but that is rarely the case, especially in a 'free' market, whatever that is.

Originally posted by cdtm
I'm fine with the rich keeping more of their money, to be honest.

The fact is, taxes don't make the poor any less poor. That's why I can't understand the "Tax the rich more" calls.

Whether the rich keep it, or the Government takes it, the poor ain't getting it.
Um, it definitely does make the poor less poor. Taking money from the rich means it can be used for gov programs like healthcare that directly benefit the poor.

But that would imply giving money to the poor is good, which is not what capitalism is, at all.

If it gets most of the money in to the free market where most of the people have the opportunity to get it though, then that's capitalism.

That's just covering up a flaw in the 'free market' system. If you have to socialise the money in order to keep capitalism happening, then it doesn't work. As I said, it's survival of the wealthiest, therefore it's more capitalistic for those at the bottom to die, seeing as they aren't giving anything to society.

No labour, no wage. No property, no trade. That's the system, *****.

Economically possibly, but like anything that pushes people to influence others through marketing for example I think it can twist opinions. Too many fake, greedy/money grabbing people cannot be good on a personal level in any soceity so unless this is only an economic question then no, capitalism is not really "good", just useful on a broader scale to keep a country and/or its citizens wealthy. But theres no use being wealthy if all you are is a puppet in a bigger wealthier assholes game. Ants can be drones and just mill about in the dirt but I dont think people should be.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Economically possibly, but like anything that pushes people to influence others through marketing for example I think it can twist opinions. Too many fake, greedy/money grabbing people cannot be good on a personal level in any soceity so unless this is only an economic question then no, capitalism is not really "good", just useful on a broader scale to keep a country and/or its citizens wealthy. But theres no use being wealthy if all you are is a puppet in a bigger wealthier assholes game. Ants can be drones and just mill about in the dirt but I dont think people should be. Well, there's one person who admits the 'free market' doesn't work.

The only way I see it working is if everyone is given the same amount of money from the gecko and, like a game, everyone says "GO!" Systematically, we then find out whatever way possible to turn that money into more money and those who lose their money will fall, until the winner stands at the top of the pyramid with a monopoly over everyone else, for he/she was the smartest at gaining the most profit, and with all the money will also have all the power.

That is of course my opinion, but if that is true, then it's especially ironic that a market can only be free if you socialise it first.

Hang on, isn't that along the lines of what Grate the Vraya said?

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
If it gets most of the money in to the free market where most of the people have the opportunity to get it though, then that's capitalism.

**** me!

Why can't people be both instead of one or the other? Capitalism is good in some ways and so is socialism. The people who earn wealth should have it, and those who are willing to try to earn it should be supported so that they can have a chance to try. The weak and elderly (being incapable of trying to earn wealth)should also be supported by those that aren't incapable. We are social and we are individuals.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Why can't people be both instead of one or the other? Capitalism is good in some ways and so is socialism. The people who earn wealth should have it, and those who are willing to try to earn it should be supported so that they can have a chance to try. The weak and elderly (being incapable of trying to earn wealth)should also be supported by those that aren't incapable. We are social and we are individuals.

Because that would mean balance and that isn't the direction this country is heading. These days it's all about the few at the top keeping more and more for themselves.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Why can't people be both instead of one or the other? Capitalism is good in some ways and so is socialism. The people who earn wealth should have it, and those who are willing to try to earn it should be supported so that they can have a chance to try. The weak and elderly (being incapable of trying to earn wealth)should also be supported by those that aren't incapable. We are social and we are individuals. That near enough is the current system.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Why can't people be both instead of one or the other? Capitalism is good in some ways and so is socialism. The people who earn wealth should have it, and those who are willing to try to earn it should be supported so that they can have a chance to try. The weak and elderly (being incapable of trying to earn wealth)should also be supported by those that aren't incapable. We are social and we are individuals. I think the problem is that there just isn't enough capital for the government to provide to the workers and earners who want to play Monopoly: Lifetime edition, and also to support those who are not able to work without the currency becoming massively inflated. Of course, getting the hell out of the Middle East so we can focus on our own suffering finances would help, but I still think that the nation will continue to suffer from inflation if we keep riding the fence between economical policies.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
Seems the rich need to stop hoarding the money so much. I'm not saying that we just take it from them why not?

Originally posted by cdtm
Greed/self interest is a pretty big part of human nature. It would be a boon to society if everyone worked for the betterment of everyone else, sure, but I can't think of a way to "force" people to think beyond themselves, their families, or their immediate communities... Or give up their unneeded luxuries, for that matter. Really? self-interest sure, but greed? we often naturalize behavior which is culturally determined because thats the dominant reality we know, but anthropogical research does not support the naturality of greed

I do think that the rich should be taxed fairly, and that that is not the case everywhere, in the US for example apparently not. But on the whole many traits of capitalism have made our lives enormously better, and so have many of the wealthiest people. I do think that people that have the ability to create wealth for everyone should be rewarded accordingly. I also think that what we need to battle is absolute poverty more than anything, and that we have been doing a decently good job of that in the western world, although much more can and should be accomplished even there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do think that people that have the ability to create wealth for everyone should be rewarded accordingly. hum... you really think thats how it goes?

Originally posted by 753
hum... you really think thats how it goes?

Yeah, to a degree. I wouldn't deny that their are people taking advantage of the system without adding any real value, but I don't think it is necessarily the norm.

A problem we have in big corporations is that it is hard (or perhaps on either or both sides undesired) to determine the specific wealth of each contributor. But on average people get rewarded as to their contribution. Sadly that might mean that some workers get a third of what they are worth and other's three times.

The problem with an excess of reward and big business, one of the key fallacies of capitalism, is that once a business becomes too big, the focus moves away from innovation and toward crushing the competition using any means.
It's one of the reasons the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed and why in order to fix the economy, one of the steps should be breaking up and auctioning off large corporations.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, to a degree. I wouldn't deny that their are people taking advantage of the system without adding any real value, but I don't think it is necessarily the norm.

A problem we have in big corporations is that it is hard (or perhaps on either or both sides undesired) to determine the specific wealth of each contributor. But on average people get rewarded as to their contribution. Sadly that might mean that some workers get a third of what they are worth and other's three times. exectuvies make literaly hundreds of thosands mroe than factory workers, do you think their labour generates this much more money? but most importantly, owners get even more than that and this is tied to property and not to work input or its outcome

Originally posted by 753
exectuvies make literaly hundreds of thosands mroe than factory workers, do you think their labour generates this much more money? but most importantly, owners get even more than that and this is tied to property and not to work input or its outcome

Usually without owners there wouldn't be a job though. There wouldn't be the wealth created either.

I do agree to a degree though I find some property, especially intellectual property, problematic. But very often the owner of a company did put in a lot of time and valuable work or took large risks to create the wealth.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But on the whole many traits of capitalism have made our lives enormously better, and so have many of the wealthiest people. What traits of capitalism and wealthy people do you think have made our lives enormously better? To name a few...

Originally posted by lord xyz
What traits of capitalism and wealthy people do you think have made our lives enormously better? To name a few...

Well the trait of having people work for to create wealth for themselves, which undoubtedly works much better than to have them work for other reasons. Wealthy people that I think made our lives enormously better? J.P Morgan, Henry Ford, Karl Albrecht, Steve Jobs.

I think our lives on average have been enormously better on account of capitalism, which very much fuelled the industrial revolution and the latter technological advancements. Sure there's a huge difference in money, but the lives of people aren't that different, many more people live much, much better than ever before.

I read an amazing essay by Paul Graham if you are interested, where he did address some of these points (I highly recommend his essays anyways): http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

Originally posted by 753
exectuvies make literaly hundreds of thosands mroe than factory workers, do you think their labour generates this much more money? but most importantly, owners get even more than that and this is tied to property and not to work input or its outcome

It's nearly impossible to judge the value of a CEO, but the reactions of investors are important.

HP's stock fell 10% when they fired Mike Hurd.
Oracle's stock rose 6% when they announced they had hired Mike Hurd, even though the NASDAQ declined during the day.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What traits of capitalism and wealthy people do you think have made our lives enormously better? To name a few...

How about social mobility? Capitalism essentially invented the concept.
Economies of scale. Without large businesses things would be massively expensive, yes part of those low costs are because of awful things they do but a lot of it is being able to make large returns on tiny margins.

Plenty of valuable things have come from capitalism. Plenty of bad things have resulted as well.

argh, my brain can't handle nuance

good or bad?!?!?!?!?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well the trait of having people work for to create wealth for themselves, which undoubtedly works much better than to have them work for other reasons. Wealthy people that I think made our lives enormously better? J.P Morgan, Henry Ford, Karl Albrecht, Steve Jobs.

I think our lives on average have been enormously better on account of capitalism, which very much fuelled the industrial revolution and the latter technological advancements. Sure there's a huge difference in money, but the lives of people aren't that different, many more people live much, much better than ever before.

I read an amazing essay by Paul Graham if you are interested, where he did address some of these points (I highly recommend his essays anyways): http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

A man called Ben McLeish had a lecture about economics. He concludes that money only creates an incentive for people to do mundane unnecessary jobs that could be automated, such as janitors, waiters, chefs, social workers, taxi drivers, translators etc.

In fact, if you want to see these automated jobs, I suggest you check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AM6dX_dwYk

As you probably know, most of the people who have jobs do not like their jobs. Heck, how many people in America complain about their job(s), some to the point where they suffer from depression and subsequently spend all their money on drugs that don't work with harsh side effects that they only think they need due to the advertising companies? It's comparable to the slaves of Egypt or the old Feudal system. After all, when marketing came in, the kings and queens and lords still had the most money and the most power.

Obviously the market did us wonders 2 to 100 years ago, there was little science and technology; someone had to power the machines, and I guess we all owe the people at the bottom for the amount of work they did for us.

But I argue that capitalism, especially today is actually counter-productive. I could list examples, but it'd much easier for me to link Ben McLeish's lecture.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owa32MvjBik
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8da1k97mLU
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkeW-9cHCgw

In b4 he mentions Burzynski

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How about social mobility? Capitalism essentially invented the concept.
Economies of scale. Without large businesses things would be massively expensive, yes part of those low costs are because of awful things they do but a lot of it is being able to make large returns on tiny margins.

Plenty of valuable things have come from capitalism. Plenty of bad things have resulted as well. Apparently social mobility is still a problem. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12225252

And I am of the moral opinion that exploiting other humans so some humans have a better standard of life, such as sweatshops and slavery, is bad.

Originally posted by lord xyz
A man called Ben McLeish had a lecture about economics. He concludes that money only creates an incentive for people to do mundane unnecessary jobs that could be automated, such as janitors, waiters, chefs, social workers, taxi drivers, translators etc.

I don't think that conclusion is accurate when we look at the world. I suppose you could argue that many highly functioning people also do the things because they enjoy them, but I think money has given incentive for people to do great things that are also very worthwhile for people. I can't really argue his point as I don't know what it is actually, haha.

Originally posted by lord xyz
In fact, if you want to see these automated jobs, I suggest you check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AM6dX_dwYk

No denying that there is a lot of automation in the world, and that it gets more and more. I worked in a factory though, and I worked for a company creating software that does exactly try to automate more things, and I can tell you we are not nearly there. We still need a gigantic number of people to work...operate and calibrate the machines for example.

Originally posted by lord xyz
As you probably know, most of the people who have jobs do not like their jobs. Heck, how many people in America complain about their job(s), some to the point where they suffer from depression and subsequently spend all their money on drugs that don't work with harsh side effects that they only think they need due to the advertising companies? It's comparable to the slaves of Egypt or the old Feudal system. After all, when marketing came in, the kings and queens and lords still had the most money and the most power.

I don't think it is quite comparable to the slaves of Egypt or the old Feudal system at all. People are far more free to choose, and their lives are much more comfortable. It would be nice if everyone could do whatever they wanted without any drop in the quality of life for people, and we might get there in the future. But we are not there yet sadly.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Obviously the market did us wonders 2 to 100 years ago, there was little science and technology; someone had to power the machines, and I guess we all owe the people at the bottom for the amount of work they did for us.

Sure people at the "bottom" doing hard work are important, too, but they are more easily interchangeable. Without the people at the top and the people doing the thinking we wouldn't be where we are, and they aren't easily changed, as their talents and abilities are highly unique.


Originally posted by lord xyz
But I argue that capitalism, especially today is actually counter-productive. I could list examples, but it'd much easier for me to link Ben McLeish's lecture.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owa32MvjBik
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8da1k97mLU
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkeW-9cHCgw

In b4 he mentions Burzynski


I'll see if I can find time to watch it. Who is the man if I may ask, what qualifications foes he have?

We do however have a study of a capitalist system (west germany, with many decent social ideals, no doubt about it, but still capitalist) running parallel to a non-capitalist/communist system (east germany) which does show the extreme advantageous the capitalist ideals have brought us, and which only ended 20 years ago.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Apparently social mobility is still a problem. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12225252


But that's on a different scale. Social mobility was non existent in the 16th century. Now it is just still tough.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And I am of the moral opinion that exploiting other humans so some humans have a better standard of life, such as sweatshops and slavery, is bad.

I do agree, though, again, for them their life may even be better with that opportunity than it would have been without.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Apparently social mobility is still a problem. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12225252

Yes, absolutely.
It's hard to get out of a cycle of debt that goes back generations or rise up out of poverty because you have no education and no support.
Rich people have cushions that let them ride out things that would be disasters for anyone else.
Wealth breeds wealth, poverty breeds poverty.

All of these things are true.

Before capitalism, though, moving up was impossible. In modern, developed nations the only people with no chance of moving forward are the desperately poor.

This is why the idea of the value of hard work comes from, it's a modern invention (the value not the work). There was a time when it didn't matter how hard you worked, four hundred years ago the only option was to die doing the job your father did or stage a revolution and probably get killed in the process because you were a starving peasant and the knights had swords.

Capitalism changed that. It's really hard to imagine now, we take it for granted to the point that you probably don't even think of it as capitalism. The idea that you can set out to make a better life without abandoning your old one and have any chance of success is a very valuable thing that capitalism gave the world.

Can we do better than we are doing? Absolutely, but that wasn't the question.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And I am of the moral opinion that exploiting other humans so some humans have a better standard of life, such as sweatshops and slavery, is bad.

As am I, which is why I (and indeed most people) support having some degree of regulation on what we allow. It's not "socialism" or a "managed economy", it's just reality.

Exploitation, mind you, is not something capitalism created. We were doing that a long time ago.

Bardock is right about the owners. Without initial investment there is basically no economic activity. People are not going to start businesses nor are they going to invest in them unless they can expect a return. The problem as I see it now is that many investors are making huge returns without any concern as to the long term well being of the companies they invest in. Short term profits are the only thing that matter.

Another problem with unrestricted capitalism today is it's global spread putting enormous strain on the earths resources. For capitalism to succeed there needs to be growth...and IMO given the earths population that model is no longer sustainable. The next 10-20 years are going to be interesting to say the least.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

As am I, which is why I (and indeed most people) support having some degree of regulation on what we allow. It's not "socialism" or a "managed economy", it's just reality.

Exploitation, mind you, is not something capitalism created. We were doing that a long time ago. Suppose winner take all capitalism is not good for America. I mean, once all the other countries were in debt, the west had to exploit the third world in the first (lower and middle classes), this is 2001-2008, between the world trade centre collapse and the credit crunch. It goes back to money created out of debt, depressions are scientifically created.

True, capitalism didn't create exploitation, but like every other world view (except a resource based economy), it uses it.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Bardock is right about the owners. Without initial investment there is basically no economic activity. People are not going to start businesses nor are they going to invest in them unless they can expect a return. The problem as I see it now is that many investors are making huge returns without any concern as to the long term well being of the companies they invest in. Short term profits are the only thing that matter.

Another problem with unrestricted capitalism today is it's global spread putting enormous strain on the earths resources. For capitalism to succeed there needs to be growth...and IMO given the earths population that model is no longer sustainable. The next 10-20 years are going to be interesting to say the least. It's partly to do with having to pay off the inevitable debt from which money is created (loans), partly to do with machines replacing jobs, (wage comes from labour and a machine is obviously cheaper to 'employ') and partly due to planned obsolescence which, although allows the 'economy' to grow, it doesn't make the standard of life better. GDP's a measure of sales for instance, not a measure of health and happiness.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that conclusion is accurate when we look at the world. I suppose you could argue that many highly functioning people also do the things because they enjoy them, but I think money has given incentive for people to do great things that are also very worthwhile for people. I can't really argue his point as I don't know what it is actually, haha.



No denying that there is a lot of automation in the world, and that it gets more and more. I worked in a factory though, and I worked for a company creating software that does exactly try to automate more things, and I can tell you we are not nearly there. We still need a gigantic number of people to work...operate and calibrate the machines for example.



I don't think it is quite comparable to the slaves of Egypt or the old Feudal system at all. People are far more free to choose, and their lives are much more comfortable. It would be nice if everyone could do whatever they wanted without any drop in the quality of life for people, and we might get there in the future. But we are not there yet sadly.



Sure people at the "bottom" doing hard work are important, too, but they are more easily interchangeable. Without the people at the top and the people doing the thinking we wouldn't be where we are, and they aren't easily changed, as their talents and abilities are highly unique.




I'll see if I can find time to watch it. Who is the man if I may ask, what qualifications foes he have?

We do however have a study of a capitalist system (west germany, with many decent social ideals, no doubt about it, but still capitalist) running parallel to a non-capitalist/communist system (east germany) which does show the extreme advantageous the capitalist ideals have brought us, and which only ended 20 years ago.




But that's on a different scale. Social mobility was non existent in the 16th century. Now it is just still tough.



I do agree, though, again, for them their life may even be better with that opportunity than it would have been without. Twas more of an exaggeration than a scientific conclusion, but he makes good points.

He's a member of the Zeitgeist Movement, so: http://www.thezeitgeistmovementuk.com/site/uk-lecture-team-videos
if you have time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnews Although very outdated considering the recent crisis, I see it just like the feudal system of the middle ages.

Politics is of course an illusion when Obama's number one financer was Goldman Sachs, and you can search google to find this, it's not a secret.

40% of the wealth, and hence power goes to 1% of the people, and 1% of the wealth goes to 50% of the people.

That's a pyramid system caused by money, and capitalism imo justifies why these people are allowed to do it.

The argument of capitalism is credit goes to those who contribute, yet I highly doubt science and technology came from stock brokers, bankers and politicians. Obama certainly has a lot of money, but what exactly did he do besides be president for having lots of money? Armstrong invented FM radio, but he wasn't credited, quite the opposite, but you can look at that in McLeish's video I posted previously.

Edit: Here's a chart of wealth based on country: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Wdpiechartppp2000.gif

Interesting how half of the world's wealth is just 4 countries. UK obviously got there from it's empire of trade and killing those who disagreed, America has it's corporate empire of destroying countries then rebuilding them for profit, China has it's sweatshops and Japan has it's huge amounts of advertising. Another interesting point is how wasteful those countries are as well.

Bardock, can you honestly say those 4 are the most contributing? And that USA contributed to 1/4 of the worlds goods?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Usually without owners there wouldn't be a job though. There wouldn't be the wealth created either.

only because they are currently hogging all the starting capital, not because the are strictly necessary to production

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's nearly impossible to judge the value of a CEO, but the reactions of investors are important.

HP's stock fell 10% when they fired Mike Hurd.
Oracle's stock rose 6% when they announced they had hired Mike Hurd, even though the NASDAQ declined during the day. because of stock traders faith in their management capacities, that does note mean their labour actually contributes with that kind of value to the total wealth produced by the company


a better way to put the question would be the followin: What benefits brought by capitalism can be truly discerned from those simply brought by the industrial revolution and techonological progress? is capitalism actually necessary to the maintenance of these benefits? can capitalism be replaced by a better economic system?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Twas more of an exaggeration than a scientific conclusion, but he makes good points.

He's a member of the Zeitgeist Movement, so: http://www.thezeitgeistmovementuk.com/site/uk-lecture-team-videos
if you have time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnews Although very outdated considering the recent crisis, I see it just like the feudal system of the middle ages.

Politics is of course an illusion when Obama's number one financer was Goldman Sachs, and you can search google to find this, it's not a secret.

40% of the wealth, and hence power goes to 1% of the people, and 1% of the wealth goes to 50% of the people.

That's a pyramid system caused by money, and capitalism imo justifies why these people are allowed to do it.

The argument of capitalism is credit goes to those who contribute, yet I highly doubt science and technology came from stock brokers, bankers and politicians. Obama certainly has a lot of money, but what exactly did he do besides be president for having lots of money? Armstrong invented FM radio, but he wasn't credited, quite the opposite, but you can look at that in McLeish's video I posted previously.

Edit: Here's a chart of wealth based on country: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Wdpiechartppp2000.gif

Interesting how half of the world's wealth is just 4 countries. UK obviously got there from it's empire of trade and killing those who disagreed, America has it's corporate empire of destroying countries then rebuilding them for profit, China has it's sweatshops and Japan has it's huge amounts of advertising. Another interesting point is how wasteful those countries are as well.

Bardock, can you honestly say those 4 are the most contributing? And that USA contributed to 1/4 of the worlds goods? Wow, we own.

Originally posted by 753
because of stock traders faith in their management capacities, that does note mean their labour actually contributes with that kind of value to the total wealth produced by the company

Which is why I said it's nearly impossible to judge how valuable they are. However people who's whole job is to estimate how a company will do think they contribute a lot. Good management is valuable.


Originally posted by 753
a better way to put the question would be the followin: What benefits brought by capitalism can be truly discerned from those simply brought by the industrial revolution and techonological progress? is capitalism actually necessary to the maintenance of these benefits? can capitalism be replaced by a better economic system?

Those are all entirely different questions.

I picked social mobility because it a philosophical idea that really did come from capitalism, you can't credit it simply to the advance of technology that might have happened anyway.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is why I said it's nearly impossible to judge how valuable they are. However people who's whole job is to estimate how a company will do think they contribute a lot. Good management is valuable.




Those are all entirely different questions.

I picked social mobility because it a philosophical idea that really did come from capitalism, you can't credit it simply to the advance of technology that might have happened anyway. I would say social mobility in the west was enabled by the abolition of political absolutism and the establishment of liberal democracies later modified by social democracy ideals. while historically, political liberalism and capitalism have been largely associated, they are not synonimous, nor is capitalism a requirement of democracy per se

Originally posted by 753
can capitalism be replaced by a better economic system?

That is an interesting question. What is your opinion?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is an interesting question. What is your opinion? I believe so, yes. My ideas in this fields are generally consonant with mutualism and some other strands of anarchism.

as an environmentalist, I also place a heavy emphasis on the limitation of life habits and economic activity based on the ecological footprint it generates. I'll try and get a longer post in here expanding on the subject later on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
Wow, we own. Like the bully in the playground with the most lunch money.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Like the bully in the playground with the most lunch money. And you're runnin late Harry Potter!