It's not an assessment at all. Capitalism is an economic system. An economic system has next to nothing to do with how the government or individuals treat the less fortunate. My company's behavior in trying to be the best in their market only has a positive impact on any charitable donations I make as the bigger my bonus the more charity gets.
Compassion and empathy are not tied to economic systems. Is this picture so different when done for a socialist country, is the starving child any less mal-nourished? How about when done from a communist country, is the starving child any less mal-nourished? Were they less malnourished before white people came to America? If I go to Cuba do they magically feed all the starving kids in Africa?
I disagree. It's my recent belief that an economic system does in fact have something to do with how the government or individuals treat the less fortunate. Well, you shouldn't have included the word government in there at all because I think it's obvious that economic systems have quite an affect on how the government treats everyone.
Beyond that, my theory is this: Capitalism uses money to motivate people. A very high percentage of people motivated by money let that motivation get out of control. Often to the point where they'll sacrifice basic human morals to get their greedy little hands on more money. All they want is more and more.
While poverty did exist before the founding of this country, I think those that are motivated solely by money have made the gap between rich and poor run as deep as the Grand Canyon. I attribute this to Capitalism.
I think it's a highly unfair photo that does not reflect reality in any way. A better picture would be a photo of Bill and Melinda Gates pouring BILLIONS of dollars into Africa to help the child. The caption could be "Capitalism Cares" or "This life being saved thanks to capitalism".
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I think it's a highly unfair photo that does not reflect reality in any way. A better picture would be a photo of Bill and Melinda Gates pouring BILLIONS of dollars into Africa to help the child. The caption could be "Capitalism Cares" or "This life being saved thanks to capitalism".
Bill and Melinda Gates are exceptions. Huge exceptions. And god bless them for what they do to help others. But Capitalism is about greed. When money is the key motivator it leads to gross irresponsibilty.
how does this image have anything to do with capitalism?
It doesn't. I could photoshop a fat Soviet in a bread line juxtaposed with an emaciated, anorexic American. It would be as irrelevant as this picture, but I'm sure some would see a powerful message in it.
Hippimom had it right in her post toward the beginning of the thread.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
But Capitalism is about greed. When money is the key motivator it leads to gross irresponsibilty.
Capitalism is more about self-interest rather than greed. Ultimately self-interest is a key motivator for everything we do, both good and bad. The only other motivator as powerful would be coersion, which some of you seem to favor.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Bill and Melinda Gates are exceptions. Huge exceptions. And god bless them for what they do to help others. But Capitalism is about greed. When money is the key motivator it leads to gross irresponsibilty.
Sorry but capitalism is not about greed. It is about the most efficient use of all resources. It adapts to whatever rules and regulations governments make for them to play by. Every cent of profit ends up in peoples hands. What people decide to do with the money they've earned has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. If it did then we wouldn't see some of the greatest capitalists of our times (Gates, Buffet) pouring BILLIONS upon BILLION into charities.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Sorry but capitalism is not about greed. It is about the most efficient use of all resources. It adapts to whatever rules and regulations governments make for them to play by. Every cent of profit ends up in peoples hands. What people decide to do with the money they've earned has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. If it did then we wouldn't see some of the greatest capitalists of our times (Gates, Buffet) pouring BILLIONS upon BILLION into charities.
Oh, I see. So ruining our planet by burning all the oil we can find is now considered "the most efficient use of all resources"?
Let me rephrase what I originally posted then. Capitalism enables gross responsibilty. Money is absolutely the key motivator behind Capitalism. Can you argue with that? When money is the key motivator it will certainly lead to greed.
Oh, I see. So ruining our planet by burning all the oil we can find is now considered "the most efficient use of all resources"?
Let me rephrase what I originally posted then. Capitalism enables gross responsibilty. Money is absolutely the key motivator behind Capitalism. Can you argue with that? When money is the key motivator it will certainly lead to greed.
Money is the only motivator behind going to work everyday. It most certainly does not lead to greed. But maybe you're only speaking for yourself and those you know. I show you examples of great capitlalsts not driven by greed and you think they are exceptions. I think you may need a better class of friends so that good behavior isn't seen as the exception but rather as the norm.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Oh, I see. So ruining our planet by burning all the oil we can find is now considered "the most efficient use of all resources"?
Let me rephrase what I originally posted then. Capitalism enables gross responsibilty. Money is absolutely the key motivator behind Capitalism. Can you argue with that? When money is the key motivator it will certainly lead to greed.
I really dont understand what you are getting at. what is your issue capitalism? and what system should replace it?
Money is the only motivator behind going to work everyday. It most certainly does not lead to greed. But maybe you're only speaking for yourself and those you know. I show you examples of great capitlalsts not driven by greed and you think they are exceptions. I think you may need a better class of friends so that good behavior isn't seen as the exception but rather as the norm.
I have great friends. Friends who aren't fabulously-well-to-do but still find time and money for charity. Thanks for taking a shot at me though. I didn't realize this was a forum to personally attack people.
Do you disagree that huge corporations, through capitalism, take shortcuts inspired by greed, that are grossly irresponsible?
I really dont understand what you are getting at. what is your issue capitalism? and what system should replace it?
I'm not sure, jlew. I've never stated anything as law...just as my theory. My problem with capitalism is that it enables gross irresponsibilty to say the least. I believe it encourages it.
I personally would like to see a system closer to socialism. I know that has such an evil connotation but it's what I think. There's got to be something in the middle. Neither extreme would work. I don't have the answers, but I'm studying it and trying to do what I can. Any system that will effectively deal with poverty will provide global health care and education. Health care and education are the two areas that will exponentially save a society from poverty. Capitalism neglects both of these. So jlew, I guess that's my beef with Capitalism.
I have great friends. Friends who aren't fabulously-well-to-do but still find time and money for charity. Thanks for taking a shot at me though. I didn't realize this was a forum to personally attack people.
Do you disagree that huge corporations, through capitalism, take shortcuts inspired by greed, that are grossly irresponsible?
interestingly enough, corporations are people. Do you run into overly ambitious people whose main focus is more? Absolutely, but generally most people everywhere going to work everyday are simply trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. Some people are nefarious but that doesn't change no matter your economic system. Some people and some corporations care deeply about changing the lives of the community and they devote a great deal of time, effort and money into that.
Corporations mirror the people that run them. In general if the people are self absorbed and only care about the end result for them rather than the entire impact or doing quality work or the best interest of the stakeholders involved what have you negative events occur. With all the focus on the hatred of corporations what about the quality of life they have helped achive for so many people that could not have otherwise happened without them?
We don't exactly have pure capitalism in this country. We have income redistribution, social services, public schools, health clinics etc. People often rage against capitalism but I don't think the free market is exactly the problem. I focus more on the ineffectivness of our government in it's current state. Any programs that we do have are more political in nature and about keeping politicians in power rather than doing the right thing for the nation, likewise lobbiests from corporations are too powerful in nature getting legislation passed to benifit them when maybe that's not in the best interest of the nation.... I believe that's a major issue in this nation currently. Not that the system is inherently bad, that the parties involved are inefficient and ineffective and that's leading to much of the economic hardship.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Oh, I see. So ruining our planet by burning all the oil we can find is now considered "the most efficient use of all resources"?
Actually, yes. The "burning of oil" replaced the burning of coal, something far more problematic for the environment. And the "burning of oil", left to market forces, will be replaced by more efficient technologies.
It's funny that the "burning of oil" suddenly becomes ruinous. By what standard? The industrial revolution doubled life expectancies for many, and continues to do so in places like India, China, and elsewhere. With all that came environmental costs, of course. But abandoning technologies in the face of those costs will be far more ruinous than their continued use. The answer lies within better uses of the planet's resources, "better" being measured in terms of human life, happiness, and productivity. And capitalism encourages those things more than any other economic construct.
Let me rephrase what I originally posted then. Capitalism enables gross responsibilty. Money is absolutely the key motivator behind Capitalism. Can you argue with that? When money is the key motivator it will certainly lead to greed.
Huh? Money has no monopoly on greed. If you think removing money eliminates greed, you're in for a shock. Money, and the concomittant concepts of property and self-ownership, are your only protections from greed short of violence.
I'm not sure, jlew. I've never stated anything as law...just as my theory. My problem with capitalism is that it enables gross irresponsibilty to say the least. I believe it encourages it.
I personally would like to see a system closer to socialism. I know that has such an evil connotation but it's what I think. There's got to be something in the middle. Neither extreme would work. I don't have the answers, but I'm studying it and trying to do what I can. Any system that will effectively deal with poverty will provide global health care and education. Health care and education are the two areas that will exponentially save a society from poverty. Capitalism neglects both of these. So jlew, I guess that's my beef with Capitalism.
Any system that will effectively deal with poverty will provide global health care and education.
This is 100% correct, though not necessarily in the way you mean it. The globe does not need health care or education, so you probably mean "provide free health care and education for everyone on the globe". Such an assertion would be incorrect since many systems have eradicated extreme proverty without providing "global health care and education". But certainly the availability of health care and educational services are paramount to the end of poverty.
Health care and education are the two areas that will exponentially save a society from poverty. Capitalism neglects both of these.
This is 0% correct. What on earth makes you believe capitalism "neglects" education and health care, since both are and have been delivered in many places in this world via largely capitalistic means?
Sorry but capitalism is not about greed. It is about the most efficient use of all resources. It adapts to whatever rules and regulations governments make for them to play by. Every cent of profit ends up in peoples hands. What people decide to do with the money they've earned has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. If it did then we wouldn't see some of the greatest capitalists of our times (Gates, Buffet) pouring BILLIONS upon BILLION into charities.
Since there are so many capitalists pouring money onto charities and doing what's right, there shouldn't be such a huge class gap in the world, there shouldn't be starving children in the millions, there shouldn't be slave labor making our products. We shouldn't be the the main country consuming such a large portion of the world's resources while so many are going with out the bare necessities. The fact is, all of this is the way it is because of capitalism.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Since there are so many capitalists pouring money onto charities and doing what's right, there shouldn't be such a huge class gap in the world, there shouldn't be starving children in the millions, there shouldn't be slave labor making our products. We shouldn't be the the main country consuming such a large portion of the world's resources while so many are going with out the bare necessities. The fact is, all of this is the way it is because of capitalism.
wow. that is not true. why dont you place the blame on the corrupt governments of the world who loot any charitable giving that goes to their country.
why was yassar araft's net worth $300,000,000 million when he died? I had no idea he had such a high salary.
Vote for me, dimwit
Jun 14th 2007
From The Economist print edition
How the electorate is irrational
Kevin Kallaugher
ANYONE who follows an election campaign too closely will sometimes get the feeling that politicians think voters are idiots. A new book says they are. Or rather, Bryan Caplan, an economics professor at George Mason University, makes the slightly politer claim that voters systematically favour irrational policies. In a democracy, rational politicians give them what they (irrationally) want. In “The Myth of the Rational Voter”, Mr Caplan explains why this happens, why it matters and what we can do about it.
The world is a complex place. Most people are inevitably ignorant about most things, which is why shows like “Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?” are funny. Politics is no exception. Only 15% of Americans know who Harry Reid (the Senate majority leader) is, for example. True, more than 90% can identify Arnold Schwarzenegger. But that has a lot to do with the governor of California's previous job pretending to be a killer robot.
Many political scientists think this does not matter because of a phenomenon called the “miracle of aggregation” or, more poetically, the “wisdom of crowds”. If ignorant voters vote randomly, the candidate who wins a majority of well-informed voters will win. The principle yields good results in other fields. On “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, another quiz show, the answer most popular with the studio audience is correct 91% of the time. Financial markets, too, show how a huge number of guesses, aggregated, can value a stock or bond more accurately than any individual expert could. But Mr Caplan says that politics is different because ignorant voters do not vote randomly.
Instead, he identifies four biases that prompt voters systematically to demand policies that make them worse off. First, people do not understand how the pursuit of private profits often yields public benefits: they have an anti-market bias. Second, they underestimate the benefits of interactions with foreigners: they have an anti-foreign bias. Third, they equate prosperity with employment rather than production: Mr Caplan calls this the “make-work bias”. Finally, they tend to think economic conditions are worse than they are, a bias towards pessimism.
Mr Caplan gives a sense of how strong these biases are by comparing the general public's views on economic questions with those of economists and with those of highly educated non-economists. For example, asked why petrol prices have risen, the public mostly blames the greed of oil firms. Economists nearly all blame the law of supply and demand. Experts are sometimes wrong, notes Mr Caplan, but in this case the public's view makes no sense. If petrol prices rise because oil firms want higher profits, how come they sometimes fall? Surveys suggest that, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to share the economists' view on this and other economic issues. But since everyone's vote counts equally, politicians merrily denounce ExxonMobil and pass laws against “price-gouging”.
The public's anti-foreign bias is equally pronounced. Most Americans think the economy is seriously damaged by companies sending jobs overseas. Few economists do. People understand that the local hardware store will sell them a better, cheaper hammer than they can make for themselves. Yet they are squeamish about trade with foreigners, and even more so about foreigners who enter their country to do jobs they spurn. Hence the reluctance of Democratic presidential candidates to defend free trade, even when they know it will make most voters better off, and the reluctance of their Republican counterparts to defend George Bush's liberal line on immigration.
The make-work bias is best illustrated by a story, perhaps apocryphal, of an economist who visits China under Mao Zedong. He sees hundreds of workers building a dam with shovels. He asks: “Why don't they use a mechanical digger?” “That would put people out of work,” replies the foreman. “Oh,” says the economist, “I thought you were making a dam. If it's jobs you want, take away their shovels and give them spoons.” For an individual, the make-work bias makes some sense. He prospers if he has a job, and may lose his health insurance if he is laid off. For the nation as a whole, however, what matters is not whether people have jobs, but how they do them. The more people produce, the greater the general prosperity. It helps, therefore, if people shift from less productive occupations to more productive ones. Economists, recalling that before the industrial revolution 95% of Americans were farmers, worry far less about downsizing than ordinary people do. Politicians, however, follow the lead of ordinary people. Hence, to take a more frivolous example, Oregon's ban on self-service petrol stations.
Finally, the public's pessimism is evident in its belief that most new jobs tend to be low-paying, that our children will be worse off than we are and that society is going to hell in a variety of ways. Economists, despite their dismal reputation, tend to be cheerier. Politicians have to strike a balance. They often find it useful to inflame public fears, but they have to sound confident that things will get better if they are elected.
Easier to diagnose than to cure
In short, democracy is a mess. But dictatorship is worse. Mr Caplan observes that Winston Churchill's aphorism—that democracy is “the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”—usually cuts the conversation short. He does not think it ought to. To curb the majority's tendency to impose its economic ignorance on everyone else, he suggests we rely less on government and more on private choice. Industries do better when deregulated. Religions thrive when disestablished. Market failures should be tackled, of course, but always with an eye for the unintended consequences of regulation. Mr Caplan is better at diagnosis than prescription. His book is a treat, but he will never win elective office.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
The fact is, all of this is the way it is because of capitalism.
Please stop buying these useless and false slogans at the Inept Slogan Store. China, a communist country, has poverty. Russia when it was a communist country had poverty. Or was that only the EVIL influence of those bad, bad countries practicing a capitalistic form of economy.
I appreciate that things can be better but the only chance people truly have of getting out of poverty and maintaining any freedom is the capital form of economy. I'll agree with you that governments could all be doing a better job providing a social safety net but that has nothing to do with capitalism.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Since there are so many capitalists pouring money onto charities and doing what's right, there shouldn't be such a huge class gap in the world, there shouldn't be starving children in the millions, there shouldn't be slave labor making our products.
Isn't that like saying, "since there are so many socialists coercing money out of millions of citizens, there shouldn't be starving children in the millions, there shouldn't be slave labor making our products."
It's foolish either way.
We shouldn't be the the main country consuming such a large portion of the world's resources while so many are going with out the bare necessities. The fact is, all of this is the way it is because of capitalism.
Can you justify this? Why do you believe that, if Americans were not consuming at such high levels, that the rest of the world would suddenly be rich? Did poverty not exist before capitalism????? The argument here makes no sense. The American economic system combined with free-market reforms abroad has helped pulled nation after nation out of poverty, and it's done so not out of witless altruism but through self-interest. Poverty is reducing every day in places like China, India and West Africa via American dollars and capitalistic efforts in those nations. And in each of these cases, the poverty was partly caused in the first place by the protectionist and insane economic policies of despots and socialists.
But that's just the thing...people are buying up everything because it's for sale. There's no protection under the capitalist system for those that have less buying power. These are the results we have been getting through free market capitalist system. People buy up everything that's for sale no matter what the consequences are. Both systems look good and paper...they are theories but it's the effects of how unequally the wealth is being distributed throughout the world that's causing the problem. We have the most power because we have the most money...those who don't have the money go without because it's bought out from under them at prices they couldn't afford to begin with. We're measuring people's worth in money.
it is disgusting what ppl want.
ppl seem to have to obtain everything.
materialistic greed.
it is on a rampage.
gotta have the latest style of brand name clothes.
gotta drive the high dollar new cars, new one each year.
motorcycles, 4 wheelers, boats, motor-homes, trucks, cars.
2 car garage over-flowing gasoline, toys a must.
gotta have the new video game thingy.
gotta get the latest biggest flatest big screen tv.
waste everything self centered ego fucks.
paris hilton, warshiping hollywood nut suckin a-holes.
high dollar materialistic eyeballs are fogging over reality like cataracts.
reality shows, movie/rock stars top-notch super-hero god/goddesses.
atheletic super-star, nascar blizzard frenzy.
build the tower of the massive money machines.
heavy equipment power struggle for human-being removal, crush em.
fuck'em.
2 for 1 sale discount unused over-sized undercut over-priced.
myspace, your-space, outter-space.
gagets, thingys.
stockmarket corruption global trading.
whos sharing?
super-size, xtra, biggy, double, triple, king-size.
nothing, zero, zip, nada.
it is disgusting what ppl want.
ppl seem to have to obtain everything.
materialistic greed.
it is on a rampage.
gotta have the latest style of brand name clothes.
gotta drive the high dollar new cars, new one each year.
motorcycles, 4 wheelers, boats, motor-homes, trucks, cars.
2 car garage over-flowing gasoline, toys a must.
gotta have the new video game thingy.
gotta get the latest biggest flatest big screen tv.
waste everything self centered ego fucks.
paris hilton, warshiping hollywood nut suckin a-holes.
high dollar materialistic eyeballs are fogging over reality like cataracts.
reality shows, movie/rock stars top-notch super-hero god/goddesses.
atheletic super-star, nascar blizzard frenzy.
build the tower of the massive money machines.
heavy equipment power struggle for human-being removal, crush em.
fuck'em.
2 for 1 sale discount unused over-sized undercut over-priced.
myspace, your-space, outter-space.
gagets, thingys.
stockmarket corruption global trading.
whos sharing?
super-size, xtra, biggy, double, triple, king-size.
nothing, zero, zip, nada.
The American economic system combined with free-market reforms abroad has helped pulled nation after nation out of poverty, and it's done so not out of witless altruism but through self-interest. Poverty is reducing every day in places like China, India and West Africa via American dollars and capitalistic efforts in those nations. And in each of these cases, the poverty was partly caused in the first place by the protectionist and insane economic policies of despots and socialists.
Isn't that like saying, "since there are so many socialists coercing money out of millions of citizens, there shouldn't be starving children in the millions, there shouldn't be slave labor making our products."
It's foolish either way.
Can you justify this? Why do you believe that, if Americans were not consuming at such high levels, that the rest of the world would suddenly be rich? Did poverty not exist before capitalism????? The argument here makes no sense. The American economic system combined with free-market reforms abroad has helped pulled nation after nation out of poverty, and it's done so not out of witless altruism but through self-interest. Poverty is reducing every day in places like China, India and West Africa via American dollars and capitalistic efforts in those nations. And in each of these cases, the poverty was partly caused in the first place by the protectionist and insane economic policies of despots and socialists.
I simply support a more even distribution of wealth. If people had a more proportionate slice of the pie then we wouldn't see so many going without. Just because some capitalist do good deeds, doesn't change the fact that resources are being bought out from under people and used to best suit us instead of them (for our profits, which always come first). Like Nike paying as little as possible to it's workers while making billions of profits for themselves. The coersion you speak of is to provide for these people who are going without...since you claim we're already doing enough of this, what's your problem? The govt making you do something you claim to already be doing??The fact is there are millions of people going without not because they were coersed by their government to pay taxes and give people liveable wages but because they lack the buying power it takes to survive...less than $1 a day often. And it's not because of socialism that it's happening.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Comments
Beyond that, my theory is this: Capitalism uses money to motivate people. A very high percentage of people motivated by money let that motivation get out of control. Often to the point where they'll sacrifice basic human morals to get their greedy little hands on more money. All they want is more and more.
While poverty did exist before the founding of this country, I think those that are motivated solely by money have made the gap between rich and poor run as deep as the Grand Canyon. I attribute this to Capitalism.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
how does this image have anything to do with capitalism?
It doesn't. I could photoshop a fat Soviet in a bread line juxtaposed with an emaciated, anorexic American. It would be as irrelevant as this picture, but I'm sure some would see a powerful message in it.
Hippimom had it right in her post toward the beginning of the thread.
Capitalism is more about self-interest rather than greed. Ultimately self-interest is a key motivator for everything we do, both good and bad. The only other motivator as powerful would be coersion, which some of you seem to favor.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Let me rephrase what I originally posted then. Capitalism enables gross responsibilty. Money is absolutely the key motivator behind Capitalism. Can you argue with that? When money is the key motivator it will certainly lead to greed.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Do you disagree that huge corporations, through capitalism, take shortcuts inspired by greed, that are grossly irresponsible?
I personally would like to see a system closer to socialism. I know that has such an evil connotation but it's what I think. There's got to be something in the middle. Neither extreme would work. I don't have the answers, but I'm studying it and trying to do what I can. Any system that will effectively deal with poverty will provide global health care and education. Health care and education are the two areas that will exponentially save a society from poverty. Capitalism neglects both of these. So jlew, I guess that's my beef with Capitalism.
interestingly enough, corporations are people. Do you run into overly ambitious people whose main focus is more? Absolutely, but generally most people everywhere going to work everyday are simply trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. Some people are nefarious but that doesn't change no matter your economic system. Some people and some corporations care deeply about changing the lives of the community and they devote a great deal of time, effort and money into that.
Corporations mirror the people that run them. In general if the people are self absorbed and only care about the end result for them rather than the entire impact or doing quality work or the best interest of the stakeholders involved what have you negative events occur. With all the focus on the hatred of corporations what about the quality of life they have helped achive for so many people that could not have otherwise happened without them?
We don't exactly have pure capitalism in this country. We have income redistribution, social services, public schools, health clinics etc. People often rage against capitalism but I don't think the free market is exactly the problem. I focus more on the ineffectivness of our government in it's current state. Any programs that we do have are more political in nature and about keeping politicians in power rather than doing the right thing for the nation, likewise lobbiests from corporations are too powerful in nature getting legislation passed to benifit them when maybe that's not in the best interest of the nation.... I believe that's a major issue in this nation currently. Not that the system is inherently bad, that the parties involved are inefficient and ineffective and that's leading to much of the economic hardship.
mark it a fucking zero smokey...am i the only one that gives a shit about the rules around here?
Actually, yes. The "burning of oil" replaced the burning of coal, something far more problematic for the environment. And the "burning of oil", left to market forces, will be replaced by more efficient technologies.
It's funny that the "burning of oil" suddenly becomes ruinous. By what standard? The industrial revolution doubled life expectancies for many, and continues to do so in places like India, China, and elsewhere. With all that came environmental costs, of course. But abandoning technologies in the face of those costs will be far more ruinous than their continued use. The answer lies within better uses of the planet's resources, "better" being measured in terms of human life, happiness, and productivity. And capitalism encourages those things more than any other economic construct.
Huh? Money has no monopoly on greed. If you think removing money eliminates greed, you're in for a shock. Money, and the concomittant concepts of property and self-ownership, are your only protections from greed short of violence.
This is 100% correct, though not necessarily in the way you mean it. The globe does not need health care or education, so you probably mean "provide free health care and education for everyone on the globe". Such an assertion would be incorrect since many systems have eradicated extreme proverty without providing "global health care and education". But certainly the availability of health care and educational services are paramount to the end of poverty.
This is 0% correct. What on earth makes you believe capitalism "neglects" education and health care, since both are and have been delivered in many places in this world via largely capitalistic means?
Since there are so many capitalists pouring money onto charities and doing what's right, there shouldn't be such a huge class gap in the world, there shouldn't be starving children in the millions, there shouldn't be slave labor making our products. We shouldn't be the the main country consuming such a large portion of the world's resources while so many are going with out the bare necessities. The fact is, all of this is the way it is because of capitalism.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
why was yassar araft's net worth $300,000,000 million when he died? I had no idea he had such a high salary.
I'm speaking of capitalism not the US.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Jun 14th 2007
From The Economist print edition
How the electorate is irrational
Kevin Kallaugher
ANYONE who follows an election campaign too closely will sometimes get the feeling that politicians think voters are idiots. A new book says they are. Or rather, Bryan Caplan, an economics professor at George Mason University, makes the slightly politer claim that voters systematically favour irrational policies. In a democracy, rational politicians give them what they (irrationally) want. In “The Myth of the Rational Voter”, Mr Caplan explains why this happens, why it matters and what we can do about it.
The world is a complex place. Most people are inevitably ignorant about most things, which is why shows like “Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?” are funny. Politics is no exception. Only 15% of Americans know who Harry Reid (the Senate majority leader) is, for example. True, more than 90% can identify Arnold Schwarzenegger. But that has a lot to do with the governor of California's previous job pretending to be a killer robot.
Many political scientists think this does not matter because of a phenomenon called the “miracle of aggregation” or, more poetically, the “wisdom of crowds”. If ignorant voters vote randomly, the candidate who wins a majority of well-informed voters will win. The principle yields good results in other fields. On “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, another quiz show, the answer most popular with the studio audience is correct 91% of the time. Financial markets, too, show how a huge number of guesses, aggregated, can value a stock or bond more accurately than any individual expert could. But Mr Caplan says that politics is different because ignorant voters do not vote randomly.
Instead, he identifies four biases that prompt voters systematically to demand policies that make them worse off. First, people do not understand how the pursuit of private profits often yields public benefits: they have an anti-market bias. Second, they underestimate the benefits of interactions with foreigners: they have an anti-foreign bias. Third, they equate prosperity with employment rather than production: Mr Caplan calls this the “make-work bias”. Finally, they tend to think economic conditions are worse than they are, a bias towards pessimism.
Mr Caplan gives a sense of how strong these biases are by comparing the general public's views on economic questions with those of economists and with those of highly educated non-economists. For example, asked why petrol prices have risen, the public mostly blames the greed of oil firms. Economists nearly all blame the law of supply and demand. Experts are sometimes wrong, notes Mr Caplan, but in this case the public's view makes no sense. If petrol prices rise because oil firms want higher profits, how come they sometimes fall? Surveys suggest that, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to share the economists' view on this and other economic issues. But since everyone's vote counts equally, politicians merrily denounce ExxonMobil and pass laws against “price-gouging”.
The public's anti-foreign bias is equally pronounced. Most Americans think the economy is seriously damaged by companies sending jobs overseas. Few economists do. People understand that the local hardware store will sell them a better, cheaper hammer than they can make for themselves. Yet they are squeamish about trade with foreigners, and even more so about foreigners who enter their country to do jobs they spurn. Hence the reluctance of Democratic presidential candidates to defend free trade, even when they know it will make most voters better off, and the reluctance of their Republican counterparts to defend George Bush's liberal line on immigration.
The make-work bias is best illustrated by a story, perhaps apocryphal, of an economist who visits China under Mao Zedong. He sees hundreds of workers building a dam with shovels. He asks: “Why don't they use a mechanical digger?” “That would put people out of work,” replies the foreman. “Oh,” says the economist, “I thought you were making a dam. If it's jobs you want, take away their shovels and give them spoons.” For an individual, the make-work bias makes some sense. He prospers if he has a job, and may lose his health insurance if he is laid off. For the nation as a whole, however, what matters is not whether people have jobs, but how they do them. The more people produce, the greater the general prosperity. It helps, therefore, if people shift from less productive occupations to more productive ones. Economists, recalling that before the industrial revolution 95% of Americans were farmers, worry far less about downsizing than ordinary people do. Politicians, however, follow the lead of ordinary people. Hence, to take a more frivolous example, Oregon's ban on self-service petrol stations.
Finally, the public's pessimism is evident in its belief that most new jobs tend to be low-paying, that our children will be worse off than we are and that society is going to hell in a variety of ways. Economists, despite their dismal reputation, tend to be cheerier. Politicians have to strike a balance. They often find it useful to inflame public fears, but they have to sound confident that things will get better if they are elected.
Easier to diagnose than to cure
In short, democracy is a mess. But dictatorship is worse. Mr Caplan observes that Winston Churchill's aphorism—that democracy is “the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”—usually cuts the conversation short. He does not think it ought to. To curb the majority's tendency to impose its economic ignorance on everyone else, he suggests we rely less on government and more on private choice. Industries do better when deregulated. Religions thrive when disestablished. Market failures should be tackled, of course, but always with an eye for the unintended consequences of regulation. Mr Caplan is better at diagnosis than prescription. His book is a treat, but he will never win elective office.
I appreciate that things can be better but the only chance people truly have of getting out of poverty and maintaining any freedom is the capital form of economy. I'll agree with you that governments could all be doing a better job providing a social safety net but that has nothing to do with capitalism.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Isn't that like saying, "since there are so many socialists coercing money out of millions of citizens, there shouldn't be starving children in the millions, there shouldn't be slave labor making our products."
It's foolish either way.
Can you justify this? Why do you believe that, if Americans were not consuming at such high levels, that the rest of the world would suddenly be rich? Did poverty not exist before capitalism????? The argument here makes no sense. The American economic system combined with free-market reforms abroad has helped pulled nation after nation out of poverty, and it's done so not out of witless altruism but through self-interest. Poverty is reducing every day in places like China, India and West Africa via American dollars and capitalistic efforts in those nations. And in each of these cases, the poverty was partly caused in the first place by the protectionist and insane economic policies of despots and socialists.
it is disgusting what ppl want.
ppl seem to have to obtain everything.
materialistic greed.
it is on a rampage.
gotta have the latest style of brand name clothes.
gotta drive the high dollar new cars, new one each year.
motorcycles, 4 wheelers, boats, motor-homes, trucks, cars.
2 car garage over-flowing gasoline, toys a must.
gotta have the new video game thingy.
gotta get the latest biggest flatest big screen tv.
waste everything self centered ego fucks.
paris hilton, warshiping hollywood nut suckin a-holes.
high dollar materialistic eyeballs are fogging over reality like cataracts.
reality shows, movie/rock stars top-notch super-hero god/goddesses.
atheletic super-star, nascar blizzard frenzy.
build the tower of the massive money machines.
heavy equipment power struggle for human-being removal, crush em.
fuck'em.
2 for 1 sale discount unused over-sized undercut over-priced.
myspace, your-space, outter-space.
gagets, thingys.
stockmarket corruption global trading.
whos sharing?
super-size, xtra, biggy, double, triple, king-size.
nothing, zero, zip, nada.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
huh? I know you are. why are you blaming capitalism when you should be blaming corrupt governments (dictators) for most of the worlds suffering.
You gotta pimp that rant out to Dylan.
Hehe...thanks.
it just sucks period.
those kinda ppl freak me out.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I simply support a more even distribution of wealth. If people had a more proportionate slice of the pie then we wouldn't see so many going without. Just because some capitalist do good deeds, doesn't change the fact that resources are being bought out from under people and used to best suit us instead of them (for our profits, which always come first). Like Nike paying as little as possible to it's workers while making billions of profits for themselves. The coersion you speak of is to provide for these people who are going without...since you claim we're already doing enough of this, what's your problem? The govt making you do something you claim to already be doing??The fact is there are millions of people going without not because they were coersed by their government to pay taxes and give people liveable wages but because they lack the buying power it takes to survive...less than $1 a day often. And it's not because of socialism that it's happening.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde