Enjoy Capitalism

Options
1…78101213…17

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    jlew24asu wrote:
    huh? I know you are. why are you blaming capitalism when you should be blaming corrupt governments (dictators) for most of the worlds suffering.


    what makes them corrupt?
    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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    surferdude wrote:
    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.

    Do you think those examples truly describe a socialist system or are they corrupt?
    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
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    what makes them corrupt?
    are you serious? I already gave you an example. why did yasser arafat have a net worth of 300 million? why did saddam huessien have 197 palaces while there was an all out famine in most of Iraq during the time of sanctions after the first gulf war?


    to answer your question, dictators and their inner circles are what make "governments" corrupt.

    you're a smart chick, what would you ask such a question?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    jlew24asu wrote:
    are you serious? I already gave you an example. why did yasser arafat have a net worth of 300 million? why did saddam huessien have 197 palaces while there was an all out famine in most of Iraq during the time of sanctions after the first gulf war?


    to answer your question, dictators and their inner circles are what make "governments" corrupt.

    you're a smart chick, what would you ask such a question?

    Their self interest over the interest of others is what made them corrupt. What is that called again?
    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
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Their self interest over the interest of others is what made them corrupt. What is that called again?


    Ambition?
    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.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    Pure capitalism is clumsy and catastrophically dangerous. Pure socialism is oppressive and, well, catastrophically dangerous. Mixed economies are the way to go, and have shown remarkable promise. Unfortunately, everyone has a different opinion about where we should spend the collective money generated by our "capitalist means to socialist ends" system. We generate billions on top of billions, yet rather than spend it on a functioning saftey net, rather than better subsidizing research into progressive, forward thinking technologies, we spend it on bombing the holy hell outta the sticks of the world like some drunken teenager in the woods with a box of M80s and a single match - then to stare in wonder at the resulting flames, 'cause he only brought one bucket of emergency water.
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    Ambition?


    http://www.despair.com/ambition.html
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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.

    You recognize that the "little" Nike is paying people is typically more than they'd be making otherwise, right? Certainly many corporations, including Nike, engage in incredibly immoral employment practices in poor nations. However, those immoral practices are typically made possible by abandoning capitalistic principles, not employing them. Coerced or forced slave labor is not a capitalistic principle. However, paying someone $.03 a day for a job they willingly accept because $.03 a day is three times what they'd make otherwise is based on capitalistic principles.

    If people had employed the standards you have regarding poor nations in the nations that are currently rich, we'd all be living by Cuban or Soviet standards and extreme poverty would be far worse than it is now. The fundamental problem with your views is that you see wealth as if it's some kind of limited, consumable commodity. The idea that wealth must be redistributed (in whatever fashion) for poverty (of whatever kind) to end is the same ideological error that has been made by every despot, socialist and greedy capitalist. If wealth were a limited consumable commodity, we would have run out of it a long time ago and this argument would be moot.

    The default human condition is poverty. Each of us is born hungry, stupid, and cold. Only production gives us food, knowledge, and shelter. And the history of socialism in this context is so obvious that it baffles me why people cling to it. Time and time again socialism promotes anti-production. And time and time again capitalism demands production. Nations that refuse to produce or establish political systems that make production impossible fall into poverty like clockwork. And those the produce, and encourage production, see poverty disappear.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Their self interest over the interest of others is what made them corrupt. What is that called again?
    being selfish. which has nothing to do with capitalism.

    capitalism is not causing millions to stave in africa. the world pours billions of dollars into these countries. guess who benefits from it? corrupt dictators
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    RainDog wrote:
    Pure capitalism is clumsy and catastrophically dangerous. Pure socialism is oppressive and, well, catastrophically dangerous. Mixed economies are the way to go, and have shown remarkable promise. Unfortunately, everyone has a different opinion about where we should spend the collective money generated by our "capitalist means to socialist ends" system. We generate billions on top of billions, yet rather than spend it on a functioning saftey net, rather than better subsidizing research into progressive, forward thinking technologies, we spend it on bombing the holy hell outta the sticks of the world like some drunken teenager in the woods with a box of M80s and a single match - then to stare in wonder at the resulting flames, 'cause he only brought one bucket of emergency water.

    I agree, there could be a much better mix designed to protect those the system is currently shutting out. Money could be better spent benefiting everyone overall instead of benefiting those already at the top.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Their self interest over the interest of others is what made them corrupt. What is that called again?

    Hehe...it's called socialism, abook. What are the poor going to give in return to those who deliver what you are demanding?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    jlew24asu wrote:
    being selfish. which has nothing to do with capitalism.

    capitalism is not causing millions to stave in africa. the world pours billions of dollars into these countries. guess who benefits from it? corrupt dictators

    These dictators are able to get the money how?
    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
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    These dictators are able to get the money how?
    because charities hand it to them in good confidence that it will be used correctly for the people. what the hell are you getting at?
  • chadwick
    chadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...it's called socialism, abook. What are the poor going to give in return to those who deliver what you are demanding?

    are you saying if ppl help the less-able then the less-able owe the able?
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...it's called socialism, abook. What are the poor going to give in return to those who deliver what you are demanding?

    Once they are able they can better contribute to society. Do you expect something in return when you give charity? All I'm proposing is that people should have more equal access to resources and wealth. The gap is absolutely ridiculous. The poor won't be so poor. They'll have what they need to live. What do you want them to give back?
    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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    jlew24asu wrote:
    because charities hand it to them in good confidence that it will be used correctly for the people. what the hell are you getting at?

    The dictators are choosing to use the money for their own self interest instead of redistributing it to the people who need it the most. The dictators are using their power gained through wealth to decide who gets the money and who doesn't.
    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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    Ambition?


    And ambition and the opportunities to do what you want with those ambitions fits best in a capitalist system.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Once they are able they can better contribute to society.

    Hehe...really??? This seems odd since, for example, we've redistributed billions into Africa without return. Hell, we've redistributed trillions into the poor in America, often times without return.

    The funny thing about this is, if you actually believed it, you'd be describing employment. If you want to talk about money being given to the poor who in turn willingly agree to accept obligations to benefit society, then we'd be talking about reality.
    Do you expect something in return when you give charity?

    Of course. Why else would I give to charity?
    All I'm proposing is that people should have more equal access to resources and wealth. The gap is absolutely ridiculous. The poor won't be so poor. They'll have what they need to live.

    Is your problem with "the gap", or is your problem with "poverty"? Because socialism will do a great job eliminating the gap by reducing everyone to poverty.
    What do you want them to give back?

    Whatever is theirs, otherwise "give back" wouldn't make any sense.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    chadwick wrote:
    are you saying if ppl help the less-able then the less-able owe the able?

    Of course. Is this shocking?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You recognize that the "little" Nike is paying people is typically more than they'd be making otherwise, right? Certainly many corporations, including Nike, engage in incredibly immoral employment practices in poor nations. However, those immoral practices are typically made possible by abandoning capitalistic principles, not employing them. Coerced or forced slave labor is not a capitalistic principle. However, paying someone $.03 a day for a job they willingly accept because $.03 a day is three times what they'd make otherwise is based on capitalistic principles.

    If people had employed the standards you have regarding poor nations in the nations that are currently rich, we'd all be living by Cuban or Soviet standards and extreme poverty would be far worse than it is now. The fundamental problem with your views is that you see wealth as if it's some kind of limited, consumable commodity. The idea that wealth must be redistributed (in whatever fashion) for poverty (of whatever kind) to end is the same ideological error that has been made by every despot, socialist and greedy capitalist. If wealth were a limited consumable commodity, we would have run out of it a long time ago and this argument would be moot.

    The default human condition is poverty. Each of us is born hungry, stupid, and cold. Only production gives us food, knowledge, and shelter. And the history of socialism in this context is so obvious that it baffles me why people cling to it. Time and time again socialism promotes anti-production. And time and time again capitalism demands production. Nations that refuse to produce or establish political systems that make production impossible fall into poverty like clockwork. And those the produce, and encourage production, see poverty disappear.

    See we'll never agree on this because of our opposite world views. I don't think self interest is the only motivation driving the world. I believe the quality of life for the world as a whole motivates just as many.

    I see countries like Canada, Denmark, France who have a more socialist approach doing fine. I also see this capitalism not working out too well for us here at home. I don't see this system being able to maintain itself.
    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

Categories