Why capitalism doesn't work

[VIV3LAR3VOLUTION]

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=8...5&ref=share

Here is an awesome article i came across and I cannot disagree with the author.

[M.Dancer]

....and I cannot disagree with the author.

Facebook Login

You must log in to see this page.

Email:Password:

Remember me

By selecting "remember me" you will stay logged into this computer until you click logout. If this is a public computer please do not use this feature.

or Sign up for Facebook

Forgot your password?

I suppose I can't either.

[Renegade]

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=8...5&ref=share

Here is an awesome article i came across and I cannot disagree with the author.

It is pointless to post this link because it is inaccessable to anyone who doesn't have a facebook id, furthermore even if you do have a facebook id, the content is only avalable with permission.

[VIV3LAR3VOLUTION]

It is pointless to post this link because it is inaccessable to anyone who doesn't have a facebook id, furthermore even if you do have a facebook id, the content is only avalable with permission.

yea sorry the link is down or something

[VIV3LAR3VOLUTION]

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=8...5&ref=share

Here is an awesome article i came across and I cannot disagree with the author.

Here is a new one,

http://www.freewebs.com/viv3lar3volution/writings.htm

[White Doors]

Here is a new one,

http://www.freewebs.com/viv3lar3volution/writings.htm

Shouldn't you retitle the thread to read: 'Why capitalism doesn't work for me?"

[Oleg Bach]

Shouldn't you retitle the thread to read: 'Why capitalism doesn't work for me?"

Capitalism as we know it does not work because it has one rule of thumb - "Take what you can and give nothing back ever" - as my father said and he was not a socialist. If there was food on the table and money in the drawer..he would always remind us with this very civilized statement - THERE ARE OTHERS' - with capitalism or as I call it - social robbery and plunder of your own tribe - the rule is to eat and milk the human cows to the point that they can bare no more and they fall over in weakness. So to put it bluntly - capitalism is poor management of the herd and always leads to a collapse caused by self serving cruelty and greed..then they condition us and call it a ressession - actually it is a depression - because the people become worn down and depressed and lose the heart to work - FOR LITTLE OR NOTHING...THERE ARE OTHERS!

[Pliny]

Capitalism as we know it does not work because it has one rule of thumb - "Take what you can and give nothing back ever" - as my father said and he was not a socialist. If there was food on the table and money in the drawer..he would always remind us with this very civilized statement - THERE ARE OTHERS' - with capitalism or as I call it - social robbery and plunder of your own tribe - the rule is to eat and milk the human cows to the point that they can bare no more and they fall over in weakness. So to put it bluntly - capitalism is poor management of the herd and always leads to a collapse caused by self serving cruelty and greed..then they condition us and call it a ressession - actually it is a depression - because the people become worn down and depressed and lose the heart to work - FOR LITTLE OR NOTHING...THERE ARE OTHERS!

Your view of capitalism is an apparency, Oleg. It is a view of capitalism held by many these days and the distortion is being propagated by Capitalists. These Capitalists are big players. They do not like competition and distortions like the one you have set forth here helps to hld the competition down. Many, including yourself, would not want to

to be a Capitalist if what you say is true. It is only rational.

Let's just take our forests as an example of how Capitalism has denuded our lands.

Firstly, who owns the lands that are being stripped bare of their trees? I believe it is mostly Crown land. We can check that out but this is just an illustration of how things have been managed. Now, before any trees can be cut licences and cutting rights are established. Since no one owns the land privately, the government must decide who will cut and who will not. Of course, all the public sees is the Capitalist cutting down the forests. I imagine it is the same in Brazil. You know selling rights and licences and then taxing the goods is a lucrative business that the government has and privilege can even be bestowed upon your favorite who may even donate to your re-election. That is the government's interest in the land. They don't really care about it and act like every other human being getting whatever they can from it.

Now if you look to the private ownership of land what would occur? Businesses would not be willy-nilly cutting down trees wherever they wanted. The owner of the land would and could be very selective about the process.

Even granting rights to his friends, as long as they paid a good price for the logging rights. But there is nothing wrong in that because it is his land.

Now in looking toward the future. What would be the interest of government in stopping logging on Crown land?

It would be very hard for them to lose revenues and they would just keep on licensing Capitalists to log the land. Well, if a public outcry occurred then perhaps the government would make part of the lands parks and let part of the land be logged. A happy medium.

Private ownership would see the individual wish to provide future revenues as well. If he just allowed anyone to log if they paid a fee to him he would soon have no logs left and no revenues to live on. He has to carefully manage his land to provide himself and his family a future. He would have to re-seed the forest and keep at least part of the land in reserve at all times. He too could provide a recreational facility for campers and hikers.

It is true that if Capitalists just were set free to log they would quickly denude every acre they could before someone else did. The only thing that would stop them is government or the respected private ownership of land. Governments,of course, have to manage the land and that takes money. So they must somehow pay for that management. They do so in the form of taxes and selling licenses.

We see our fisheries today being destroyed, don't we? The east coast is devastated already. Well, let's just blame the Capitalists and their greed. Unfortunately, it is the Government that is regulating, licensing taxing and managing those fisheries. Are they interested in the fisheries really? Governments interests are remaining in power and collecting revenues to pay themselves. It is not until it is too late that the public realizes, hey, our fish stocks are being depleted. Any private owner would have noticed he was losing his future ability to survive and would have acted long before he got into trouble.

Of course, the reaction of government to their mis-management is to introduce heavier restrictions and fines and results in a more costly product or no product for the consumer who must eat.

A closer look at Capitalism must be made than what is on the surface.

[Pliny]

Well, I read the article - or part of it. Yes. It is written from a socialist point of view. Really odd.

How do socialists ever plan to get he necessities of life to people? There are only luxuries because there is wealth and the ability to produce it. What socialists propose I imagine is no luxuries whatsoever. Nothing can be superfluous or just an enjoyment. We all must be made equal. Equal to the lowest common denominator or else it isn't "fair".

Golly gosh! Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all about everyone being eqaul to everyone else. We all want food, clothing and shelter. Beyond that, the baubles of Marilyn Monroe, the glitter of Hollywood are all unnecessary evils. We need drabness and we need to contribute to everyone else even if they would cut our throat for not caring and sharing. If we have one more pair of underwear than someone else we are greedy and selfish.

How wonderful it will be when everyone is finally and truly equal! All women must look like men and all fat persons must be skinny. All houses must be the same lest someone have more cupboards and start to selfishly horde food.

Yes, socialism will get rid of all the evils of capitalism. All the injustices of having to work to get ahead of your neighbour or to rise to higher standards. There will be one standard. There will be no necessity to work because there will be no wealth to attain. If you do work, there is no necessity to be materialistic because all have a right to share in your production equally and they will. Just think no private property to look after. Some one to haul away your garbage at no expense to you. but you will have very little garbage because things will be run so efficiently. Only what is needed will be produced. No wasteful Hollywood glam, no extra pair of underwear. How thrifty! How frugal!

Yes, the Earth cannot be sustained with Capitalism unless we are innovative and use our ingenuity, but if we make life miserable and intolerable enough for most of the people maybe only a few of us will remain and the world will be our oyster..er...workers paradise.

Edited February 5, 2008 by Pliny

[Muddy]

Only in capitalist democracys can one rise above the station they were born into through legitimate means.

[Pliny]

Only in capitalist democracys can one rise above the station they were born into through legitimate means.

And legitimately today it's pretty tough and getting tougher as we become more and more socialist.

[Michael Hardner]

Incorrect. There is more social mobility in a country like Canada than in a country that has barriers to mobility, due to the class you were born into.

Yes, socialism will get rid of all the evils of capitalism. All the injustices of having to work to get ahead of your neighbour or to rise to higher standards. There will be one standard. There will be no necessity to work because there will be no wealth to attain. If you do work, there is no necessity to be materialistic because all have a right to share in your production equally and they will. Just think no private property to look after. Some one to haul away your garbage at no expense to you. but you will have very little garbage because things will be run so efficiently. Only what is needed will be produced. No wasteful Hollywood glam, no extra pair of underwear. How thrifty! How frugal!

You make it sound quite crazy, however - communal living is the situation in which humans evolved so in a certain sense it's very natural to us. People do work to help the community, not simply because they're greedy.

Only in capitalist democracys can one rise above the station they were born into through legitimate means.

This is a both a true and a nonsensical statement, because a 'station', or a class doesn't exist in a classless society.

I could say something similar like, "only in a classless society can you beg your boss for enough overtime pay to cover your doctor's bill".

[Pliny]

You make it sound quite crazy, however - communal living is the situation in which humans evolved so in a certain sense it's very natural to us. People do work to help the community, not simply because they're greedy.

I don't make it sound quite crazy. This is how I understand it.

When you talk about communal living being natural to us are you talking about a form of government?

I am talking about government. There is no way in all heck that people are equal one to another. A communal government attempts to make all people equal. A democracy should, leave society - the communal interaction of individuals - to evolve upon it's own. Democracy today has deteriorated to a system of special interests voting for favour. Socialism has crept in and socialism has to do with the State. The larger and more influential the State in the affairs of society, which is communal interaction and evolution, the more socialistic it is.

This is a both a true and a nonsensical statement, because a 'station', or a class doesn't exist in a classless society.

Humans didn't evolve in a classless society so in a certain sense class is very natural to us. The novelty is in it's mobility, where people can and do move up and down.

Unfortunately, a classless society is not possible. There is always one class that will claim the right of authority to use force. So socialism is an attempt to establish and maintain two classes while claiming there is only one class. The ability to enforce the concept of a classless society upon individuals is axiomatically indicative of the existence of another class. There is one that can use force and there is one that can't.

It can easily be seen that no personal relationships can be developed between the classes in a completely Statist system. They will cause resentment and be seen as favour or privilege. Having no friends that can use force disenfranchises those individuals and justice is impossible, unless there are no relationships between the two classes - a complete impossibility in my view.

Obviously, justice will always favour those in a democratic society who have the ear of the legal and judicial system and can interpret the law for him. The rich, who can afford lawyers, will always be better off. Those that must rely upon their own interpretations of law are somewhat at risk. Law must be made complex, too complex, for the average individual in order to make lawyers, law and consequently government important to society. This is why it is important to keep government small and limited or else it deteriorates to an organization of privilege and special interests.

You are right in saying "people do work to help the community, not simply because they are greedy". The question is how much government is necessary to the interaction of individuals to form a vibrant, ever evolving civilized society. Too much government, in my view, stagnates and slows a society's evolution. The formula I would say is applicable is in the responsibility level of the citizens. The less responsible they are, for themselves and their welfare, the more responsible government must be. The less responsible the individual is to himself the less civilized the society because the more force government must use to live up to it's assumed responsibilities, which it must assume if individuals assign them to government.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

I don't make it sound quite crazy. This is how I understand it.

When you talk about communal living being natural to us are you talking about a form of government?

I mean pre-3,500 years ago before cities existed.

I am talking about government. There is no way in all heck that people are equal one to another. A communal government attempts to make all people equal. A democracy should, leave society - the communal interaction of individuals - to evolve upon it's own. Democracy today has deteriorated to a system of special interests voting for favour. Socialism has crept in and socialism has to do with the State. The larger and more influential the State in the affairs of society, which is communal interaction and evolution, the more socialistic it is.

But socialism isn't about making people equal, it's about 'to each according to his needs'.

Capitalism, together with 'Special interests' have created a tiny class of very wealthy people, so the system has worked well for them.

Unfortunately, a classless society is not possible. There is always one class that will claim the right of authority to use force. So socialism is an attempt to establish and maintain two classes while claiming there is only one class. The ability to enforce the concept of a classless society upon individuals is axiomatically indicative of the existence of another class. There is one that can use force and there is one that can't.

Well, depending on how you define 'class', you're right. If a society has no money then power is derived from other means.

It can easily be seen that no personal relationships can be developed between the classes in a completely Statist system. They will cause resentment and be seen as favour or privilege. Having no friends that can use force disenfranchises those individuals and justice is impossible, unless there are no relationships between the two classes - a complete impossibility in my view.

Obviously, justice will always favour those in a democratic society who have the ear of the legal and judicial system and can interpret the law for him. The rich, who can afford lawyers, will always be better off. Those that must rely upon their own interpretations of law are somewhat at risk. Law must be made complex, too complex, for the average individual in order to make lawyers, law and consequently government important to society. This is why it is important to keep government small and limited or else it deteriorates to an organization of privilege and special interests.

Again, you're assuming that the 'rich' always exist which is incorrect.

You are right in saying "people do work to help the community, not simply because they are greedy". The question is how much government is necessary to the interaction of individuals to form a vibrant, ever evolving civilized society. Too much government, in my view, stagnates and slows a society's evolution. The formula I would say is applicable is in the responsibility level of the citizens. The less responsible they are, for themselves and their welfare, the more responsible government must be. The less responsible the individual is to himself the less civilized the society because the more force government must use to live up to it's assumed responsibilities, which it must assume if individuals assign them to government.

Socialism's end goal is for no government to exist, so maybe you're more socialistic than you think.

[M.Dancer]

I mean pre-3,500 years ago before cities existed.

Ho hum.....

Jericho c 9000 BC

Byblos c 7000 BC

Uruk c c 6000 BC

[Michael Hardner]

er... uh....

Firstly, I was thinking of Uruk, so I should have said 6000 years.

Are those other examples true ?

I stand corrected then...

[Ergonomic]

Capitalism as we know it does not work because it has one rule of thumb - "Take what you can and give nothing back ever" - as my father said and he was not a socialist. If there was food on the table and money in the drawer..he would always remind us with this very civilized statement - THERE ARE OTHERS' - with capitalism or as I call it - social robbery and plunder of your own tribe - the rule is to eat and milk the human cows to the point that they can bare no more and they fall over in weakness. So to put it bluntly - capitalism is poor management of the herd and always leads to a collapse caused by self serving cruelty and greed..then they condition us and call it a ressession - actually it is a depression - because the people become worn down and depressed and lose the heart to work - FOR LITTLE OR NOTHING...THERE ARE OTHERS!

Capitalism is about the free exchange of value. We need to come to terms with the fact that we have yet to develop a universal model that defines value completely. Either the monetary system is an imperfect determinant of value or there is a better measure of value...

The best thing about value is that it can be measured. Hopefully this is something we can all agree on...

[Ergonomic]

I've read a lot of posts here and there seems to be a prevailing opinion that capitalism is some sort of singular economic model. I believe that there are many versions of capitalism. Here is mine...

I believe that capitalism is about finding an economic niche in a regulated trade environment. It is about finding the unique contribution that we all can make and sustaining that contribution (output) by inputs willingly (hopefully eagerly) paid.

I do not believe that capitalism is about getting rich. In fact, I think that wealth is an aberration of capitalism that signals a problem in the system.

Captialism is about fitting in and earning your keep.

[eyeball]

I think that wealth is an aberration of capitalism that signals a problem in the system.

I think capitalism is just a thing. Its what people do with it that counts.

[Leafless]

Captialism is about fitting in and earning your keep.

Capitalism is the necessary requirement in a freer and democratic society.

[segnosaur]

Capitalism as we know it does not work because it has one rule of thumb - "Take what you can and give nothing back ever" - as my father said and he was not a socialist.

Well, your father may not have been a socialist, but he was likely an idiot (or at least extremely ignorant). The "take what you can/give nothing" is just a retarded statement for a number of reasons...

While capitalism is a way to build wealth, it in itself does not exclude the ability for people to act charitably. In fact, far from not 'giving back', the additional wealth provided by capitalism can actually lead to greater charitable acts. Want proof? Consider this... the U.S. is generally a more 'free enterprise/capitalistic' country than Canada... yet there is a greater contribution to Charity by Americans, both in the number of people donating, and in the total amount given.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071101/d071101c.htm

http://abuja.usembassy.gov/pr_06272007.html

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.we...e.aspx?nid=5116 (Note: its understandable if people do not want to assume the Fraser Institute is an un-biased source; however, in this case their statistics are verified by other sources that I've provided.)

The other major problem I have is the assumption that you're "taking what you can"... While the concept of capitalism is to obtain wealth, you are not 'taking' anything... you offer goods and/or services and receive goods/services in return. The person you are dealing with has the option to accept/reject any offer you make. You are not 'taking' anything.

If there was food on the table and money in the drawer..he would always remind us with this very civilized statement - THERE ARE OTHERS' - with capitalism or as I call it - social robbery and plunder of your own tribe - the rule is to eat and milk the human cows to the point that they can bare no more and they fall over in weakness.

Bad anology...

Those 'human cows' are actually individuals who are also looking out for their own best interests. They can and will fight any attempt to be 'overused'. They have a choice in things.

So to put it bluntly - capitalism is poor management of the herd and always leads to a collapse caused by self serving cruelty and greed..

But guess what? Greed is not eliminated when people live in a 'socialist' system... people will still have the desire to provide a better life with as little effort as possible. This could mean, in effect, that many people will be able to express the desire not to work at all (and express their greed in that manner), while still receiving the benefits of assistance.

Not to mention that the greed in the capitalist system is not necessarily a bad thing. Such greed and and does lead to innovation, since the possibility of building wealth will provide an incentive for people to create new products/technologies, or offer services to fill previously unfilled economic niches. If, as under a socialist system you eliminated such a possibility to build wealth, then you eliminate the incentive for much of that innovation.

then they condition us and call it a ressession - actually it is a depression - because the people become worn down and depressed and lose the heart to work - FOR LITTLE OR NOTHING...THERE ARE OTHERS!

And under a socialist system, people lose the heart to work because they don't need to... they can get the same benefits whether they work 9-5 or stay home all day eating potato chips and watching Oprah.

The ironic thing is... you probably wrote your post criticizing capitalism on a computer that was created by a company that exists largely due to capitalism.

[M.Dancer]

Capitalism is the ability for money to find better ideas and better ideas the ability to find money.

[Pliny]

I've read a lot of posts here and there seems to be a prevailing opinion that capitalism is some sort of singular economic model. I believe that there are many versions of capitalism. Here is mine...

I believe that capitalism is about finding an economic niche in a regulated trade environment. It is about finding the unique contribution that we all can make and sustaining that contribution (output) by inputs willingly (hopefully eagerly) paid.

I do not believe that capitalism is about getting rich. In fact, I think that wealth is an aberration of capitalism that signals a problem in the system.

Captialism is about fitting in and earning your keep.

Agreed for the most part. One question - What do you mean by a "regulated trade environment"?

There are different views of Capitalism and how it should be regulated or managed or governed. There are monetarists, laissez-fairists, Corporatists, mercantilists, combinations of such, and the list continues.

It's regulation in my view should only be of justice. The purpose of trade and commerce is that both players mutually benefit. When one side does not benefit it is not trade but theft or fraud or exploitation. Capitalism as practiced today is more about profit and gain than ensuring the other side profits and gains to his satisfaction and that transactions are indeed mutually beneficial.

I believe that this is a result of economic theory that is more concerned with math, numbers and formulas, than the human and social aspect of economy.

[White Doors]

Agreed for the most part. One question - What do you mean by a "regulated trade environment"?

There are different views of Capitalism and how it should be regulated or managed or governed. There are monetarists, laissez-fairists, Corporatists, mercantilists, combinations of such, and the list continues.

It's regulation in my view should only be of justice. The purpose of trade and commerce is that both players mutually benefit. When one side does not benefit it is not trade but theft or fraud or exploitation. Capitalism as practiced today is more about profit and gain than ensuring the other side profits and gains to his satisfaction and that transactions are indeed mutually beneficial.

I believe that this is a result of economic theory that is more concerned with math, numbers and formulas, than the human and social aspect of economy.

Well if it's not mutually beneficial, the offended party will ask to stop the dance. It takes two to tango.

pretty simple really.

[Melanaszomos]

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=8...5&ref=share

Here is an awesome article i came across and I cannot disagree with the author.

Capitalism does not work because it relies on the economic imperialism of the developed nations over the developing nations. For Example 90% of the electronic appliances of Canada are made in other poor countries by using the labor of overworking and underpaid workers, exploited by the corporations, or little kids that work like slaves in order for us to have shoes, clothes etc.

Also capitalism does not work because the present financing system requires a perpetual growth of investments and actual exploitation of natural resources in order to survive. That is because all the money is controlled by the banks so in order to repay the loans(national,business,personal) we have to exploit more natural resources and then even more and even more and the function of this increase is an exponential function.

Also Capitalism doesn't work because it really doesn't work for half of the world. No one can deny that there is a world economic system presently. For example if there is a recession in the US economy ,then there will be a recession almost all over the world! So if there is a world economy, then there is world capitalism! Then why are there so many poor countries(even though they have plenty of natural resources)? It is ecause of capitalism and economic imperialism.

I can go on and on for ever. Basically capitalism needs to change!