REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Jesus Appalled By Americans?

POSTED BY: MAVOURNEEN
UPDATED: Monday, April 9, 2007 13:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8320
PAGE 3 of 3

Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:19 PM

ALLIETHORN7


Yo, I'm back again (That I haven't made myself seem an idiot on this thread yet is simply amazin', to my mind).
SM, about what you said, to the effect that all of the folks with power have found some way to abuse it legaly, true.

What the rest of ya'll is sayin' (Too tired/ too many names to name on this post, either or), that Capitilism is inherently wrong- and that's what I managed to pick up from the odd twenty or so posts what came after mine- is misguided.

To put simply, don't hate the Game, hate the Players. If Capitalism is inherently wrong, then it is so only by the virtue of the folks using it being inherently wrong themselves. Look at how our Gov't has changed over some odd two hundred and thirty or so years we've been a nation; started out with the Articles of Confederation, which was so bad that it was changed after a few years to what we now have- minus the Amendements, of course. Then, we hobbled about for a few years, trying to repay our war debts and look tough enough so no other firmly entrenched European nations got the bright idea to snatch up a few extra colonies out of our collective hides. Then, came the fun part- Daniel Shayes Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, where folks rebelled either cause of taxes or other (Read, richer) folks taking advantage of them and their wares (Sound familiar). Skip ahead a bit to the Great Depression, and the Market Crashes. Now, in the ensuing century and twenty odd years, there were at least seventeen wars, wether they were with Brits, French, Spainiards, Native American Tribes like the Sioux, Blackfoot, Crows, etc, etc, etc...

Now, what am I trying to say? Two things meself; one, their has always been some kind of undercurrent of unrest and poverty in our society. But, it has also seen the most satisfaction in the lives of the general populace, because they can, in theory, make themselves, because there were no restrictions on them making more money and spending it how they pleased; no one tells us how we must spend our cash (Cuz, Lord knows that lots tell us how we should). People live by their own worth. Unfourtuneately, we've lost touch with that aspect, because now we really start to believe that it is our RIGHT at birth to get loads of cash by the time they're twenty. BUT, nobody takes the time to prove them wrong (That they have every right to make said basinful of cash, but that they need to bleed, cry, and sweat for it), so our society steadily gets more watered down by blowhards that bitch about how other people take their jobs for such stupid reasons as "They work harder than me, but I was born here!" It's the same about using affirmative action as a scapegoat for losing a job to a minority. It's stupid and childish, which is sad coming from some 16 year old kid.

Second? America has had a disturbin' habit of using disasters to liven up the general populace. Whether it's a war or a drought or an economic crash, it actually takes people DIEING to make us move forward (Think about that one intersection where everyone KNEW someone was going to die there if there weren't no light, but a light was put there only AFTER somefolk died there). These wars are like mini-Revolutions; they bring us forward and add some knowledge to the general publics collective I.Q., until the entire vicious cycle starts again.
That make any sense at all?

Having fun yet?

-Danny

I wanna take the Bullet,
The one aimed straight for your Heart;
I wanna meet the wolves halfway,
And let them Tear me APART,
But that's not the way they do it here...
THRICE RULES!!!!!!!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:23 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'm not buying you're 16, but then again, if I had internet access when I was 16 I would have been talking to a bunch of people much smarter than the morons I had around me.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hey Danny, thanks for the discussion. But I disagree with certain parts...

one, their has always been some kind of undercurrent of unrest and poverty in our society
as with most- BUT NOT ALL- societies

But, it has also seen the most satisfaction in the lives of the general populace
Not according to various surveys that place USA happiness somewhere between 15th and 30th

because they can, in theory, make themselves, because there were no restrictions on them making more money and spending it how they pleased
happiness and consumerism are found to be somewhat antithetical; health, education and GDP tend to parallel happiness


no one tells us how we must spend our cash
are you counting commercials?

People live by their own worth
except the very wealthy, who generally speaking have inherited their wealth

Unfourtuneately, we've lost touch with that aspect, because now we really start to believe that it is our RIGHT at birth to get loads of cash by the time they're twenty.
Maybe. I'm out of touch with your generation. But maybe it has to do with the consumerism that's constantly foisted on us. Ads for cars: "beyond machine", "live on the ege" "perfection" These are ads for CARS for crissake, not ads for eternal wisdom! You are what you BUY?

BUT, nobody takes the time to prove them wrong (That they have every right to make said basinful of cash, but that they need to bleed, cry, and sweat for it), so our society steadily gets more watered down by blowhards that bitch about how other people take their jobs for such stupid reasons as "They work harder than me, but I was born here!"
You believe in playing a gamed system, don't you? If corporations - which are are conglomerations of people- can dictate where we live, what we do, how much we make, what we see, and what we can buy- why do we HAVE to deal with them as individuals?

It's the same about using affirmative action as a scapegoat for losing a job to a minority. It's stupid and childish, which is sad coming from some 16 year old kid.
We should NOT be having to fight for jobs! There is so much to do!

Second? America has had a disturbin' habit of using disasters to liven up the general populace. MOST people are not proactive. But Americans are lazier than most, I agree. We have a habit of not THINKING.

Having fun yet?
Actually, yes. I hope you are too.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:19 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You are what you BUY?


I own a beat up piece of shit Cavalier and I'm a miserable, pessimistic bastard.....

I don't believe in coincidences, so you may be on to something here.


Not arguing... just sayin, is all

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 30, 2007 1:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


6ix- hahahaha!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 30, 2007 4:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are several repeating themes in our history as a species, and one of them is the development of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of others. Capitalism is not the only economic system which has created poverty, and it is not the only economic system to justify itself on the basis of greater themes.


But, unfortunately, you can't provide us with a viable alternative which creates less poverty.

And strangely enough, it is countries which have a democratic government and a capitalist economy which have the highest Human Development Index rankings.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_hum_dev_ind-economy-human-develo
pment-index

So although you don't like capitalisim, it seems to be the best we got so far, and no contenders for a better system are on the horizon.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 30, 2007 5:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I wonder what year the data was drawn from, because in 2002 Argentina experienced an economic meltdown from which it has not yet recovered. So there are some specific rankings and inclusions that I wonder about. But in general if you look at the human development rankings you'll notice that 19 of the top 20 have a form of "capitalism" that you might call "socialism" - universal ("socialized") health care; generous wages, vacations, and welfare benefits; free edcuation; and highly regulated industry; high taxes; and (compared to the USA) relatively small differences between the richest and the poorest. So it's not pure capitalism that creates these conditions but a form of highly-regulated capitalism.

Here is a list of nations by difference between rich and poor. Notice that many of the nations in the top 20 of your list are also the most equal in income.

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908770.html



So thank you for shooting your own argument.

AFA alternatives, well... 19 of the top 20 in your list offer one viable alternative, don't they?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 30, 2007 6:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I wonder what year the data was drawn from...

Right at the bottom of the page it states:

SOURCE: Human Development Reports, United Nations 2003
Quote:
But in general if you look at the human development rankings you'll notice that 19 of the top 20 have a form of "capitalism" that you might call "socialism" - universal ("socialized") health care; generous wages, vacations, and welfare benefits; free edcuation; and highly regulated industry; high taxes; and (compared to the USA) relatively small differences between the richest and the poorest. So it's not pure capitalism that creates these conditions but a form of highly-regulated capitalism.

But didn't someone say
Quote:
"Charity" is what governments do to PROTECT CAPITALISM from it's inevitable self-generated catastrophic failure.

and
Quote:
Capitalism is not the only economic system which has created poverty, and it is not the only economic system to justify itself on the basis of greater themes...Capitalism just happens to be the one we're dealing with today.


Oh, now there's "Good" capitalism and "Bad" capitalism where before there was just capitalism. Seems like what you call "Good" capitalism is the same sort of capitalism that provides the most "charity" (as social services) to the masses.

Check here for a description of the economic structure of the top countries I listed earlier, and you'll see they're most all either capitalist or free-market.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2116.html

So maybe it's not capitalism you have a problem with?


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 30, 2007 8:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer- capitalism doesn't provide social services, government does. There is bad capitalism and there is good government. And I maintain my previous point- if we had to live under bare-knuckles capitalism, capitalism wouldn't survive for long. The only reason why capitalism continues to exist is because it is moderated by socialist government action.

I'm trying to get our a report so I'll have to be brief but I want to leave you with this concept: capitalism is primarily concerned with production, socialism with distribution, democracy is a form of government. Poverty can be both absolute and relative. The causes of poverty can be found in extrinsic factors (poor resources), and intrinsic factors such as poor productivity and uneven distribution.

I don't have such an ideological axe to grind that I'm not capable of looking at the big picture, and that's what I'm trying to do.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 30, 2007 8:24 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- capitalism doesn't provide social services, government does.

With you so far. It isn't an economic system's responsibility to provide social services.

Quote:
There is bad capitalism and there is good government.

And the good government can only afford to provide those social services if there is a profitable economy to tax. Capitalism is the most profitable economy.
Quote:
And I maintain my previous point- if we had to live under bare-knuckles capitalism, capitalism wouldn't survive for long.

Like the Bill Gates, the Vanderbilts or J.P. Morgan type bare-knuckles? That goes back 150 years or so and we still got capitalism here. What do you consider "long"?
Quote:
The only reason why capitalism continues to exist is because it is moderated by soicalist government action.

Here in the US that would be George W. Bush's socialist government? Or Bush I's? Or Reagan's?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 30, 2007 8:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


With you so far. It isn't an economic system's responsibility to provide social services. It is not in capitalism's mandate to provide social services. I'm just going by what capitalists say about capitalism.

And the good government can only afford to provide those social services if there is a profitable economy to tax. Capitalism is the most profitable economy Not "profitable", productive. You may notice that governments don't derive most of their income from taxing "profits", they tax income and (in Europe) added value. So the "profitability" of an economy has little to do with its taxability. I understand your point, but you're using wrong terminology and it's causing confusion on your part.

Like the Bill Gates, the Vanderbilts or J.P. Morgan type bare-knuckles? That goes back 150 years or so and we still got capitalism here. What do you consider "long"? Well, first of all you're a little "off" on the years. The economy was still mainly agrarian until about 1880, and wealth distribution reamined about the same from 1760 to about 1880, which is when the big-time robber barons really hit their stride. Capitalism took a major setback in the 1930's. We have just gotten back to the income distribution that was extant before the Great Depression, so I wouldn't say that capitalism has has an extended unmitigated run through that entire length of time. But if you're asking me how long I think capitalism will last, my guess is about another 50 years, maybe less.

Here in the US that would be George W. Bush's socialist government? Or Bush I's? Or Reagan's? First of all, I need to clarify what I've been talking about. I'm afraid I've been using a misnomer too. "Capitalism" as envisioned by Adam Smith doesn't really exist today. There is little competition in any particualr sector, so what we have is really monopolism or corporatism. The more the government stacks the deck in favor of corporations, the closer we get to "fascism". If you just replace where I use the word "capitalism" with "monopolism" you'll get a better view of my meaning. But to specifically address your point: the more closely we follow their policies, the closer we come to collapse. I think we see this already in social disrepair and poverty levels, and I think it will become economically apparent (unless corective action is taken soon) that the USA economy can no longer support the value of the USA dollar.



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 30, 2007 12:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Awww... and just when I thought we were having a nice discussion.

I hope this is just a dinner break for you, and not that I scared you away!


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 30, 2007 12:55 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Awww... and just when I thought we were having a nice discussion.

I hope this is just a dinner break for you, and not that I scared you away!


Just off at the gun show for a while. Now is dinner, and then I'll try to straighten out your misconceptions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 30, 2007 2:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Heh. Have a nice dinner! (We're having pot roast, peas and pickled beets. yesterday we had honey-smoked grilled chicken, green beans with buttered bread crumbs and mashed yam. Tomorrow it'll be tofu and shrimp with hot ginger sauce, tempura-style broccoli and pineapple. Did I mention I'm an OK cook?)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 30, 2007 3:14 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Heh. Have a nice dinner! (We're having pot roast, peas and pickled beets. yesterday we had honey-smoked grilled chicken, green beans with buttered bread crumbs and mashed yam. Tomorrow it'll be tofu and shrimp with hot ginger sauce, tempura-style broccoli and pineapple. Did I mention I'm an OK cook?)


Yum. Friday night is hors d'oeuvres and cocktails at Chez Geezer - little crab cakes and Boston Sidecars tonight. Tomorrow it's chicken mole with rice and cerveza. Antelope carpaccio in the near future.

Profit, or more precisely net profit, is income less expenses, and is what businesses are taxed on. VAT is generally paid by the purchaser, not the seller, so doesn't really apply to business much.

Now back to the booze.

Later.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 31, 2007 8:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


double yum. I'm bored of my cooking. You're welcome to come to my house for dinner if I can come to yours!

I'm hoping you'll have the time to explain my misconsceptions.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
double yum. I'm bored of my cooking. You're welcome to come to my house for dinner if I can come to yours!

I'm hoping you'll have the time to explain my misconsceptions.


Already hit on profit vs. income.

It is not in capitalism's mandate to provide social services. I don't see it in any economic system's mandate to provide social services. That is the realm of social or political systems.

Well, first of all you're a little "off" on the years. The economy was still mainly agrarian until about 1880, and wealth distribution reamined about the same from 1760 to about 1880, which is when the big-time robber barons really hit their stride.
127 vs. 'around 150' doesn't seem that far off. Consider that Standard Oil was founded in 1870, J.P. Morgan started railroad empire building in the 1860s, Andrew Carnegie was into steel in the 1870s.

Capitalism took a major setback in the 1930's. We have just gotten back to the income distribution that was extant before the Great Depression, so I wouldn't say that capitalism has has an extended unmitigated run through that entire length of time.
A bit more government control during the FDR administration, but the capitalists still owned the companies.

But if you're asking me how long I think capitalism will last, my guess is about another 50 years, maybe less.Hope not. No one seems to have an alternative.

First of all, I need to clarify what I've been talking about. I'm afraid I've been using a misnomer too. "Capitalism" as envisioned by Adam Smith doesn't really exist today. There is little competition in any particualr sector, so what we have is really monopolism or corporatism. The more the government stacks the deck in favor of corporations, the closer we get to "fascism". If you just replace where I use the word "capitalism" with "monopolism" you'll get a better view of my meaning.

NOT FAIR!!! This is even worse than redefining charity to fit your preconceptions.

But anyway. I don't see the country moving so far to "fascism" that we'll have to worry about it. We're probably at the end of a right-wing swing now, and I'd suspect we'll get a liberal congress and administration in the 2008 elections. Controls will go back on business and the threat of 'monopolism' will recede as regular old capitalism returns to the center.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 2, 2007 6:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This was "timed out"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 2, 2007 6:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This was in case you didn't get it the first time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 2, 2007 6:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Already hit on profit vs. income. Your position was that capitalism was the most "profitable" form of economy, which makes government social programs easier. My rejoinder was that you mean "poductive", not profitable, because governments don't tax "profits". I failed to make my point fully clear. It's true that businesses are taxed on "profit", but governments don't derive most of their income from business taxes on "profits". At the Federal level $1 trillion in income taxes from individuals and about $200 billion in income taxes from corporations. and that's not counting sales and real estate taxes at the local level. In other words, government taxation doesn't depend on "profitability" as much as it depends on the total amount of money in circulation and the rate at which it changes hands.

I think what you mean to say is that capitalism has a genius for making work more productive. I think tha snwer to that is mainly yes but partly no. I'll get to that some other time.

It is not in capitalism's mandate to provide social services. I don't see it in any economic system's mandate to provide social services. That is the realm of social or political systems. In earlier days religion, economy, and society were lumped together, and you can find the concept of "noblesse oblige" in Hammurabi's code, in Athens, and Medieval ages in the knight's code of honor. It wasn't always practiced, but capitalism is the first economic system that takes and avowed stand for self-interest and against charity.

A bit more government control during the FDR administration, but the capitalists still owned the companies. And still do. However, what you'r allowed to do with that ownership varies with the tmper of the times. If your rights as owner are highly restricted, then "ownership" takes on a different meaning.

Hope not. No one seems to have an alternative. I think there are lots of alternatives out there, you just don't see them. For example, most people think of Taiwan and Singapore as "capitalist" countries, but in fact about half the industries in Taiwan are government -owned, and Singapore is considered a "socialist miracle". In fact, Tawians and Singapore are more socialist than Venezuela. You won't find these stats splashed in big letters in corporately-owned publications tho, or in the official CIA descriptions.

www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=204
4

NOT FAIR!!! This is even worse than redefining charity to fit your preconceptions. First of all, I didn't redefine "charity" (helping the poor) I just looked at the underlying assumptions more closely that most people are comfortable with.

Yes, AFA redefining capitalism to monopolism... it's such a given to me that I tend to use the words interchangeably, but I shouldn't. The fact is that when people say "capitalism" they have all kinds of things in mind- anything from Adam Smith's version (which probably never existed) to monopolism to the bare-bones definition of "private ownership of the means of production". The main issue with capitalsim is that it inevitably reverts to monopolism because that is the most profitable form of business.

Well, lots more things to do today. TTUL

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 2, 2007 9:47 AM

FLETCH2


Capitalism is so productive you produced 3 times the number of posts you needed! Or did you outsource posting to China? Fess up or I'll set Lou Dobbs on you!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 2, 2007 4:03 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Nah... I trusted my post to Microsoft!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 2, 2007 5:16 PM

XXKITTENZXX


honestly, I think that yes he would bbe appalled, but then what about all the other countries in the world? what makes them so righteous? we are all human beings and capable of greater good and evil as well. whatever religion a person follows, it is not a public thing, it is a personal decision, do I think that they should allow prayer time in schools? HECK YEAH!! But like someone stated earlier in this topic, Prayer is used in ALL religions, therfore why does everyone assume that when people speak of prayer they mean to Jesus? This country is supposed to be for freedom of religion, so whatever one you follow be proud of it and see quiet prayer time as time between you and your God, whichever one it may be. :-P

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 2, 2007 11:36 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by XxKittenzxX:
whatever religion a person follows, it is not a public thing, it is a personal decision, do I think that they should allow prayer time in schools? HECK YEAH!! But like someone stated earlier in this topic, Prayer is used in ALL religions, therfore why does everyone assume that when people speak of prayer they mean to Jesus?
What about the Atheists?


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 1:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What about atheists?

Well, they can use the time

a) looking around and doing sociological studies on the nut-cases around them
b) working on homework, thus earning them higher GPA on the average
c) sleeping, being more rested for the next class or exam, thus earning a higher GPA
d) reading comics

Do I think special "prayer time" belongs in school? Well, does prayer time belong at work? IMHO, no. I was taught growing up, you can pray anywhere, any time, even if it's just a quick "Dear Jesus help me though this test" or "Poor fellow, I'll bring a coat for him tomorrow. In the meantime, may God look after him." Why do we need to set aside special time at school for prayer? If we really want to teach kids Xtian love, we have to change what society is telling them.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 1:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hey Geezer. Any comments?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 2:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think what you mean to say is that capitalism has a genius for making work more productive.

Close. Countries with capitalist or semi-capitalist economies generally produce the highest individual wages and corporate net incomes for their governments to tax.

Quote:
...but capitalism is the first economic system that takes and avowed stand for self-interest and against charity.


I'm not sure "against" is quite the right word. Again, the capitalist and semi-capitalist countries are right at the top of the list for humanitarian aid, so the taxes paid by employees and corporations do fund quite a bit of charity. And capitalists, for whatever reason, do often spend bunches of their own money for charitable purposes.
Quote:
However, what you're allowed to do with that ownership varies with the temper of the times. If your rights as owner are highly restricted, then "ownership" takes on a different meaning.

Which is why I don't think we'll ever see the complete monopolistic system you fear.

Quote:
For example, most people think of Taiwan and Singapore as "capitalist" countries, but in fact about half the industries in Taiwan are government-owned, and Singapore is considered a "socialist miracle".

Actually, Singapore seems more like your Monopolistic economy. The goverment is the capitalist, and, rather than acting as a check, makes laws which support and protect its monopolistic enterprises.
Quote:
The main issue with capitalsim is that it inevitably reverts to monopolism because that is the most profitable form of business.

"Pure" capitalism, free from any outside influence, might do this. I think we both acknowledge that in the real world, such pure capitalism is unlikely to occur. there is always governmental or societial pressure which controls it.

Overall, I'd say that a capitalist republican (small R) or capitalist democratic (small D) socialist country has a better chance of 'tuning' its economy to provide for its people than any other type. Its up to the people to figure out how to accomplish this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 3:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


AFA Singapore is concerned, the term "capitalism" or "monopolism" doesn't apply to government-owned industry because government is not a PRIVATE owner. It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but governments are subject to different pressures and controls than corporations.

Singapore, Taiwan, and China are all examples of not-exactly-capitalist economies, and they seem to be doing well.

I repeat: Capitalism is the first economic system that takes an avowed stand for self-interest and against charity. Do Adam Smith's "invisble hand" and social Darwinism ring any bells? AFA "humanitarain aid"- the biggest per capita donors tend to be those that do NOT practice "pure" capitalism. In those naitons the government takes a large role in wealth distribution, something that is anathema to died in the wool capitalists.

Capitalism reverts to monopolism even in the presence of inhibiting governmental pressures. There are two reasons for this:

In the USA, we follow the Golden Rule. (I'm sure you know what that is)

Multinationals face no equivalent antithetical governmental power. SO far, the only rules being made concerning international trade tend to be made by the multinationals for the multinationals, in cooperation with the large governments. You will not find, for example, much in the way of international trust-busting.

---------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 5:17 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Multinationals face no equivalent antithetical governmental power. SO far, the only rules being made concerning international trade tend to be made by the multinationals for the multinationals, in cooperation with the large governments. You will not find, for example, much in the way of international trust-busting.


You might ask Mr. Gates his opinion of the EU and trust-busting.


More on the other stuff later, as the yardwork calls.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 8:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


While individual nations or regions may apply anti-monopoly laws indivudually, there is no international (ie cross-border, trans-oceanic) effort to rein in multinationals. Trade laws written under WTO only refer to trade. If anything, they tend to bolster the rights of multinationals vis a vis the individual nations by specifically eliminating where possible trade restrictions based on labor, environmental, or security concerns.

I cite this link in jest:
http://www.gatt.org


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 2:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hey Geezer, how was the yardwork?

It seems to me that what you're saying is that capitalism is great, but only if restrained by anti-trust (and other?) regulation. At the same time, you don't see any "alternatives' to capitalism despite the fact that it seems to require government intervention in order to work well.

Capitalism has its pluses. One of the driving forces behind capitalism is the desire to get more work for less money. Sometimes that means creating conditions of dire poverty and scavenging off sub-surviving labor. But sometimes that means harnessing energy and technology towards automation and creating divisions of labor that make more economic sense.

The other plus of capitalism is profit. When a business doesn't "spend" everything it "makes" that can be called savings. And "savings" are a good thing because it can be used for progress.

The downside ... and it is a significant downside... is that money tends to concentrate in the hands of the wealthy over time. As businesses accumulate money they do several things with it: they invest in more automation which drives people out of work, or they buy up market share which allows them to raise prices (and accumulate more money and....), or they buy government policies and protections and tax breaks which allow them to pay their workers less. It is a non-linear system with a positive feedback cycle built in: capital accumulates more capital.

ASIDE from the fact that it's "not fair" to deprive people of the means to make a living, when money concentrates too much the market for goods disappears. Inventory builds up, more people get laid off, and the economy takes a quick cycle down the drain. (The Geat Depression) In other words, it's an unstable system: it's either going up or going down. Keynes tried to solve this problem by by controlling the money supply through the introduction of inflation: injecting money into the class of people that buy things.

The trick to creating a decent economic system would be to harness the capitalist drive towards productivity while guiding the distribution of wealth and protecting "the commons".

Ya up for that task of thinking up such a system?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 7:18 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, apparently not. Too bad. It's a big idea, can use all the brains that care to work on it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 2:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
While individual nations or regions may apply anti-monopoly laws indivudually, there is no international (ie cross-border, trans-oceanic) effort to rein in multinationals.


Aha! Now the hidden agenda comes out. You're using anti-monopoly action as a reason to create a NEW WORLD ORDER! You thought you were so clever, but I'm on to your plan! Nothing can stop me from telling the...what was tha

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 3:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

We already HAVE a NWO!

I wish I was doing yardwork (sigh). Hope yours was productive and satisfying.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 7:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I keep thinking about the baboon society where the most aggressive males ate the tainted meat and died ... and the rest lived happily ever after.

Maybe we don't need an alternative to capitalism / monopolism. Maybe we just need to reboot the initial conditions that trigger all sorts of contorted responses in society - and the rest will follow.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 8:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think there's a "Yes... but" answer to that comment. Biologists have recently noted that at certain population thresholds, a population will behave very differently, and the transition is quite abrupt. Birds will flock, fish will school, and colonies will... colonize? For example, if an ant population falls below a certain level the scouts will behave in random fashion because the "follow this" pheremone doesn't get refreshed quickly enough to create a viable trail. Therefore, long trails of ants never get establised, and food-finding becomes stochastic. If I recall correctly, the threshold for ant colony behavior is about 100. The laws gvoerning these interactions are fairly simple, but also somewhat obscure.

I think the same happens with people, although prehsp not so mechanistically. Most people can remember up to about 100 individuals. As long as the population interaction stays below that level, then individual bad behavior can be handled on an interpersonal level, and getting rid of... or somehow limiting... the bad actors would probably work.

But human interact indirectly with thousands of people, and the bad actors may be beyond any individual's knowledge of the full scope of their behavior and effect, since most people only interact with them on a very limited basis. The laws governing our collective interactions are not like the laws governing our individual interactions. They are probably simple, but we haven't figured them out yet.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 9:02 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I agree.

I was just thinking that as a group, people are probably responding to things outside of individual perception. One, as you suggest, may be overall group size. (Though Mohenjo-Daro argues otherwise.) One might be presence or absence of dominant / aggressive individuals, or relative proportion of them. One might be concentration or dispersal of resources. All of these can reconfigure ape and monkey societies. And human society is also entirely subject to these initial conditons as well (M-D again as a prime but not sole example.) There are all sorts of modifications to be made that could revamp the order of things.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 3:33 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The trick to creating a decent economic system would be to harness the capitalist drive towards productivity while guiding the distribution of wealth and protecting "the commons".


Exactly. But you still need the capitalist economic system to finance the distribution of the wealth and protection of society. No other economic model will produce the money needed to pay the bills.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 4:16 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"But you still need the capitalist economic system to finance the distribution of the wealth and protection of society. No other economic model will produce the money needed to pay the bills."

Hunh? Have you never heard of non-monetary economies? There are many, even today. And yet somehow they survive without even money, let alone 'capitalism'.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 4:18 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'm for a system other than Capitalism, if we had Anarchy. Otherwise it's just government controlled redistribution of wealth, no different than the kind we have now, and we see how good that's working out for us. Our kids will be raised as idiots because of it, and their kids, likrly, won't even have the burden of thinking for themselves anymore once you throw in the happy fun pills on top of the lack of anything resembling an education. No child left behind..... right.

I'm for Capitalism if it were truly Capitalism and we truly had a free market. I don't believe that any of us here in RWED fall for the illusion that either is the case.

Everything the government takes control of goes to shit because nobody is ever held accountable for anything that happens once the money is out of the people's hands. If they waste billions of our dollars on something that doesn't work, they simply wash their hands of it and move onto the next project that is either doomed to fail miserably and/or will further curtail our freedoms and liberties. Occasionally they let one of their scapegoats fall and become prey to the public (Nixon, Rumsfield, Gonzalez, George Ryan and others come to mind), but the gears never stop turning. This is simply the Government shedding it's skin like the snake that it is.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hunh? Have you never heard of non-monetary economies? There are many, even today. And yet somehow they survive without even money, let alone 'capitalism'.


Provide me with an example of an existing non-monetary economy which can produce a microwave, or digital camera, or portable defibrilator. Then we'll talk.

Provide me with any example of a working technological society with a relatively high standard of living which does not have some form of capitalism as its economic base.

Capitalist theory is a tool, just like a saw or a gun. It's results depend on who is using it and the laws which regulate that use. Used properly, with appropriate controls, capitalism should be able to provide a pretty good deal for everyone. Sometimes it's used less than properly, and in that case rules changes are appropriate, not just scrapping the whole thing with no alternative in train.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 6:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Ford CEO: $28M for 4 months work
Former Boeing exec got $18.5 million bonus, almost $9 million in stock and options and base salary at annual $2 million rate, according to proxy.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/companies/ford_execpay/index.htm?
cnn=yes

Wal-Mart snooping exposes hot industry
By Anne D'Innocenzio, AP Business Writer
March 15, 2007

NEW YORK --Wal-Mart's disclosure that an employee was tapping phone conversations and text messages is drawing attention to a growth industry within corporate America: the business of keeping things secret.
www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/03/16/wal_mart_snoopi
ng_exposes_hot_industry/

Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: March 29, 2007
Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.
www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?em&ex=1175313600&en=311
ab7d3df477c4e&ei=5087


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 6:59 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"some form of capitalism"

The problem with this argument is that you can expand the definition of capitalism to be almost anything you want it to be. That makes it hard to discuss.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 7:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Wal-Mart says sorry, this time to shareholders
Company apologizes for doing 'threat' research on shareholders after they submitted proxy petitions.
April 5 2007: 12:25 PM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Wal-Mart apologized Thursday for considering some shareholder groups as potential "threats" after they submitted proxy proposals ahead of the retailer's annual meeting in June.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, referring to an internal company memo that described "background research" being conducted on shareholder groups as a "threat assessment," told CNN that Wal-Mart made a "poor choice of words.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/companies/walmart_apology/index.h
tm?cnn=yes



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 8:24 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"some form of capitalism"

The problem with this argument is that you can expand the definition of capitalism to be almost anything you want it to be. That makes it hard to discuss.


OK, how about the technological non-monetary economy? You stated that there are some out there that work.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 8:34 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Hunh? Have you never heard of non-monetary economies? There are many, even today. And yet somehow they survive without even money, let alone 'capitalism'."

Technological? No, I don't see that word anywhere. You read into it. You really need to read my posts literally.

The point was that societies survived for millennia - no, wait - MILLIONS of years - without money. And along the way managed to invent or harness language, bowls, agriculture and husbandry, writing, building, astronomy ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 8:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


But to get back to my objection, which I didn't have time to expound on before -

Where my dad grew up (in Poland) farmers noticed that if they exchanged seeds every few years their oat crops remained vigorous, but if they didn't the crops would decline. So if I were to use that as an example of a non-capitalist system you could say they had a free-market which is 'a form of' capitalism. If I were to use the medieval system as an example of a non-monetary economy you could say there was someone who 'owned' the means of production and collected the 'profit', therefore it was 'a form of' capitalism.

I would love to discuss the topic, but you'll need to come up with a definition of capitalism that isn't 'one size fits all. Because, as in the garment industry, it really doesn't.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 8:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


They noticed that in Peru, too. The Incans (I think) used to have a gathering every seven years, it was mandatory. The farmers were also required to bring in some of their seed corn because they'd mix it all together and send everyone away with a mixed bag of seed. Up in those high mountain valleys it's easy for your village crop to become a monoculture.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 9:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Time to start a new thread on the same topic, this one will be entitled:

Jesus Appalled by Capitalism?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 9, 2007 1:32 PM

XXKITTENZXX


*chuckle* well then in that case, make the prayer time optional and not mandatory, therefore everyone who wants it gets it and those who don't want to don't have to. Nothing is forced upon anyone, and we all live according to how we see fit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Oops! Clown Justin Trudeau accidently "Sieg Heils!" a Nazi inside Canadian parliament
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:24 - 4 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:04 - 130 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:44 - 4 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL