More Fundamentals of Capitalism:

GreatDay

Wasn't it?
Aug 21, 2012
436
37
16
Is there ever an acceptable reason to restrict the use of money? Say for the purchase of drugs, or sex? OK, how about kidneys? It seems we have already accepted the ideal that the power of money should have limits, now the question becomes what should those limits be?



I feel there is widespread belief that money should not be allowed to purchase government, I would like to co-op those feelings and suggest that money should not be allowed to buy healthcare or education for the same reasons we don’t allow it to buy kidneys. Because it cheapens the process to allow people to just buy them, it should go who need them, and education to those who have earned it not just by being born into the right family, but by working hard and yes by being lucky enough to be born smart,

I think smart should matter more than rich, but it doesn’t in America and that’s our problem.


Class Matters - Social Class in the United States of America - The New York Times
 
Last edited:
You're just one vast geyser of idiocies.

If you don't want money corrupting education, then perhaps teachers should work for free. After all, we don't want them corrupted by that dirty money.


Is there ever an acceptable reason to restrict the use of money? Say for the purchase of drugs, or sex? OK, how about kidneys? It seems we have already accepted the ideal that the power of money should have limits, now the question becomes what should those limits be?

I feel there is widespread belief that money should not be allowed to purchase government, I would like to co-op those feelings and suggest that money should not be allowed to buy healthcare or education for the same reasons we don’t allow it to buy kidneys. Because it cheapens the process to allow people to just buy them, it should go who need them, and education to those who have earned it not just by being born into the right family, but by working hard and yes by being lucky enough to be born smart,

I think smart should matter more than rich, but it doesn’t in America and that’s our problem.
 
We need to teach grade schoolers how to make money work for them instead of working for money. The fundamental ignorance on finance and economics in this country is inexcusable.
 
We need to teach grade schoolers how to make money work for them instead of working for money. The fundamental ignorance on finance and economics in this country is inexcusable.


ah yes we shall all be Royals one day, still selling that crap, anybody buying?


:eusa_boohoo: :eusa_boohoo: :eusa_boohoo:
 
Both capitalism and socialism should be regarded as tools, not God given ideologies. National Parks are pure socialism. Preserving the best and most unique for the enjoyment of all citizens. Companies like MicroSoft are capitalism, creating products that we can afford and enjoy. Trying to foist either off as a solution to every need of society is simply insane.
 
Both capitalism and socialism should be regarded as tools, not God given ideologies. National Parks are pure socialism. Preserving the best and most unique for the enjoyment of all citizens. Companies like MicroSoft are capitalism, creating products that we can afford and enjoy. Trying to foist either off as a solution to every need of society is simply insane.

balance in all things, one of the reasons we are in such a mess one of our two parties has forgotten balance, they have determined any tax cut is a good one, like a doctor with a patient with a 68 deg temp and he still wants to lower it, only those that seek balance can truly lead, sometimes you lower sometimes you raise....
 
OK, how about kidneys?

A perfect example of where your well-intended meddling causes far more harm than good. Yes, we restrict the sale of body organs through regulation and as a result, people die. There is NO REASON there should not be a market for body parts as there certainly is a demand...demand that often goes unfilled meaning people die.

Sure, you'll scream the sky is falling and that thieves would be stealing children's kidneys in the middle of the night. That there are already laws against such non-consensual activity matters not to the nanny stater. You know better, you have to step in and oversee the entire market for body parts by removing that evil profit motive. Again, the result is people die. But hey, you know what's best for everyone else, right?

Stick your anti-capitalism, meddling ways. You've done enough damage.
 
OK, how about kidneys?

A perfect example of where your well-intended meddling causes far more harm than good. Yes, we restrict the sale of body organs through regulation and as a result, people die. There is NO REASON there should not be a market for body parts as there certainly is a demand...demand that often goes unfilled meaning people die.

Sure, you'll scream the sky is falling and that thieves would be stealing children's kidneys in the middle of the night. That there are already laws against such non-consensual activity matters not to the nanny stater. You know better, you have to step in and oversee the entire market for body parts by removing that evil profit motive. Again, the result is people die. But hey, you know what's best for everyone else, right?

Stick your anti-capitalism, meddling ways. You've done enough damage.

When money is King, the King shall be born again....
 
Here's a fundamental of capitalism that apparently some people can't quite grasp...

In order to have a capitalist system some of us must have excess capital for investments while of us must not.

Capitalism can only exist in a society with a fairly impermiable class structure based on one class having excess capital to reinvest and at least one other class not having enough excess capital to reinvest.

EVen if we started over and gave every person the same amount of money, the system could not truly be very efficient until most of those people lost most of that capital, while the smarter, harder working and/or luckier gained excess capital from the others.
 
Here's a fundamental of capitalism that apparently some people can't quite grasp...

In order to have a capitalist system some of us must have excess capital for investments while of us must not.

Capitalism can only exist in a society with a fairly impermiable class structure based on one class having excess capital to reinvest and at least one other class not having enough excess capital to reinvest.

EVen if we started over and gave every person the same amount of money, the system could not truly be very efficient until most of those people lost most of that capital, while the smarter, harder working and/or luckier gained excess capital from the others.


This is static analysis. Capitalism is dynamic, there are myriad channels through which capital flows.

.
 
OK, how about kidneys?

A perfect example of where your well-intended meddling causes far more harm than good. Yes, we restrict the sale of body organs through regulation and as a result, people die. There is NO REASON there should not be a market for body parts as there certainly is a demand...demand that often goes unfilled meaning people die.

Sure, you'll scream the sky is falling and that thieves would be stealing children's kidneys in the middle of the night. That there are already laws against such non-consensual activity matters not to the nanny stater. You know better, you have to step in and oversee the entire market for body parts by removing that evil profit motive. Again, the result is people die. But hey, you know what's best for everyone else, right?

Stick your anti-capitalism, meddling ways. You've done enough damage.

I suppose you hold the same position in regard to drugs and sex? if it's sex with children does it make a difference?
 
Capitalism seems based on some assumptions about people:

All people want to be rich.

The goal of life is wealth

People that are rich, are rich because they are a superior people.

People that are rich work harder than others.

People that are rich should be treated according to the amount of their wealth.

People that are rich are looked on with more favor by a higher power.

By simple logic the reverse is true for poor people.
 
Capitalism seems based on some assumptions about people:

All people want to be rich.

The goal of life is wealth

People that are rich, are rich because they are a superior people.

People that are rich work harder than others.

People that are rich should be treated according to the amount of their wealth.

People that are rich are looked on with more favor by a higher power.

By simple logic the reverse is true for poor people.


"The goal of life is wealth".

It is? Is that what life is about for you?

Yikes. Not for me.

.
 
Capitalism seems based on some assumptions about people:

All people want to be rich.

The goal of life is wealth

People that are rich, are rich because they are a superior people.

People that are rich work harder than others.

People that are rich should be treated according to the amount of their wealth.

People that are rich are looked on with more favor by a higher power.

By simple logic the reverse is true for poor people.


"The goal of life is wealth".

It is? Is that what life is about for you?

Yikes. Not for me.

.

Would I be on these boards if I were rich? I don't even think it is the goal of most Americans. But, the idea that the wealthy should rule because they are wealthy, does seem the goal of many, rich and poor alike.
Many Americans seem content to have a job, pay their taxes, raise a family and watch Monday night football. Yet the rich, and some of the poor, want to convince us that rich people are of a superior breed and therefore should be the the leaders in government.
The qualities by which they became rich, be it hard work, luck, or having rich parents, are what make for superior people and superior presidents. Presidents like Lincoln and FDR are abberations. Wealth, the wealthy and some poor contend, is the key to good leadership. Trump agrees.
 
Capitalism seems based on some assumptions about people:

All people want to be rich.

The goal of life is wealth

People that are rich, are rich because they are a superior people.

People that are rich work harder than others.

People that are rich should be treated according to the amount of their wealth.

People that are rich are looked on with more favor by a higher power.

By simple logic the reverse is true for poor people.


"The goal of life is wealth".

It is? Is that what life is about for you?

Yikes. Not for me.

.

Would I be on these boards if I were rich? I don't even think it is the goal of most Americans. But, the idea that the wealthy should rule because they are wealthy, does seem the goal of many, rich and poor alike.
Many Americans seem content to have a job, pay their taxes, raise a family and watch Monday night football. Yet the rich, and some of the poor, want to convince us that rich people are of a superior breed and therefore should be the the leaders in government.
The qualities by which they became rich, be it hard work, luck, or having rich parents, are what make for superior people and superior presidents. Presidents like Lincoln and FDR are abberations. Wealth, the wealthy and some poor contend, is the key to good leadership. Trump agrees.


People want security, money represents security, the wealthy are in a position to secure security for their families forever, even if it means others will suffer.

I think we should be aware of this and vote accordingly.
 
Capitalism seems based on some assumptions about people:

All people want to be rich.

The goal of life is wealth

People that are rich, are rich because they are a superior people.

People that are rich work harder than others.

People that are rich should be treated according to the amount of their wealth.

People that are rich are looked on with more favor by a higher power.

By simple logic the reverse is true for poor people.


"The goal of life is wealth".

It is? Is that what life is about for you?

Yikes. Not for me.

.

Would I be on these boards if I were rich? I don't even think it is the goal of most Americans. But, the idea that the wealthy should rule because they are wealthy, does seem the goal of many, rich and poor alike.
Many Americans seem content to have a job, pay their taxes, raise a family and watch Monday night football. Yet the rich, and some of the poor, want to convince us that rich people are of a superior breed and therefore should be the the leaders in government.
The qualities by which they became rich, be it hard work, luck, or having rich parents, are what make for superior people and superior presidents. Presidents like Lincoln and FDR are abberations. Wealth, the wealthy and some poor contend, is the key to good leadership. Trump agrees.


Well, that's a hot button with me.

The obvious connection between wealth and political power is killing us. WE allow this to happen. Until we take money out of politics and install strict term limits, nothing will change. That's our choice: We put up with this or we don't.

I don't think, however, that this was the point of regent's post. Capitalism is not about becoming "rich". That's a terribly simplistic way to look at it. Capitalism is about benefiting everyone through "free" markets. Yes, our version of Capitalism is damaged right now because we can't find equilibrium between more regulation and better regulation, but that doesn't mean we kill it. Those of jealous of people who have a lot of money are missing the point.

.
 

Forum List

Back
Top