So You Despise Capitalism? Please Give Us Your Alternative...

[Dragon]

So you people don't like the question as it was worded. Your response is "that's not the question you should be asking"...You people want to control the debate. Umm, forget it.
Just answer the question.

Are you still robbing banks and using the money to buy drugs?

Just answer the question.

 

[DontBeStupid]

So you people don't like the question as it was worded. Your response is "that's not the question you should be asking"...You people want to control the debate. Umm, forget it.
Just answer the question.

Actually, I did respond to it. Maybe you missed it.

What irks me about the state of our capitalism today, is "someone making a lot of money", at the expense of their workers! Middle class wages have been basically flat for a decade while companies and owners are setting record profits almost every year. A family of four can't afford medical insurance because the company wants to squeeze out 1% more in profit. People explode in an uproar about passing a law to prevent pollution dumped in the air, but don't want to help the child who develops asthma. Companies sit on $1.8T in cash and politicians call for giving them more cash, and paying for it by cutting into the retirements of workers.

That's fucking ridiculous.

This country was not founded so that companies could run around and do and get whatever they want. Show me in the Constitution where it says a company is more important than a citizen. Hint: it doesn't.

This country needs to start treating its citizens like people again, and if that makes me "Anti-Capitalism" in the eyes of cowards like Paulitician, then fine.

And so far the OP is too scared to respond and tell me if that makes me "Anti-Capitalism" in his mind.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well, they want "fairness". Meaning total equality.

And since human talent and ability is a diverse scale, some will be better than others at different things in life.

So....to create "fairness", some goods, services, earnings, property, etc, will have to be TAKEN from some, and given to others.

Now, we know when it comes to money, status, etc, volunteerism doesn't usually work. So how do we take it from the top to make fairness?

Well, men with guns. Thats how historical left wing nations have done it. And OWS wants that here.

"Well, they want "fairness". Meaning total equality"

I'd say that a majority of Americans do want "fairness" and at least something closer to the wealth/income equality than we have now. They would be thrilled if their share of the National Income was like what it was 1960's & 1970's, when the Middle Class was strong. Too many, that'd would be fair, except for the defenders of today's status qua of a failing Main Street America.

Want they want is up to the individual. There is no consensus other than "something different". At that point the discussion ends because the answers are to painful.
Most people cannot even agree on the definition of fairness.
The other point being, even if they could, they could not produce a method by which fairness could be achieved.
The end game would be as far as these people are concerned is that the achievement of fairness would involve the involuntary surrender of wealth by some to be distributed those they believe are entitled.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Well, they want "fairness". Meaning total equality.

And since human talent and ability is a diverse scale, some will be better than others at different things in life.

So....to create "fairness", some goods, services, earnings, property, etc, will have to be TAKEN from some, and given to others.

Now, we know when it comes to money, status, etc, volunteerism doesn't usually work. So how do we take it from the top to make fairness?

Well, men with guns. Thats how historical left wing nations have done it. And OWS wants that here.

"Well, they want "fairness". Meaning total equality"

I'd say that a majority of Americans do want "fairness" and at least something closer to the wealth/income equality than we have now. They would be thrilled if their share of the National Income was like what it was 1960's & 1970's, when the Middle Class was strong. Too many, that'd would be fair, except for the defenders of today's status qua of a failing Main Street America.

Want they want is up to the individual. There is no consensus other than "something different". At that point the discussion ends because the answers are to painful.
Most people cannot even agree on the definition of fairness.
The other point being, even if they could, they could not produce a method by which fairness could be achieved.
The end game would be as far as these people are concerned is that the achievement of fairness would involve the involuntary surrender of wealth by some to be distributed those they believe are entitled.

And you apparently believe if someone works hard they are not entitled to any of the fruits of their labour.

Interesting. THAT sounds Anti-Capitalism!

 

[BDBoop]

The Left has delivered a clear message that capitalism has run it's course and something new should be tried.

I must have missed that message. I obviously need to update my secret message decoder ring.

It's fine! You just need to leave it on a south-facing window sill with the window closed, and the ring facing directly front, with a nail under it. Once the ring remains balanced for a time not to exceed 3.18 hours (but no less than 3.15), she'll be good to go.

 

[thereisnospoon]

OP never came to a deficition of terms. In the link below is the gist of this opening. There is an ad for auto insurance, which is regulated. Below that is a definition of capitalism which opines that ownership and decisions are individual or corporate, and that the economy works via a free market.

Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1. Firstly, as a opposed to "Free Markets," economies work within currency-bound markets. The currency-bound markets are denominated within the number system of arithmetic. Arithmetic is a logical system, shown well over 100 years ago. It is rule-bound, and not free.

2. The linked definition does not address the usual hoarding or formation concepts of capitalism. Using arthmetic, for example a fixed percentage interest or dividend paying mechanism: Then more gets more, and less gets less, and even lesser gets even lesser and so on.

3. With all the successive lessers in the market, then at some quantifiable point--then income from those lessers tends to be insufficient to participate in the market--and the silly thing collapses. Most recently, ARM's were foisted on market participants as sound. They were not.

Capitalism does not exist. In that example: Socialist interventions bailed out the financial system, still reeling from the crisis

And of state regulated capitalism(?), which is not a free market of freely acting individuals or corporations? Then the current Bush Tax Cuts have created corporate cash hoarding. The hoarders--beneficiaries of the state interventions--are not participating in the market.

Capitalism does not now exist. Republicans and Democrats alike: Make no such assertion!

Anyone therefore know that Capitalism does not exist! There is a socialist, in the U. S. House of Representatives(?)!

4. So shown above, Capitalism does not exist since it fails. It requires state intervention salvation.

5. The basis of a regulated market economy, however, goes back to number one. Since individuals and corporations freely acting create failure, then the Democrats most recently introduced Schedule M, The Refundable Make-Work-Pay Tax Credit. Rather than a fixed percentage raise, in arithmetic, then a more or less Equal Amount "COLA," cost-of-living-adjustment, was added to incomes. The market expanded with new purchasing power.

6. The Republicans took Schedule M away, but the history of their Political Party is based on restricted and directed private ownership and restricted and directed corporate ownership from the start. Regulation in the economy was a "Radical Republican" alternative, even at the time.

7. It is widely shown the Capitalism does not exist.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!'
(Many find plenty in Turquoise Instead! Possession mainly nine-tenths of law! Many, even squaws, now know 357 reasons why that is so!)

Yeah. Your opinion. That's fine.
When you take the word "savings" and replace it with the term "hoarding" your argument loses credibility.
ARM's were marketed to buyers who either could not afford the payments of a conventional mortgage or to buyers who had no intention of keeping the home beyond the term of the ARM. At that time, home values were appreciating at incredible rates. The idea of the ARM was to offer lower initial payments with the idea that the home would be sold or the loan refinanced. When the market collapsed, people were stuck.
The problem is, people were convinced the good times would last forever.
Sensible people know that is impossible.
People bought these loans and took risks. The very fact that they took a risk indicates the buyer was aware or should have been aware there was no guarantee the property would continue to appreciate in value.
Just as the OWS people are claiming and of course those in Washington who are simply looking for votes claim "predatory lending", there are those who claim the borrowers bear an equal percentage of responsibility.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I haven't accused anyone here of being Anti-Capitalism. It's up to the individual whether or not they want to discuss their Anti-Capitalism stance. No one is being forced to discuss. But your comment implies there are no Anti-Capitalists in this country. And i'm sorry,but i have to disagree with you on that implication. But again,no one is being forced to discuss. I was just looking for some honesty & openness on this issue. Peace.

You are being seriously disingenuous here, and presenting a damned-either-way scenario. Anyone who refuses to answer the question because it is based on a false premise, you have set up to be accused of lacking "honesty and openness."

No, sir. It is you who lack honesty. This entire thread is a lie.

No. You just don't like the question because you have no answer.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I haven't accused anyone here of being Anti-Capitalism. It's up to the individual whether or not they want to discuss their Anti-Capitalism stance. No one is being forced to discuss. But your comment implies there are no Anti-Capitalists in this country. And i'm sorry,but i have to disagree with you on that implication. But again,no one is being forced to discuss. I was just looking for some honesty & openness on this issue. Peace.

You are being seriously disingenuous here, and presenting a damned-either-way scenario. Anyone who refuses to answer the question because it is based on a false premise, you have set up to be accused of lacking "honesty and openness."

No, sir. It is you who lack honesty. This entire thread is a lie.

No. You just don't like the question because you have no answer.

Then how about me? You know me, the guy who actually answered the bull shit question.

 

[Dragon]

No. You just don't like the question because you have no answer.

So what are you doing with all that money you rob from the banks? Still buying cocaine, or are you doing something else with it?

You just don't like the question because you have no answer.

 

[midcan5]

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes

Capitalism is a word, it has no meaning outside of the context of the lives and opinions of those living their lives during various real social situations. The failures of capitalism in its various manifestations have caused great horror in Germany and our greatest president in the US. It has polluted the earth, killed many (Bhopal) and once in America provided opportunity, pensions, and a great life. It helped create Marxism and libertarianism and selfish self centered greed, numerous bubbles, and on occasion the good life. You'll have to decide why all on your own.

"...In his classic study of mid 19th century American labor, Norman Ware observes that the imposition of industrial capitalism and its values 'was repugnant to an astonishingly large section of the earlier American community'. The primary reason was 'the decline of the industrial worker as a person', the 'degradation' and 'psychological change' that followed from the 'loss of dignity and independence' and of democratic rights and freedoms. These reactions were vividly expressed in the working class literature, often by women, who played a prominent role despite their subordination in the general society." Introduction Alex Carey 'Taking The Risk Out Of Democracy'


"Moreover, if we give the matter a moment's thought, we can see that the 20th century morality tale of 'socialism vs. freedom' or 'communism vs. capitalism' is misleading. Capitalism is not a political system; it is a form of economic life, compatible in practice with right wing dictatorships (Chile under Pinochet), left-wing dictatorships (contemporary China), social-democratic monarchies (Sweden), and plutocratic republics (the United States), whether capitalist economies thrive best under conditions of freedom is perhaps more of an open question than we like to think." Tony Judt 'Ill fares the Land'

 

[thereisnospoon]

Anti-profit? So explain flat wages/dropping wages during record profits. Wouldn't that be anti-worker and greed? And the working class is just supposed to keep on accepting that?
It's NOT progressive to want your wages to grow in accordance to the rise with the profits!
But according to some,,that's being anti-profit/anti-capitalism!

What you don't realize is that businesses don't exist to provide high wages to workers...businesses exist to make a profit for the owner of the business. Higher wages come about because of supply and demand, not management largess. Right now we have 14 million people that are unemployed in this country and probably an equal number of people who are under-employed. The reason wages are flat or dropping is because there are far more workers looking for work than there are jobs.

If you REALLY want to see worker's wages increase? It's really quite simple. Tell Obama to stop pushing an agenda that kills employment. As soon as the unemployment rate comes down wages will increase because there will be competition between employers for the best workers and competition means increased compensation offered.

Cowardly response.

Wages have been stagnant for a decade. LONG before Obama took office. Blaming him for some magical agenda you think he has does nothing to address the real situation.

Oh boy...What a lucid response.
Please pare us the "woe is the American worker" pro union anti employer nonsense.
Whether you like it or not, the reality is the first priority of a business is to turn a profit for the owners/investors.
The business hires employees so the owners do not have to do the work themselves or need expertise that the owners do not posses or any number of other reasons.
The wage paid to the employees is based on the prevailing regional or market wage for similar work and that employee's ability to perform assigned tasks so that the employer's cost does not exceed the wage paid to the employee.
The workers are paid regardless of profit or loss. However, when the business loses money, the owners must absorb the risk. If what some believe should be, then if the business realizes profit in excess of projections the employee wage should be increased, then if the company loses money the wages should be adjusted downward as well. Two way street. No one wants to talk about that.

 

[DontBeStupid]

What you don't realize is that businesses don't exist to provide high wages to workers...businesses exist to make a profit for the owner of the business. Higher wages come about because of supply and demand, not management largess. Right now we have 14 million people that are unemployed in this country and probably an equal number of people who are under-employed. The reason wages are flat or dropping is because there are far more workers looking for work than there are jobs.

If you REALLY want to see worker's wages increase? It's really quite simple. Tell Obama to stop pushing an agenda that kills employment. As soon as the unemployment rate comes down wages will increase because there will be competition between employers for the best workers and competition means increased compensation offered.

Cowardly response.

Wages have been stagnant for a decade. LONG before Obama took office. Blaming him for some magical agenda you think he has does nothing to address the real situation.

Oh boy...What a lucid response.
Please pare us the "woe is the American worker" pro union anti employer nonsense.
Whether you like it or not, the reality is the first priority of a business is to turn a profit for the owners/investors.
The business hires employees so the owners do not have to do the work themselves or need expertise that the owners do not posses or any number of other reasons.
The wage paid to the employees is based on the prevailing regional or market wage for similar work and that employee's ability to perform assigned tasks so that the employer's cost does not exceed the wage paid to the employee.
The workers are paid regardless of profit or loss. However, when the business loses money, the owners must absorb the risk. If what some believe should be, then if the business realizes profit in excess of projections the employee wage should be increased, then if the company loses money the wages should be adjusted downward as well. Two way street. No one wants to talk about that.

Holy shit! Do I honestly have to write this for a third time in this thread?

I AM ALL FOR COMPANIES MAKING MONEY!!!!

Not that that is out of the way, again, I will say, again, that I don't agree that a company should be allowed to make money at the expense of its workers or the public. That's ludicrous and something many of you are cheering for. That's insane. A company is not more important than a person. It simply isn't. This country will not get better until you people start treating people like people and not some cost that needs to squashed into the ground.

And for the record, if a company goes under due to low profits, yes, the workers get screwed and don't get paid. It does happen even if you don't want to believe it.

 

[francoHFW]

Do nothing Pubs and brainwashed dupes- end of story

 

[WillowTree]

Actually, isn't Obama pushing a jobs bill that will create lots of jobs while fixing the infrastructure of this country?

That's what the asshole said with the first trillion dollars he pissed away, damn but you are dumb and gullible.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I AM ALL FOR COMPANIES MAKING MONEY!!!!

Not that that is out of the way, again, I will say, again, that I don't agree that a company should be allowed to make money at the expense of its workers or the public.

You will just have to be the one to determine how much is enough and defining the nebulous to meet your emotional reckoning.....right ?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Actually, isn't Obama pushing a jobs bill that will create lots of jobs while fixing the infrastructure of this country?

That's what the asshole said with the first trillion dollars he pissed away, damn but you are dumb and gullible.

It wasn't a trillion and it created millions of jobs.

Stop being a dick.

 

[WillowTree]

Actually, isn't Obama pushing a jobs bill that will create lots of jobs while fixing the infrastructure of this country?

That's what the asshole said with the first trillion dollars he pissed away, damn but you are dumb and gullible.

It wasn't a trillion and it created millions of jobs.

Stop being a dick.

it was a trillion and it didn't create a single job and I'm not a dick. don't you just hate being a fucking loser all the time?

 

[DontBeStupid]

I AM ALL FOR COMPANIES MAKING MONEY!!!!

Not that that is out of the way, again, I will say, again, that I don't agree that a company should be allowed to make money at the expense of its workers or the public.

You will just have to be the one to determine how much is enough and defining the nebulous to meet your emotional reckoning.....right ?

Never said that. Never even hinted at it.

But with half of income earners not making enough to cover being taxed, maybe we should pay them a decent salary and then they would pay taxes and have enough to live on. Win/Win don't you think?

 

[DontBeStupid]

That's what the asshole said with the first trillion dollars he pissed away, damn but you are dumb and gullible.

It wasn't a trillion and it created millions of jobs.

Stop being a dick.

it was a trillion and it didn't create a single job and I'm not a dick.

Prove any of that.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I AM ALL FOR COMPANIES MAKING MONEY!!!!

Not that that is out of the way, again, I will say, again, that I don't agree that a company should be allowed to make money at the expense of its workers or the public.

You will just have to be the one to determine how much is enough and defining the nebulous to meet your emotional reckoning.....right ?

Never said that. Never even hinted at it.

But with half of income earners not making enough to cover being taxed, maybe we should pay them a decent salary and then they would pay taxes and have enough to live on. Win/Win don't you think?

Where does the salary come from and who decides what is "decent" ?