Does capitalism work?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Have you ever seen "free" government housing? It's hell. Ever been to Caprini Green? I believe it's finally been torn down, but in its heyday it was a bin of drugs, prostitution, murder, and every other crime you can think of.Chatha said:
People do not respect what they are given for free.
They look pretty nice around here, actually. Better then the dump I'm living in now. Thank God we are getting out of here soon...madanthonywayne said:
Maybe...
madanthonywayne said:
only americans do not.
spuriousmonkey said:
of course.
americans are the only members of the species that have the capacity to disregard the value of that in which they do not invest - or who fail to value that which they acquire with no investement (at no personal cost (at someone else's cost)). further, they are the only humans on the planet that feel entitled to more "free stuff" regardless of what they've gotten "for free" (at someone else's cost).
that must be a biological fact.
thank you for the education.
i feel much smarter now.
it would be so much better if spuriousmonkey would simply provide for my every whim with no reciprocation. you can start by sending me your pay - all of it, however meager. your stuff isn't really yours anyway. you don't need it. my need outweighs yours, so i don't have to contribute to you in any form. so sayeth the nerd.
it has been written.
Last edited:
Yes! So is the law. Now gimme the monay!
Define work. Violence is the worst solution to every problem, but it always WORKS (badly).
The main reason why rich keep getting richer is because people avoid responsiblities, instead letting other people tell them what to do, to think for them, and to decide for them. As long as this continues, I dont think any system really works for long. People want freedom, that is to say ability to do anything they want without getting burned; but in reality, action has consequence and even if no MAN oppress you, the actions you take sometimes backfire. But if the decision was made by someone else, it's not really your fault, yeah?
Whatever, but you're the one to suffer for it, so who cares who did it, could you have prevented it?
As such capitalism (by which I suppose I mean Free Market Society) does work, if people would learn from people that are better than them. Hence someone might get rich, but others would eventually surpass him. The problem occur when the rich try to manipulate people into stupid or followers or try to prevent information from going around.
Or when people, instead of thinking things themselves, just wait for someone to think for them, then grab the knowledge and instead focus on winning. This leaves the guys who did the research poor and bitter, and soon research stops, since there is no profit in it. Or, more likely, research continues, but the smart people instead hide what they know and use it for their own good. And become the leaders, who oppress people into stupidity and slavery.
Having said that, I'll say that political equality cannot exist without economical equality.
But since the real problem is rather the people, not the system, alternative solutions don't really work, such as oligarchy-communism, where the few grab everything and then try to rule people into being great and good; Since, by doing so, they declare themselves leaders and promise to handle the thinking themselves (and the people, hence stop thinking, accepting their role). Such a system would never evolve into economical equality, since the leaders would never come out of office.
So does capitalism work? No. But I guess people need to learn it for themselves. The Hard Way.
The main reason why rich keep getting richer is because people avoid responsiblities, instead letting other people tell them what to do, to think for them, and to decide for them. As long as this continues, I dont think any system really works for long. People want freedom, that is to say ability to do anything they want without getting burned; but in reality, action has consequence and even if no MAN oppress you, the actions you take sometimes backfire. But if the decision was made by someone else, it's not really your fault, yeah?
Whatever, but you're the one to suffer for it, so who cares who did it, could you have prevented it?
As such capitalism (by which I suppose I mean Free Market Society) does work, if people would learn from people that are better than them. Hence someone might get rich, but others would eventually surpass him. The problem occur when the rich try to manipulate people into stupid or followers or try to prevent information from going around.
Or when people, instead of thinking things themselves, just wait for someone to think for them, then grab the knowledge and instead focus on winning. This leaves the guys who did the research poor and bitter, and soon research stops, since there is no profit in it. Or, more likely, research continues, but the smart people instead hide what they know and use it for their own good. And become the leaders, who oppress people into stupidity and slavery.
Having said that, I'll say that political equality cannot exist without economical equality.
But since the real problem is rather the people, not the system, alternative solutions don't really work, such as oligarchy-communism, where the few grab everything and then try to rule people into being great and good; Since, by doing so, they declare themselves leaders and promise to handle the thinking themselves (and the people, hence stop thinking, accepting their role). Such a system would never evolve into economical equality, since the leaders would never come out of office.
So does capitalism work? No. But I guess people need to learn it for themselves. The Hard Way.
Democracy With Irrational People Works Well, As Long As It Is Fettered By A System Of Constraints (From The Courts To The Market) To Stop More Pernicious Irrationality, Just As The Free-Market Works Well When It Is Tempered By A Well-Regulated Government.
devils_reject
Registered Senior Member
Almost every race has suffered some form of slavery at one point in time: Jews to Egypt, Africans to Europe, American Indians to Europe, Scots to English, Chinese to trans pacific merchants(particularly Chile), and Eastern Europe to Persia. Whether you call it slavery or cheap labor, it still remains a side of capitalism.
cool skill said:
Its not the best system of government for a country where abuse of power is being rewarded. I think it has some ideals which are fair like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But then, the people that run the show warp those ideals with their belief system. The cycle continues until new ideals are manufactured as well as products. The people who have earned the right to wealth are to blame for your complaints. Those are the ones that the desperate and needy depend on. But it doesn't end their, a person is not necessarily entitled to the same wealth because they exist at the bottom rung. The very people you may be defending based on their seemingly disadvantaged positions may also be the same people who may abuse power the most if given the opportunity. Its neither clear cut nor black and white. You're absolutely right that marketing takes precedence of quality of product, but that's not a terrible thing. Capitalism divides the people into classes true enough. The discernment of a product based on quality should be taught by parents who care enough for their children's well being in the face of capitalism. And the person who cares about themselves would come to make this same observation about the pitfalls of capitalistic marketing in their adult years hopefully. I believe that being a very human form of government exposes it to flaws and exploits. But then, their is no pure capitalistic country in the first place, and, their are no otherwise perfect alternatives. Or so I would think.
devils_reject
Registered Senior Member
Capitalism is over inflating and estimating ones's own true value while devalueing another man's value in the process. Its like lying, and the problem with lying is that when you lie you have to keep on lying to keep up with respectives. I really do think leaders of the world have good intentions but many of the world's problems, especially the Bush government, is that they have chosen to continue lying. As such the govenrment has become paranoid and relatively aggressive. I like President Bush but he is a lousy politician, and at times he conducts policies like an unlearned person. I saw the Iranian presidents interview on TV, he was far more likeable than Bush or Saddam Hussien, and did not seem like a "mad man" to anybody. In fact I'd rather believe a man with a P.hd in Engineering than anybody in the Bush admin right now. I like Iran and U.S and I hope no war comes between them, otherwise it would be nothing but entertainment for me. Then there is the question of democracy in Iran. Its not that democracy is real or not real but rather a state of mind unless you have a camera in every building and office of every legislative branch. Democracy might as well be as real as the existence of God, afterall we invade other countries in its name. So if Iran choses theocracy, lets not be hypocritic and leave them alone, after all our form of govenrment is not too far from hope-spring imagaination creek as well. I think the real problem with the world is not any form of government but all forms of special interest.
Wow... Never heard anything more accurate then that!devils_reject said:
Yeah, damn special interests. Those Mothers Against Drunk Drivers are definitely a piece of the main problem with the world. The world would be so much better if all governments could do whatever they wanted without people being able to organize and petition them.-Dale
That makes no sense.
Deleted
Last edited:
Only because you don't seem to understand what special interests really are. Every union is a special interest, every Parent-Teacher Association is a special interest. Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a special interest as is every environmentalist group. A special interest is simply any group of people that organize to petition the government on a topic of special interest to them. So if special interests are the problem with the world then Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a contributor. Sorry, the problem isn't special interests. The plain fact of the matter is that most real special interest groups are simply concerned citizens.TruthSeeker said:
When people say "special interest" images of secret bribes in smoke-filled rooms probably pop into your mind. I would suspect that this is what you most likely object to when you complain about special interests. There are indeed special interests that are willing to bribe corrupt and power-hungry politicians. But it is the bribery and the corruption of the politician that is the actual problem you are concerned about, not special interests in general.
-Dale
I know what "interest groups" are. But the person who said "special interests" clearly meant the government and rich people- not concerned citizens. For instance, Bush has special interest for his friends' money, so he makes policies to help his friends and make wars to make them rich (and himself, of course).DaleSpam said:
Again, you are confusing "special interests" with "interest groups".
Then he should say government and rich people. You certainly are free to make a "naughty and nice" list and label one side "special interests" and the other side "interest groups". But legally and politically they are exactly the same kind of group so you are making a distinction without a difference. You cannot prevent Exxon from petitioning the government without also preventing MADD from petitioning.TruthSeeker said:
Also, if it is OK for MADD to petition the government when their children's safety is on the line then why is it not OK for Exxon to petition when their business is on the line? That is a silly position. Both groups are morally justified to petition, and neither group is morally justified in bribery. It is not the groups themselves that are inherently moral or immoral, but their specific actions.
The real problem is power and corruption in government, not the right of the governed to organize.
-Dale
"Interest groups" is a specific term for large groups of people that come together for a common political purpose.DaleSpam said:
The difference is that Exxon's petitioning only benefits Exxon while MADD's benefits many people. But Exxon still get precedence over MADD because of money. And that is ironically in direct opposition to democracy.
That's the major problem...
Hi TruthSeeker, I think we are not too far different here and are mostly arguing semantics. That is probably my fault, I know the common connotation of "special interest" but the common connotation always irritates me since legally they are the same thing as what you call "interest groups". My rights and freedoms are very important to me and I don't want to risk losing them just because it is easier to say "special interest" than to say "power and corruption". But at the core, what people really object to is not the special interest groups themselves, but the way they buy corrupt politicians.
It is only through the corruption of those in power that Exxon's money will get it any unethical precedence over MADD. Without the power and corruption then Exxon's petitioning would not be immoral despite the fact that only Exxon benefits; people have a right to plead their own case and petition their own cause. If MADD suddenly had money and were to use it corruptly then MADD's petitioning would not be moral despite the fact that many people benefit.
So the real question is how to get rid of power and corruption?
-Dale
I disagree here. Questions of right and wrong, moral and immoral, just and unjust are never questions of numbers. You cannot make a wrong into a right simply because more people benefit than are harmed. The end never justifies the means.TruthSeeker said:
This is indeed the key difference and the major problem.TruthSeeker said:
It is only through the corruption of those in power that Exxon's money will get it any unethical precedence over MADD. Without the power and corruption then Exxon's petitioning would not be immoral despite the fact that only Exxon benefits; people have a right to plead their own case and petition their own cause. If MADD suddenly had money and were to use it corruptly then MADD's petitioning would not be moral despite the fact that many people benefit.
So the real question is how to get rid of power and corruption?
-Dale