Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Occupy Wall Street

kowalskil
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 6:53:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Occupy Wall Street? The last issue of Montclarion, a student newspaper at Montclair State University, published an article of Grover Furr, about the Occupy Wall Street movement:

http://www.themontclarion.org...

Yes, rich people always want to be richer and richer. This is unfortunate; no one knows how to stop this, without taking away constructive motivation. What fraction of Bill Gates' fortune is consumed and what fraction is productively invested? My guess is that the first fraction is much less than 10%, and that he is not a rare exception.

What does Professor Furr have to offer us? Consider a complex machine which works but not perfectly. Anyone can destroy it; no advanced knowledge is usually needed to accomplish this. But one has to be highly knowledgeable in order to repair it, or to design a better replacement. I am thinking about sophisticated engines, airplanes, TV sets, X ray scanners, computers, airconditioners, oil refineries, etc.

The same is true for an economic system. No system is perfect; but some are more efficient than others. Trying to destroy US capitalism  without offering something better is likely to create a lot of misery. I am thinking about what Lenin and Stalin did, as decribed in my two short books. These books are now freely available online; the links are at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu...

Note that even now, one hundred years after the Soviet revolution, standards of living in Russia are much lower than in the US, and in other western countries.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
Ludwik Kowalski, author of "Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality." <http://csam.montclair.edu...

http://csam.montclair.edu...

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

The more people know about proletarian dictatorship the less likely will we experience is. Please share the link with those who might be interested, especially with youn
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 10:10:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's not that the rich are getting richer per se... it is the destruction of all efficient competition and opportunity through government cronyism that has people over the edge.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 11:07:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 6:53:45 PM, kowalskil wrote:
Occupy Wall Street? The last issue of Montclarion, a student newspaper at Montclair State University, published an article of Grover Furr, about the Occupy Wall Street movement:

http://www.themontclarion.org...

Yes, rich people always want to be richer and richer. This is unfortunate; no one knows how to stop this, without taking away constructive motivation. What fraction of Bill Gates' fortune is consumed and what fraction is productively invested? My guess is that the first fraction is much less than 10%, and that he is not a rare exception.

If productively investing it is "making their money grow larger and larger" through playing the game of the stock market, then yes they productively invest it.


What does Professor Furr have to offer us? Consider a complex machine which works but not perfectly. Anyone can destroy it; no advanced knowledge is usually needed to accomplish this. But one has to be highly knowledgeable in order to repair it, or to design a better replacement. I am thinking about sophisticated engines, airplanes, TV sets, X ray scanners, computers, airconditioners, oil refineries, etc.

Playing along with the analogy, wouldn't the best economic system be the simplest? Therefore the most efficient?


The same is true for an economic system. No system is perfect; but some are more efficient than others.

You call capitalism efficient? It is capitalists playing the "get rich" game and society gets the left overs.

Trying to destroy US capitalism  without offering something better is likely to create a lot of misery. I am thinking about what Lenin and Stalin did, as decribed in my two short books.

Stalinism is not an economic system. It was a political and social system.

These books are now freely available online; the links are at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu...

You don't need to promote your books here.


Note that even now, one hundred years after the Soviet revolution, standards of living in Russia are much lower than in the US, and in other western countries.

Considering the economy was totally destroyed by many misguided policies and wars, yes that does not surprise me. The real question though, is why is America's standard of living so high? It is simply due to the fact that we've been able to multiply our profits through capitalistic ventures, but this only works for a certain period time before the "bubble pops". We got a little taste of that in the economic crash of 2008.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 6:48:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:07:57 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
The real question though, is why is America's standard of living so high?

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Standards are retarded, no-one is forcing you to keep up with the Jonses.

We have some pretty inexpensive stuff relative to world prices, especially food.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 11:44:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well my question has been answered about what Wall Street protesters will do when they are inevitably forced to leave and don't get any of their demands met.

Riot in the streets, vandalize buildings and leave a huge mess for somone else to clean up.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 11:46:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 11:44:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
Well my question has been answered about what Wall Street protesters will do when they are inevitably forced to leave and don't get any of their demands met.

Riot in the streets, vandalize buildings and leave a huge mess for somone else to clean up.



Makes me proud to be a young person.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 1:00:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 11:07:57 PM, Rockylightning wrote:

You call capitalism efficient? It is capitalists playing the "get rich" game and society gets the left overs.

Would you like to defend that statement in a debate?
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 6:24:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 1:00:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/26/2011 11:07:57 PM, Rockylightning wrote:

You call capitalism efficient? It is capitalists playing the "get rich" game and society gets the left overs.

Would you like to defend that statement in a debate?

Make no mistake, capitalism does not work for those who feel entitled or are half a$$ed about everything they do. Capitalism only works for go getters, this is common knowledge. If you think working a 40 hour work week is enough, you are sorely mistaken. If you think going to college will give some guarantee of success you are even more mistaken. Capitalism sucks for the irresponsible, capitalism sucks for the lazy, capitalism sucks for people who don't want to give 110%. Capitalism sucks for people who want to party and hang out with their friends, capitalism sucks for people who think they are worth more than they are. Socialism sucks for everyone.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 4:28:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is our duty to tear down any institution that has a startling influence on the economy.

ANY institution.

A business is an institution. The state is an institution. A religion is an institution. They are all different forms of chaos magic.

Anarchy is not an ideal, anarchy is the way of the world. Only those who are under the spell think otherwise.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:37:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 4:28:47 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It is our duty to tear down any institution that has a startling influence on the economy.

ANY institution.

A business is an institution. The state is an institution. A religion is an institution. They are all different forms of chaos magic.

Anarchy is not an ideal, anarchy is the way of the world. Only those who are under the spell think otherwise.

So voluntarily institutions should be ended? How do you define an institution?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 11:37:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 4:28:47 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It is our duty to tear down any institution that has a startling influence on the economy.

ANY institution.

A business is an institution. The state is an institution. A religion is an institution. They are all different forms of chaos magic.

Anarchy is not an ideal, anarchy is the way of the world. Only those who are under the spell think otherwise.

For most products to be made at a reasonable price, which benefits both firms and the consumer, firms need to expand to gain same cost reduction from the economies of scale. Banning these firms (since their existence affects interaction of the supply and demand) will destroy any form of economy, meaning there will be no economy to influence.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 3:44:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 11:37:52 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/28/2011 4:28:47 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It is our duty to tear down any institution that has a startling influence on the economy.

ANY institution.

A business is an institution. The state is an institution. A religion is an institution. They are all different forms of chaos magic.

Anarchy is not an ideal, anarchy is the way of the world. Only those who are under the spell think otherwise.

For most products to be made at a reasonable price, which benefits both firms and the consumer, firms need to expand to gain same cost reduction from the economies of scale. Banning these firms (since their existence affects interaction of the supply and demand) will destroy any form of economy, meaning there will be no economy to influence.

The economy can't be destroyed, and I'm not saying to ban anything. I'm saying that it is up to the consumer to cease supporting institutions that end up hindering their own freedom.

You know how it is said that democracy only works with an informed voting base? Capitalism only works when the populace isn't susceptible to mind control.

Well, actually, either way it works, but it doesn't work the way people think it does... The government is run by incompetents, yet it has the most influence.. It is still a product of anarchy. It is still a product of capitalism. Now, you might say that the state is some how set apart, and I've heard people say that it is compulsory/mandatory/nothing one can do/etc. and it is somehow elevated above the rest.. I'm here to tell you that the business that the government specializes in is MIND CONTROL. We give them their legitimacy, and they have tricked us into believing that we HAVE to cooperate. If there is one thing they have succeeded at despite their incompetence, it is fooling people into recognizing their legitimacy as sovereigns over the country. It doesn't even matter if they have any actual power, as long as you believe that they do.

Now, the problem is, the state has great influence, but the state is also able to be influenced by other institutions(big businesses), and what these big businesses do is manipulate the state into passing legislation that makes it easier for these businesses to gain more influence, at the expense of both other businesses and possibly the state itself. They can be really sneaky about it too. They have good lawyers.

Now you'd think that a successful business that manages to dominate the economy would be a good thing for the people, but it isn't always. Even though goods/services can be bought for less, and they might be able to employ more people, they are taking away good quality jobs. More jobs =/= better jobs. You end up with a lot of part time minimum wage jobs. People who work part time at minimum wage do not have enough disposable income to make use of all the less expensive products, and what ends up happening is the economy suffers.

All the while these "economically educated" douchebags keep going around giving simple solutions to complex problems.

There isn't a simple solution, there are far too many forces in play here, and the arrogance at which the pseudo-economists around here flaunt about their views is astounding. This is not as simple of an issue as it is made out to be.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 4:00:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 3:44:31 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 10/28/2011 11:37:52 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/28/2011 4:28:47 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It is our duty to tear down any institution that has a startling influence on the economy.

ANY institution.

A business is an institution. The state is an institution. A religion is an institution. They are all different forms of chaos magic.

Anarchy is not an ideal, anarchy is the way of the world. Only those who are under the spell think otherwise.

For most products to be made at a reasonable price, which benefits both firms and the consumer, firms need to expand to gain same cost reduction from the economies of scale. Banning these firms (since their existence affects interaction of the supply and demand) will destroy any form of economy, meaning there will be no economy to influence.

The economy can't be destroyed, and I'm not saying to ban anything. I'm saying that it is up to the consumer to cease supporting institutions that end up hindering their own freedom.

"startling influence on the economy." equates to consumer freedom how? At what point do you stop recognizing that an entrepreneurial has rights to supply products he rightfully owns?


You know how it is said that democracy only works with an informed voting base? Capitalism only works when the populace isn't susceptible to mind control.

Define "mind control"


Well, actually, either way it works, but it doesn't work the way people think it does... The government is run by incompetents, yet it has the most influence.. It is still a product of anarchy. It is still a product of capitalism. Now, you might say that the state is some how set apart, and I've heard people say that it is compulsory/mandatory/nothing one can do/etc. and it is somehow elevated above the rest.. I'm here to tell you that the business that the government specializes in is MIND CONTROL. We give them their legitimacy, and they have tricked us into believing that we HAVE to cooperate. If there is one thing they have succeeded at despite their incompetence, it is fooling people into recognizing their legitimacy as sovereigns over the country. It doesn't even matter if they have any actual power, as long as you believe that they do.

Now, the problem is, the state has great influence, but the state is also able to be influenced by other institutions(big businesses), and what these big businesses do is manipulate the state into passing legislation that makes it easier for these businesses to gain more influence, at the expense of both other businesses and possibly the state itself. They can be really sneaky about it too. They have good lawyers.


/AnarchistRant, tl;dr


Now you'd think that a successful business that manages to dominate the economy would be a good thing for the people, but it isn't always. Even though goods/services can be bought for less, and they might be able to employ more people, they are taking away good quality jobs. More jobs =/= better jobs. You end up with a lot of part time minimum wage jobs. People who work part time at minimum wage do not have enough disposable income to make use of all the less expensive products, and what ends up happening is the economy suffers.

If the cost of labour is low, then the price of products will be similarly low. If the cost of labour is high, product prices follow suit. Increasing wages is just going to make capital relatively cheaper and encourage capital investment, further reducing employment, and drive up the price of products. And with your proposed mass destruction of business', we'd be facing years of a huge labour surplus, which would, following the destruction of the government, resulting in simple demand-supply interaction for wages, which would lead to extremely small wages. Disposable income - real income - can only increase due to an actual increase in physical wealth, whether it be increased productivity, low costs to produce the same quality good, etc.


All the while these "economically educated" douchebags keep going around giving simple solutions to complex problems.

There isn't a simple solution, there are far too many forces in play here, and the arrogance at which the pseudo-economists around here flaunt about their views is astounding. This is not as simple of an issue as it is made out to be.

....You do realize you just gave the most simple solution - Destroy business' with any scent of monopoly powers - to a complex problem?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 4:04:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
By all means, let them defend their capital.

You still believe in rights, I don't.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 5:46:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 4:04:08 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
By all means, let them defend their capital.

You still believe in rights, I don't.

An impasse it is so.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 10:30:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 6:53:45 PM, kowalskil wrote:
The same is true for an economic system. No system is perfect; but some are more efficient than others. Trying to destroy US capitalism  without offering something better is likely to create a lot of misery.

The problem is that what is "better" is subjective. People have different criteria for what is better based on their values. Not everybody has the same values for what an economic system should entail. It's a mistake to think that productivity and profit are the only acceptable or relevant criteria. Economics merely aims to explain how economies work and how economic agents interact; it's the analyzation of the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services - but there is no right or wrong way to go about it. All you can have are subjective measures of success, to be determined by the values of the society and/or individual. Even capitalists themselves have different goals. Some seek to generate more wealth, while to others (anarcho-capitalists) being a capitalist merely refers to a protection of one's property and wealth - not a method of increasing it. Again, you listed efficiency as a criteria for success. Slavery was very efficient (and highly profitable too). Does that make it the best economic model?

I lol'd at sadolite's POV on who capitalism works for by the way. Yes, all people who are hard working are successful. NOT. "&#8206;Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires" -- John Steinbeck. I'm not a socialist, but I think this quote speaks volumes about people's brainwashed glorification of capitalism.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 10:50:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 10:30:04 AM, Danielle wrote:


The problem is that what is "better" is subjective. People have different criteria for what is better based on their values. Not everybody has the same values for what an economic system should entail. It's a mistake to think that productivity and profit are the only acceptable or relevant criteria. Economics merely aims to explain how economies work and how economic agents interact; it's the analyzation of the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services - but there is no right or wrong way to go about it. All you can have are subjective measures of success, to be determined by the values of the society and/or individual. Even capitalists themselves have different goals. Some seek to generate more wealth, while to others (anarcho-capitalists) being a capitalist merely refers to a protection of one's property and wealth - not a method of increasing it. Again, you listed efficiency as a criteria for success. Slavery was very efficient (and highly profitable too). Does that make it the best economic model?


No, slavery would not be efficient under current economic model. One of most well known measure in economics is "Pareto optimality", the outcome results in no person can be made better off without making one person worse off.

I lol'd at sadolite's POV on who capitalism works for by the way. Yes, all people who are hard working are successful. NOT. "&#8206;Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires" -- John Steinbeck. I'm not a socialist, but I think this quote speaks volumes about people's brainwashed glorification of capitalism.

Yes, please don't consider sodolite as your straw-man capitalist. I do general agree that wealth is not necessarily a product of hard work. Other factors such as luck, social capital (knowing the right people), physical capital, and inheritance play major roles.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 11:10:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 6:53:45 PM, kowalskil wrote:
Occupy Wall Street? The last issue of Montclarion, a student newspaper at Montclair State University, published an article of Grover Furr, about the Occupy Wall Street movement:

http://www.themontclarion.org...

Yes, rich people always want to be richer and richer. This is unfortunate; no one knows how to stop this, without taking away constructive motivation. What fraction of Bill Gates' fortune is consumed and what fraction is productively invested? My guess is that the first fraction is much less than 10%, and that he is not a rare exception.

What does Professor Furr have to offer us? Consider a complex machine which works but not perfectly. Anyone can destroy it; no advanced knowledge is usually needed to accomplish this. But one has to be highly knowledgeable in order to repair it, or to design a better replacement. I am thinking about sophisticated engines, airplanes, TV sets, X ray scanners, computers, airconditioners, oil refineries, etc.

The same is true for an economic system. No system is perfect; but some are more efficient than others. Trying to destroy US capitalism  without offering something better is likely to create a lot of misery. I am thinking about what Lenin and Stalin did, as decribed in my two short books. These books are now freely available online; the links are at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu...

Note that even now, one hundred years after the Soviet revolution, standards of living in Russia are much lower than in the US, and in other western countries.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

What kind of a resource allocation model do most people want/ need?
Capitalism has been the dominant model on the planet for decades now and yet millions go hungry every night. Isn't anyone tired of bankers collecting obscene unearned bonuses or seeing images of children on TV starving to death? How well is this model working for all humans
It's just that I noticed from many people's posts that they are unquestioningly
supportive of "honest free market capitalism" but always attacked
socialism and communism.

The NHS in the UK (until recent creeping privatisation through
the back door) has been what could be described as socialism.
The majority of Brits are in favour of the NHS as it stands
because it doesn't cost us that much (compared to the US),
it's free at the point of delivery when needed and we don't
seem to have any worse physical health than the US and we
have a comparable life span.

It's difficult to know whether any systems have ever gone
through a truly socialist or communist phase.

The definition I came across about communism was basically
"a dictatorship of the proletariate (the workers)" and no need
for government (i.e. anarchy - not the same as chaos
necessarily) whereby the workers control the means of production.
The definition for socialism I came across was basically "a transition
phase towards communism where the socialist party controls
the means of production, and all private assets are seized by the state - the system should expect from everyone according to their ability and should provide for everyone according to their need." I think that's a good maxim but this
socialist phase is where it tended to go badly wrong in the past
and was sabotaged by nutters like Stalin and the proles let it happen.
People aren't quite as gullible today but are still worryingly dim.

I'm not saying we should rush headlong into socialism or
communism but I would also say that the central tenets of
capitalism itself should be examined.

What exactly is capitalism?
One basic definition of capitalism could be "someone - a capitalist
- owns capital and is motivated to maximize profits and accumulate
more capital so employs others (the workers) to help him do that
and, in order to justify their existence/ standard of living, the workers
sell their labour/skill."
That's all fine and dandy until I realised that the sole function of
a capitalist is to accumulate capital until presumably a monopoly
position is reached and we end up with a diminishing number of
Murdochs who own vast amounts of wealth.
A free market can never be a perfect market because
of information asymmetry. And how has wealth been accumulated
in the first place? In the case of the UK, most of it was from
plundering our colonies during colonialism not because we're any
better than any other country from an honest productive standpoint.

And people speak of "honest" free market capitalism - yet how honest
can the markets be if the underlying
pressure is the profit motive? Here's a question I've never been
able to answer - where does profit come from? If we assume the
simple equation

Resources + Labour -----> Product + Profit

The nice way of making profit would be to discover tonnes of
natural resources (eg a load of uranium in India) and that would
probably account for the profit although the environment may suffer.
Another way of accounting for profit honourably would be
"adding value" which is difficult to measure but let's say it's a
fantastic discovery - a new way of making widgets ten times faster
or ten times better quality. That's all well and good - however,
realistically who gets the profit from that discovery?
It's not the scientist / inventor - it's invariably the entrepreneur
who already has cornered the market exclaiming "The first million
is always the most difficult million to make." Money goes to money.

The bad ways of making profit from this equation would be to
charge customers more than the widget is worth (i.e. ripping them
off) or underpaying the workers (ripping them off too).
The capitalist could also maximize profits by not cleaning up
damage to the environment.

The drive for profit just seems to me at times to be divisive and
unco-operative by definition and usually involves manipulation
through contrived scarcity.

"Human nature is that all humans are greedy," is something I often hear.
I don't really agree with this. It's the kind of thing we hear about
all the time in the media. I don't know anyone who is particularly
greedy - lazy and a bit stupid maybe, but not that greedy.
Even if a lot of people behave in this way, is there a difference
between human nature and human behaviour? If the vast majority
of humans behave in a greedy, self-obsessed manner, what kind
of a system should we use to not encourage that, but to encourage
co-operation and creativity? How efficient is competition really?

I have major reservations about capitalism (although I cannot see
any other viable working alternative at the moment) but I don't
necessarily dismiss socialist principles even if they have not been
implemented successfully in their totality in any country yet.
There's a moral element here as well as a freedom element.
I believe it's called individual freedom versus collective responsibility.

So - is capitalism that much better than communism, fascism, feudalism,
totalitarianism or any other kind of "ism" if we look holistically?
Surely there are an infinite number of ways in which society
could be organised and resources allocated for the benefit of all
Earth's people?
People keep telling me "capitalism is the least bad system" and seem
happy with that! I'm not. I wouldn't put up with the least bad
home or the least bad job or the least bad partner.
Why should I put up with the least bad system without at least
giving it due and proper scrutiny?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 11:35:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 11:10:05 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
What kind of a resource allocation model do most people want/ need?
Capitalism has been the dominant model on the planet for decades now and yet millions go hungry every night. Isn't anyone tired of bankers collecting obscene unearned bonuses or seeing images of children on TV starving to death? How well is this model working for all humans
It's just that I noticed from many people's posts that they are unquestioningly
supportive of "honest free market capitalism" but always attacked
socialism and communism.

Children starve to death in Africa, not in the United States. No country has an obligation to help others. Africa is not using capitalism, they are using flawed dictatorships. The few countries in Africa that are using capitalism are prospering (South Africa).
The NHS in the UK (until recent creeping privatisation through
the back door) has been what could be described as socialism.
The majority of Brits are in favour of the NHS as it stands
because it doesn't cost us that much (compared to the US),
it's free at the point of delivery when needed and we don't
seem to have any worse physical health than the US and we
have a comparable life span.
Socialized healthcare costs a lot for the average person, they just don't realize it. It is added onto your taxes. There is still a debate whether private or public healthcare would be cheaper for the consumer.

It's difficult to know whether any systems have ever gone
through a truly socialist or communist phase.
Soviet Russia went under a communist phase under Stalin.
China went under a socialist phase under Mao ZeDong.
The definition I came across about communism was basically
"a dictatorship of the proletariate (the workers)" and no need
for government (i.e. anarchy - not the same as chaos
necessarily) whereby the workers control the means of production.
You have to realize that applied communism is a dictatorship.
The definition for socialism I came across was basically "a transition
phase towards communism where the socialist party controls
the means of production, and all private assets are seized by the state - the system should expect from everyone according to their ability and should provide for everyone according to their need."
Seems like an accurate definition
I think that's a good maxim but this
socialist phase is where it tended to go badly wrong in the past
and was sabotaged by nutters like Stalin and the proles let it happen.
Applied communism/fascism doesn't work in the real world.
People aren't quite as gullible today but are still worryingly dim.
Who says?
I'm not saying we should rush headlong into socialism or
communism but I would also say that the central tenets of
capitalism itself should be examined.
Why?
What exactly is capitalism?
One basic definition of capitalism could be "someone - a capitalist
- owns capital and is motivated to maximize profits and accumulate
more capital so employs others (the workers) to help him do that
and, in order to justify their existence/ standard of living, the workers
sell their labour/skill."
"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."
http://goo.gl...

That's all fine and dandy until I realised that the sole function of
a capitalist is to accumulate capital until presumably a monopoly
position is reached and we end up with a diminishing number of
Murdochs who own vast amounts of wealth.
A monopoly will not happen as long as there are competitive competitors.
A free market can never be a perfect market because
of information asymmetry.
Nobody said that it was perfect
And how has wealth been accumulated
in the first place?
Hard work
In the case of the UK, most of it was from
plundering our colonies during colonialism not because we're any
better than any other country from an honest productive standpoint.
War generates cash
And people speak of "honest" free market capitalism - yet how honest
can the markets be if the underlying
pressure is the profit motive? Here's a question I've never been
able to answer - where does profit come from? If we assume the
simple equation
Most money in a capitalist system is transferred, not created.

Resources + Labour -----> Product + Profit

The nice way of making profit would be to discover tonnes of
natural resources (eg a load of uranium in India) and that would
probably account for the profit although the environment may suffer.
Screw the environment. Cash is cash.

Another way of accounting for profit honourably would be
"adding value" which is difficult to measure but let's say it's a
fantastic discovery - a new way of making widgets ten times faster
or ten times better quality. That's all well and good - however,
realistically who gets the profit from that discovery?
It's not the scientist / inventor
lol.... You ever heard of patents and licensing??
- it's invariably the entrepreneur
Not necessarily
who already has cornered the market exclaiming "The first million
is always the most difficult million to make." Money goes to money.

The bad ways of making profit from this equation would be to
charge customers more than the widget is worth (i.e. ripping them
off) or underpaying the workers (ripping them off too).
The capitalist could also maximize profits by not cleaning up
damage to the environment.
You are assuming that the environment is important.
The drive for profit just seems to me at times to be divisive and
unco-operative by definition and usually involves manipulation
through contrived scarcity.
It is not manipulation that drives capitalism, it is competitiveness.
"Human nature is that all humans are greedy," is something I often hear.
I don't really agree with this.
If you don't agree with this, then your are naive to the 10th degree.
It's the kind of thing we hear about
all the time in the media. I don't know anyone who is particularly
greedy
Want to start naming names?
- lazy and a bit stupid maybe, but not that greedy.
Even if a lot of people behave in this way, is there a difference
between human nature and human behaviour?
Human nature is the same as human behaviour?? Your sentence really doesn't make sense.
If the vast majority
of humans behave in a greedy, self-obsessed manner, what kind
of a system should we use to not encourage that, but to encourage
co-operation and creativity?
How do you know that co-operation and creativity would be more effective that greed?

How efficient is competition really?

I have major reservations about capitalism (although I cannot see
any other viable working alternative at the moment) but I don't
necessarily dismiss socialist principles even if they have not been
implemented successfully in their totality in any country yet.
There's a moral element here as well as a freedom element.
I believe it's called individual freedom versus collective responsibility.

So - is capitalism that much better than communism, fascism, feudalism,
totalitarianism or any other kind of "ism" if we look holistically?
Surely there are an infinite number of ways in which society
could be organised and resources allocated for the benefit of all
Earth's people?
Communism- 90 million dead
Fascism- 60 million dead
Capitalism- 0
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 11:41:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 11:10:05 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

What kind of a resource allocation model do most people want/ need?
Capitalism has been the dominant model on the planet for decades now and yet millions go hungry every night.

Look at the nations that have the most starvation and suffering, and realize that they are far from capitalists. Rather they are nations that score very low on economic freedoms and do not have well defended property rights. No other system has lifted other out of poverty faster than capitalism. Look at the nations that adopted capitalism and see how much they've developed over the years. Look at Hong Kong, US, Singapore and see how much capitalism has made it develop. The world has record high increases in lifespan and few and fewer infant mortality.

Isn't anyone tired of bankers collecting obscene unearned bonuses or seeing images of children on TV starving to death?

Again, above analysis. Is anybody disgusted by the way North Korean children starve or african people starve because property rights are not defined well and government is corrupt.

How well is this model working for all humans

Quite well compared to other models.

It's just that I noticed from many people's posts that they are unquestioningly
supportive of "honest free market capitalism" but always attacked
socialism and communism.

Nobody says that capitalism is a perfect system, but saying that its not perfect is committing the utopian fallacy.


The NHS in the UK (until recent creeping privatisation through
the back door) has been what could be described as socialism.
The majority of Brits are in favour of the NHS as it stands
because it doesn't cost us that much (compared to the US),
it's free at the point of delivery when needed and we don't
seem to have any worse physical health than the US and we
have a comparable life span.


Nothing is "Free". It is paid through taxes. Also, note that US citizens are more likely to survive cancer compared to other nations If treated. Comparing life spans is a difficult task because there are many factors effecting it, healthcare just being one. Almost all healthcare innovation comes in the US. Oh, and US healthcare is far from market-driven.

It's difficult to know whether any systems have ever gone
through a truly socialist or communist phase.

And no nation is truly 100% capitalism. Almost half of the US GDP is public sector related, so even though US is the "model of capitalism" its only about 50% capitalist. Go figure.

The definition I came across about communism was basically
"a dictatorship of the proletariate (the workers)" and no need
for government (i.e. anarchy - not the same as chaos
necessarily) whereby the workers control the means of production.
The definition for socialism I came across was basically "a transition
phase towards communism where the socialist party controls
the means of production, and all private assets are seized by the state - the system should expect from everyone according to their ability and should provide for everyone according to their need." I think that's a good maxim but this
socialist phase is where it tended to go badly wrong in the past
and was sabotaged by nutters like Stalin and the proles let it happen.
People aren't quite as gullible today but are still worryingly dim.


I think Milton Friedman stated that "a system that relies that is dependent on the people in charge if it to be "good" is a bad system". HE also asked "where are we going to find these angels?".
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 12:14:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 11:10:05 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

One basic definition of capitalism could be "someone - a capitalist
- owns capital and is motivated to maximize profits and accumulate
more capital so employs others (the workers) to help him do that
and, in order to justify their existence/ standard of living, the workers
sell their labour/skill."

Well as stated earlier, capitalism is better defined as private ownership of the means of production. The capitalist doesn't necessarily want to accumulate more capital since he/she eventually wants to SPEND the profit revenue. Also it should be noted that workers can own capital as well. It's not just a selective few, but most people own stocks :p. And most people collect interest from storing money in the bank.

That's all fine and dandy until I realised that the sole function of
a capitalist is to accumulate capital until presumably a monopoly
position is reached

False on many accounts. First, the goal isn't to accumulate capital since the capitalist eventually wants to spend the money. Second, a monopoly is very difficult to obtain, because guess what: others want the same goal. Not even Standard Oil was considered a monopoly, it had over 150 competitors. Eliminating competition isn't that easy.

and we end up with a diminishing number of
Murdochs who own vast amounts of wealth.

Zero sum game fallacy. Both parties benefit from trade.

A free market can never be a perfect market because
of information asymmetry.

Utopian fallacy.

LAnd how has wealth been accumulated
in the first place? In the case of the UK, most of it was from
plundering our colonies during colonialism not because we're any
better than any other country from an honest productive standpoint.

So Hong Kong, Singapore and the US obtained their wealth from colonization. Yea...........

And people speak of "honest" free market capitalism - yet how honest
can the markets be if the underlying
pressure is the profit motive?

It provides incentive to provide a product people want.

Here's a question I've never been
able to answer - where does profit come from? If we assume the
simple equation


Resources + Labour -----> Product + Profit

Profit = Revenue - Expense.

You do realize that there are losses right? First profit offsets risk of loss. Second, profit rewards deferred consumption. If I lend you $100 you'd have to offer me more than $100 in return after 10 years for me to want to give up that money.

If revenue is high that means that the good is in demand, If revenue is low people aren't buying the product.

The nice way of making profit would be to discover tonnes of
natural resources (eg a load of uranium in India) and that would
probably account for the profit although the environment may suffer.

Explain. Does the environment have intrinsic value?

Another way of accounting for profit honourably would be
"adding value" which is difficult to measure but let's say it's a
fantastic discovery - a new way of making widgets ten times faster
or ten times better quality. That's all well and good - however,
realistically who gets the profit from that discovery?
It's not the scientist / inventor - it's invariably the entrepreneur

Yes, quite frequently the scientist/inventor does get credit. However, the entrepreneur is also the one to utilize that discovery into something useful.

who already has cornered the market exclaiming "The first million
is always the most difficult million to make." Money goes to money.

Yes, because companies like Blockbuster and Borders can't go out of business after they've made their first million. They also never face competition either :p.

The bad ways of making profit from this equation would be to
charge customers more than the widget is worth (i.e. ripping them
off)

It's worth whatever the consumer is willing to pay.

or underpaying the workers (ripping them off too).

Workers are paid what they are willing to work for. Nobody is forcing them to work there.

The capitalist could also maximize profits by not cleaning up
damage to the environment.

Yes, the Soviet Union had a much greater track record for environmental friendliness.

The drive for profit just seems to me at times to be divisive and
unco-operative by definition

You do not want coperations to be coorporative, since that leads to monopolies and high prices, which you are against.

and usually involves manipulation
through contrived scarcity.

Goods are scarce. However, I would use most often not since busnisses are open to enter copetetively and drive down lower prices and increases quality and production. The private sector performs much more efficintly then the public sector.

"Human nature is that all humans are greedy," is something I often hear.
I don't really agree with this. It's the kind of thing we hear about
all the time in the media. I don't know anyone who is particularly
greedy - lazy and a bit stupid maybe, but not that greedy.

Do you like to use the property that you own even If it not necessary to your life? Well, then you are a greedy capitalist baestard.

Even if a lot of people behave in this way, is there a difference
between human nature and human behaviour? If the vast majority
of humans behave in a greedy, self-obsessed manner, what kind
of a system should we use to not encourage that, but to encourage
co-operation and creativity? How efficient is competition really?

Competition is the hallmark for efficiency since it provides incentives to lower costs of goods and services.

Non-competetiveness is not intrinsically good. I mean really, do you dumb yourself down in school or sports so that everything is 'fair'. Violence is bad, but not competition.

I have major reservations about capitalism (although I cannot see
any other viable working alternative at the moment) but I don't
necessarily dismiss socialist principles even if they have not been
implemented successfully in their totality in any country yet.
There's a moral element here as well as a freedom element.
I believe it's called individual freedom versus collective responsibility.


And whose to stop you from helping others in a capitalist society? Bill Gates has donated much of his money to charity and is a philantropist. Same with Rockefeller. Because you know, people actually want to be remembered as likable people.

So - is capitalism that much better than communism, fascism, feudalism,
totalitarianism or any other kind of "ism" if we look holistically?
Surely there are an infinite number of ways in which society
could be organised and resources allocated for the benefit of all
Earth's people?

Currently we have a mixed economy. I believe some mixed-economy keynesian intervention is necessary, but that's a far cry from overthrowing the system we have.

People keep telling me "capitalism is the least bad system" and seem
happy with that! I'm not. I wouldn't put up with the least bad
home or the least bad job or the least bad partner.

I'm sorry, your life is gong to be full of great disappointments.

Why should I put up with the least bad system without at least
giving it due and proper scrutiny?

Utopian fallacy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 1:29:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 11:35:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

My answers are in italics - sorry I don't know how to edit.

Children starve to death in Africa, not in the United States. No country has an obligation to help others. Africa is not using capitalism, they are using flawed dictatorships. The few countries in Africa that are using capitalism are prospering (South Africa).

It's not all to do with tinpot dictators. Have you not heard of the interconnected banking and money system? Why do third world governments need to borrow money at interest rates they can't pay for?

Soviet Russia went under a communist phase under Stalin.

Communism by definition is leaderless

War generates cash

And is that a good thing?

Most money in a capitalist system is transferred, not created.

In the UK, 60 years ago half of our money supply was debt-free (cash) and half was as an interest-bearing debt to a bank. Now 97% of our money supply has been created as debt (on computers). It's worse in the US. I direct you to the relevant graphs and data at the Bank of England website. Private banks have been creating the money supply (through a debt-money system) for decades.

Screw the environment. Cash is cash.

How long can this go on for on a finite planet?

You are assuming that the environment is important.

It is if you're crapping on your own doorstep

It is not manipulation that drives capitalism, it is competitiveness.

I would say it's both. Probably more manipulation of the rules of the game than a level playing field.

If you don't agree with this (humans are greedy), then your are naive to the 10th degree.

Don't judge me by your own standards

Human nature is the same as human behaviour?? Your sentence really doesn't make sense.

Human behaviour is responsive to the system that is already in place. Human nature is not necessarily total greed by all people. The greedy tend to accumulate more.

How do you know that co-operation and creativity would be more effective that greed?

Are you Gordon Gecko?

Communism- 90 million dead
Fascism- 60 million dead
Capitalism- 0

Where do you get these figures from? It could be argued that capitalism has killed far more than this over the last 50 years due to the fact that it's been the dominant resource allocation model on the planet for decades - and it's a rigged game. Do the money markets (eg food price speculation) have no effect on commodities in other countries? What about wars waged by the west (which seem to be mostly about oil)? It's difficult to pinpont blame to capitalism such is the slippery nature of the beast.

I agree with you that there is no well-worked out alternative at the moment which is why I am advocating money reform which keeps the existing system but would solve the debt crisis by nationalising the money supply (not the banks or anything else).
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 1:34:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 11:41:18 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/30/2011 11:10:05 AM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

What kind of a resource allocation model do most people want/ need?
Capitalism has been the dominant model on the planet for decades now and yet millions go hungry every night.

Look at the nations that have the most starvation and suffering, and realize that they are far from capitalists. Rather they are nations that score very low on economic freedoms and do not have well defended property rights. No other system has lifted other out of poverty faster than capitalism. Look at the nations that adopted capitalism and see how much they've developed over the years. Look at Hong Kong, US, Singapore and see how much capitalism has made it develop. The world has record high increases in lifespan and few and fewer infant mortality.

Isn't anyone tired of bankers collecting obscene unearned bonuses or seeing images of children on TV starving to death?

Again, above analysis. Is anybody disgusted by the way North Korean children starve or african people starve because property rights are not defined well and government is corrupt.

How well is this model working for all humans

Quite well compared to other models.

It's just that I noticed from many people's posts that they are unquestioningly
supportive of "honest free market capitalism" but always attacked
socialism and communism.

Nobody says that capitalism is a perfect system, but saying that its not perfect is committing the utopian fallacy.


The NHS in the UK (until recent creeping privatisation through
the back door) has been what could be described as socialism.
The majority of Brits are in favour of the NHS as it stands
because it doesn't cost us that much (compared to the US),
it's free at the point of delivery when needed and we don't
seem to have any worse physical health than the US and we
have a comparable life span.


Nothing is "Free". It is paid through taxes. Also, note that US citizens are more likely to survive cancer compared to other nations If treated. Comparing life spans is a difficult task because there are many factors effecting it, healthcare just being one. Almost all healthcare innovation comes in the US. Oh, and US healthcare is far from market-driven.

It's difficult to know whether any systems have ever gone
through a truly socialist or communist phase.

And no nation is truly 100% capitalism. Almost half of the US GDP is public sector related, so even though US is the "model of capitalism" its only about 50% capitalist. Go figure.

The definition I came across about communism was basically
"a dictatorship of the proletariate (the workers)" and no need
for government (i.e. anarchy - not the same as chaos
necessarily) whereby the workers control the means of production.
The definition for socialism I came across was basically "a transition
phase towards communism where the socialist party controls
the means of production, and all private assets are seized by the state - the system should expect from everyone according to their ability and should provide for everyone according to their need." I think that's a good maxim but this
socialist phase is where it tended to go badly wrong in the past
and was sabotaged by nutters like Stalin and the proles let it happen.
People aren't quite as gullible today but are still worryingly dim.


I think Milton Friedman stated that "a system that relies that is dependent on the people in charge if it to be "good" is a bad system". HE also asked "where are we going to find these angels?".



Many of your points are addressed in my previous post.

Milton Friedman was an eel. He was in favour of full reserve banking initially until he realised it was career threatening. I don't think the economic model he was advocating has worked out that well for the majority. It looks like western recession as far as the eye can see.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 1:53:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 1:34:08 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:

Many of your points are addressed in my previous post.

Not really.

Milton Friedman was an eel. He was in favour of full reserve banking initially until he realised it was career threatening.

Source?

I don't think the economic model he was advocating has worked out that well for the majority. It looks like western recession as far as the eye can see.

Really neoliberalism reforms did not climb singapore, south korea, chile, hong kong, and China out of poverty which adopted neoliberalism and capitalism polices? India tried democratic socialism and it hasn't worked so it is moving towards capitalism as well and its economy is growing as a result.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 1:53:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 12:14:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:

False on many accounts. First, the goal isn't to accumulate capital since the capitalist eventually wants to spend the money. Second, a monopoly is very difficult to obtain, because guess what: others want the same goal. Not even Standard Oil was considered a monopoly, it had over 150 competitors. Eliminating competition isn't that easy.

It's not about genuine compeition though. It's about smaller numbers of bigger and bigger institutions.

Utopian fallacy.

There's nothing wrong with wanting fairness and a much better system.

It provides incentive to provide a product people want.

Why do we have advertising other than to encourage people to buy stuff they don't really need?


Explain. Does the environment have intrinsic value?

If you rely on it for survival. It's not infinitely large.


It's worth whatever the consumer is willing to pay.

Aren't you confusing value with price?

Workers are paid what they are willing to work for. Nobody is forcing them to work there.

Why do we have nearly 10% unemployment in the US and UK. Are people free to work wherever they want? There are few restrictions on the movement of capital but there are on the movement of people.


Yes, the Soviet Union had a much greater track record for environmental friendliness.

This argument has nothing to do with Stalin. I agree with you - that system was terrible.



You do not want coperations to be coorporative, since that leads to monopolies and high prices, which you are against.

Some competition is fine. Some private ownership is fine. I just think there's too much emphasis on it that's all.

Goods are scarce. However, I would use most often not since busnisses are open to enter copetetively and drive down lower prices and increases quality and production. The private sector performs much more efficintly then the public sector.

Not sure about that. Privatisation of the utilities in the UK (governments selling the family jewels) seems to lead to price increases and not genuine competition.


Do you like to use the property that you own even If it not necessary to your life? Well, then you are a greedy capitalist baestard.

There is a distinction between people who have no real choice to follow the rules of the system but don't really support it and those who embrace it whole-heartedly without question.


Competition is the hallmark for efficiency since it provides incentives to lower costs of goods and services.

I don't think we have genuine competition anywere - the banks or big business.

Non-competetiveness is not intrinsically good. I mean really, do you dumb yourself down in school or sports so that everything is 'fair'. Violence is bad, but not competition.

I agree with you. When it's not damaging, competition is healthy


I'm sorry, your life is gong to be full of great disappointments.

Utopian fallacy.

You are so self-limiting.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 1:54:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 1:29:30 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 10/30/2011 11:35:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

My answers are in italics - sorry I don't know how to edit.

Children starve to death in Africa, not in the United States. No country has an obligation to help others. Africa is not using capitalism, they are using flawed dictatorships. The few countries in Africa that are using capitalism are prospering (South Africa).

It's not all to do with tinpot dictators. Have you not heard of the interconnected banking and money system? Why do third world governments need to borrow money at interest rates they can't pay for?
1. No one needs to borrow anything
2. All countries that have a capitalist system have prospered more than the others. In Africa, a lot of the non-capitalist countries have dictators. Compare South Africa (more or less a capitalist democracy) with Uganda or Libya.

Soviet Russia went under a communist phase under Stalin.

Communism by definition is leaderless

Communism in practicality has a dictatorship. Look at history.
War generates cash

And is that a good thing?
War has never solved anything...
except fascism, nazism, communism, dictatorship, tyranny, slavery, and we're currently working on terrorism.
Most money in a capitalist system is transferred, not created.

In the UK, 60 years ago half of our money supply was debt-free (cash) and half was as an interest-bearing debt to a bank. Now 97% of our money supply has been created as debt (on computers). It's worse in the US. I direct you to the relevant graphs and data at the Bank of England website. Private banks have been creating the money supply (through a debt-money system) for decades.

Screw the environment. Cash is cash.

How long can this go on for on a finite planet?
According to NASA, space colonization is a realistic probability within the next 50 years.
http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov...

You are assuming that the environment is important.

It is if you're crapping on your own doorstep
What I said before...
It is not manipulation that drives capitalism, it is competitiveness.

I would say it's both. Probably more manipulation of the rules of the game than :a level playing field.

The reason why capitalism succeeds is because there is competition, therefor prices stay low and quality goes up.
If you don't agree with this (humans are greedy), then your are naive to the 10th degree.

Don't judge me by your own standards
Humans are greedy. Thats all I have to say..
Human nature is the same as human behaviour?? Your sentence really doesn't make sense.

Human behaviour is responsive to the system that is already in place. Human nature is not necessarily total greed by all people. The greedy tend to accumulate more.
All animals are greedy. They are greedy for food, water, living space, mates, etc...
Yes it is in our nature to be greedy.
How do you know that co-operation and creativity would be more effective that greed?

Are you Gordon Gecko?

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much."

Communism- 90 million dead
Fascism- 60 million dead
Capitalism- 0

Where do you get these figures from? It could be argued that capitalism has killed far more than this over the last 50 years due to the fact that it's been the dominant resource allocation model on the planet for decades - and it's a rigged game. Do the money markets (eg food price speculation) have no effect on commodities in other countries? What about wars waged by the west (which seem to be mostly about oil)? It's difficult to pinpont blame to capitalism such is the slippery nature of the beast.

http://www.scaruffi.com...

Would you like to debate how much capitalism has killed?

I agree with you that there is no well-worked out alternative at the moment which is why I am advocating money reform which keeps the existing system but would solve the debt crisis by nationalising the money supply (not the banks or anything else).


Nationalization does not work. You saw what happened with the big banks after 2008 recession with the injections.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:04:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 1:54:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

1. No one needs to borrow anything.
Governments (both rich and poor) borrow money into existence from financial institutions all the time. It's 4% interest for the UK government. It's not necessary.

All animals are greedy. They are greedy for food, water, living space, mates, etc...

Animals by and large tend to take just what they need and no more.

Yes it is in our nature to be greedy.

I don't agree. It's in some people's nature to be greedy.


Nationalization does not work. You saw what happened with the big banks after 2008 recession with the injections.

I said "nationalisation of the money supply" not nationalising the banks. A different concept entirely. I believe Bill Still (US Money Reformer) is standing as a Libertarian Party candidate. I think he's got it sussed.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:08:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Will you accept my debate challenge?

If you don't, then you cannot back up your views.

http://www.debate.org...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:10:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 2:04:36 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 10/30/2011 1:54:06 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

1. No one needs to borrow anything.
Governments (both rich and poor) borrow money into existence from financial institutions all the time. It's 4% interest for the UK government. It's not necessary.
You just agreed to my point. Borrowing is not necessary.
All animals are greedy. They are greedy for food, water, living space, mates, etc...

Animals by and large tend to take just what they need and no more.
Can you back that up?

Yes it is in our nature to be greedy.

I don't agree. It's in some people's nature to be greedy.


Nationalization does not work. You saw what happened with the big banks after 2008 recession with the injections.

I said "nationalisation of the money supply" not nationalising the banks. A different concept entirely. I believe Bill Still (US Money Reformer) is standing as a Libertarian Party candidate. I think he's got it sussed.

How exactly would you like to socialize the money supply?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 2:18:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 1:53:40 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 10/30/2011 12:14:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:

It's not about genuine compeition though. It's about smaller numbers of bigger and bigger institutions.

First, it is unsubstantiated that small number of institutions become bigger.
How is that not genuine competition? Are we to deny the benefits of economics of scale that make production of goods cheaper and better for all of us. Why should we subsidize smaller institutions that do not use resources as efficiently?


Utopian fallacy.

There's nothing wrong with wanting fairness and a much better system.

Nervana Fallacy: "when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect."

You fail to demonstrate a system that works better. Also, I'd say capitalism is a fair system since it rewards people by what he or she can produce, and savings. It allows people to make their own risks and get the rewards or failures from his/her risk. It allows people the freedom to use their money as he/she pleases. It allows for economic growth and specialization of labor which lifts everyone out poverty.

It provides incentive to provide a product people want.

Why do we have advertising other than to encourage people to buy stuff they don't really need?


Advertisment is information about products. You don't need to buy it.


Explain. Does the environment have intrinsic value?

If you rely on it for survival. It's not infinitely large.


So your solution is not to utilize something that you need for survival???


It's worth whatever the consumer is willing to pay.

Aren't you confusing value with price?

If the consumer pays for it by definition he/she values the product more then he/she values the money, otherwise trade doesn't occur.

Why do we have nearly 10% unemployment in the US and UK. Are people free to work wherever they want?

Why get a job If you can get unemployment benefits for doing nothing :p. There's a natural rate of unemployment, and some of it is due to frictional, structural, and cyclical unemployment. However, the fact that the person is willing to accept the job in exchange for leisure demonstrates he/she benefits from the transaction. BOTH PARTIES BENEFIT FROM VOLUNTARILY TRANSACTIONS.

There are few restrictions on the movement of capital but there are on the movement of people.

Didn't realize that you can just move buildings :p.


Yes, the Soviet Union had a much greater track record for environmental friendliness.

This argument has nothing to do with Stalin. I agree with you - that system was terrible.

You advocate doing away with capitalism, but your closest example to socialism isn't a good track record for environment.



You do not want coperations to be coorporative, since that leads to monopolies and high prices, which you are against.

Some competition is fine. Some private ownership is fine. I just think there's too much emphasis on it that's all.

SO WHY ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST THE SYSTEM!! What is 'too much emphasis'. What is the optimal level of private ownership? Of competition? Of capitalism? Currently 43% of the US government is public, and 16% of gdp goes to enforcing regulation, so the us is more socialist then capitalist.

Not sure about that. Privatisation of the utilities in the UK (governments selling the family jewels) seems to lead to price increases and not genuine competition.


Natural monopolies have a tendency to rise price. That's an exception to the rule.
However, the privatization of telecommunications reduced prices in the US. In almost all cases you see privatization reduce real prices due to competition.


Do you like to use the property that you own even If it not necessary to your life? Well, then you are a greedy capitalist baestard.

There is a distinction between people who have no real choice to follow the rules of the system but don't really support it and those who embrace it whole-heartedly without question.

You have a choice. You can give up your money right now. Nobody is stopping you. Stop being a hypocrite.

I don't think we have genuine competition anywere - the banks or big business.

Really, last I checked goods and services in the private sector seem to have been reducing real prices. My cellphones, TV, and computer are better.

I agree with you. When it's not damaging, competition is healthy

So then what's your problem?


I'm sorry, your life is gong to be full of great disappointments.

Utopian fallacy.

You are so self-limiting.

I'm sorry, but you can't live in a perfect world where you can marry that sports illustrated model who will fulfill your life in every way. I'm guessing your in high school right?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...