tschu Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Capitalism in the sense of economics being a free-for-all. As opposed to socialism, communism, etc etc. Regulated capitalism can be a wonderful thing. Unregulated capitalism just concentrates all wealth at the top 1%. 1 Link to comment
rawhide Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Elysium baby or Hollywood's simplistic version I personally like Dune better "Long live the fighters" Link to comment
Micheal Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 1. Corruption of Power 2. Disease 3. Access to Education Link to comment
Conga3 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Capitalism in the sense of economics being a free-for-all. As opposed to socialism, communism, etc etc. Regulated capitalism can be a wonderful thing. Unregulated capitalism just concentrates all wealth at the top 1%. Capitalism cannot be regulated. It's not an activity. It's only a concept defined by law that was developed as a way to motivate lazy workers and increase productivity. Capitalism is the equal guarantee and protection of free workers capital. That's it. It basically means, it doesn't matter who you are -- you can work, save up , and then invest your money in order to be more productive and amass wealth - without the threat of the government or more powerful individuals taking it away because there are laws protecting your capital, financial systems available to you to leverage your capital, and market economies where you can trade your goods/services. The idea that some "upper class" business owner could hire a "lower class" worker who could save his wages, start his own business and eventually compete with his previous employer - is a recent development in human history. -- Capitalism doesn't guarantee everyone multitudes of wealth, because not everyone can risk their capital and have the same success due to market competition. Success is a product of ambition and ability. Not everyone is equal in ability. Not everyone shares the same amount of ambition. Therefore, not everyone is guaranteed an equal outcome even if capitalism guaranteed them an equal opportunity to try. But something strange happens when capitalism is introduced where is wasn't allowed before - the workers begin to try and as a result the society as a whole becomes more productive and everyone involved benefits and is lifted economically. -- No doubt, capitalism results in a disparity of wealth and there is competition to gain more capital with the advantage going to those who already have acquired more than others. So what? Capitalism doesn't allow one person with much capital to prevent another person with very little from obtaining more. For that, you'd need other laws and regulations that interfere with free markets or threaten the concept of capitalism. -- 1 Link to comment
tschu Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Oh boy. You're dissecting way waaaaay too far while still missing the point. I'll explain later Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 So are you saying that we need to improve education? Because it sounds like you're advocating the death of those who have been unfortunate to be born with bad genetics/bad parenting/bad education/other socioeconomic factors. Education was first on my list, yes. Many problems can be solved with real education in the long term. But not all. There will always be some people that just need to to die for the betterment of the species. The removal of their genes from the pool can only be considered a good thing. So you're an advocate for Eugenics. Isn't that a contradiction to personal freedom. Link to comment
zoogs Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I'd go with... 1) Poverty - a fundamental resource/population/efficiency problem. 2) Bad governments and their tendency to exist, or be devolved to. 3) Warfare and particularly the potential of nuclear detonations. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Food Corruption Education Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 Just want to point out that ONLY the United State has 'freedom of speech' Every other country has a form of censorship board, weather or not that name it as such. Many nations have limits on things you can say, or write, without a possible arrest. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and the Presumption of Innocence are far from rights for most people living on this planet. They are so ingrained in us as Americans we take for granted that others outside our borders have the same rights. They do not. This one is the one that concerns me the most of what you listed. Don't get me wrong. I completely agree that freedom of the press is essential to having freedom. However, there also must be accountability within that same freedom. Right now, the press/media can put out what ever they see fit no matter if it is flat out wrong/made up/half true or implying something different than what reality is. So much of it is bought and paid for by various political powers. BUT, nobody in power will hold the media accountable because of two reasons. a) They don't want a back lash of people claiming they are violating the freedom of the press, and b) They buy and use the media/press just like their counter parts in ways to mislead the public. This accountability needs to come from the public. There needs to be outrage from the public when they are mislead by what the press is reporting. Instead, we have two sides that support their misleading press and keep moving on with the status quo. Link to comment
strigori Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Capitalism in the sense of economics being a free-for-all. As opposed to socialism, communism, etc etc. Regulated capitalism can be a wonderful thing. Unregulated capitalism just concentrates all wealth at the top 1%. Capitalism cannot be regulated. It's not an activity. It's only a concept defined by law that was developed as a way to motivate lazy workers and increase productivity. Capitalism is the equal guarantee and protection of free workers capital. That's it. It basically means, it doesn't matter who you are -- you can work, save up , and then invest your money in order to be more productive and amass wealth - without the threat of the government or more powerful individuals taking it away because there are laws protecting your capital, financial systems available to you to leverage your capital, and market economies where you can trade your goods/services. The idea that some "upper class" business owner could hire a "lower class" worker who could save his wages, start his own business and eventually compete with his previous employer - is a recent development in human history. -- Capitalism doesn't guarantee everyone multitudes of wealth, because not everyone can risk their capital and have the same success due to market competition. Success is a product of ambition and ability. Not everyone is equal in ability. Not everyone shares the same amount of ambition. Therefore, not everyone is guaranteed an equal outcome even if capitalism guaranteed them an equal opportunity to try. But something strange happens when capitalism is introduced where is wasn't allowed before - the workers begin to try and as a result the society as a whole becomes more productive and everyone involved benefits and is lifted economically. -- No doubt, capitalism results in a disparity of wealth and there is competition to gain more capital with the advantage going to those who already have acquired more than others. So what? Capitalism doesn't allow one person with much capital to prevent another person with very little from obtaining more. For that, you'd need other laws and regulations that interfere with free markets or threaten the concept of capitalism. -- There is a lot of magic and fairy dust there. Pure 'isms' do not work in the real world, only in the fantasy of the paper world. The instant you add the human element, the first thing that happens is those with money and power do everything they can to prevent anyone else from getting money or power. For a glimpse on what it looks like in the not too distant history (historically speaking) just look to the era of the robber barons and lateral integration. It is not coincidence that the most productive, expansive and over best period of history on this continent came after rules are regulations came into effect to limit the corruption of those with money and power. Link to comment
strigori Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Just want to point out that ONLY the United State has 'freedom of speech' Every other country has a form of censorship board, weather or not that name it as such. Many nations have limits on things you can say, or write, without a possible arrest. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and the Presumption of Innocence are far from rights for most people living on this planet. They are so ingrained in us as Americans we take for granted that others outside our borders have the same rights. They do not. This one is the one that concerns me the most of what you listed. Don't get me wrong. I completely agree that freedom of the press is essential to having freedom. However, there also must be accountability within that same freedom. Right now, the press/media can put out what ever they see fit no matter if it is flat out wrong/made up/half true or implying something different than what reality is. So much of it is bought and paid for by various political powers. BUT, nobody in power will hold the media accountable because of two reasons. a) They don't want a back lash of people claiming they are violating the freedom of the press, and b) They buy and use the media/press just like their counter parts in ways to mislead the public. This accountability needs to come from the public. There needs to be outrage from the public when they are mislead by what the press is reporting. Instead, we have two sides that support their misleading press and keep moving on with the status quo. in large part because we have allowed large parts of the press become infotainment. And they spend very little time actually covering the 'news' anymore. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Capitalism in the sense of economics being a free-for-all. As opposed to socialism, communism, etc etc. Regulated capitalism can be a wonderful thing. Unregulated capitalism just concentrates all wealth at the top 1%. Capitalism cannot be regulated. It's not an activity. It's only a concept defined by law that was developed as a way to motivate lazy workers and increase productivity. Capitalism is the equal guarantee and protection of free workers capital. That's it. It basically means, it doesn't matter who you are -- you can work, save up , and then invest your money in order to be more productive and amass wealth - without the threat of the government or more powerful individuals taking it away because there are laws protecting your capital, financial systems available to you to leverage your capital, and market economies where you can trade your goods/services. The idea that some "upper class" business owner could hire a "lower class" worker who could save his wages, start his own business and eventually compete with his previous employer - is a recent development in human history. -- Capitalism doesn't guarantee everyone multitudes of wealth, because not everyone can risk their capital and have the same success due to market competition. Success is a product of ambition and ability. Not everyone is equal in ability. Not everyone shares the same amount of ambition. Therefore, not everyone is guaranteed an equal outcome even if capitalism guaranteed them an equal opportunity to try. But something strange happens when capitalism is introduced where is wasn't allowed before - the workers begin to try and as a result the society as a whole becomes more productive and everyone involved benefits and is lifted economically. -- No doubt, capitalism results in a disparity of wealth and there is competition to gain more capital with the advantage going to those who already have acquired more than others. So what? Capitalism doesn't allow one person with much capital to prevent another person with very little from obtaining more. For that, you'd need other laws and regulations that interfere with free markets or threaten the concept of capitalism. -- There is a lot of magic and fairy dust there. Pure 'isms' do not work in the real world, only in the fantasy of the paper world. The instant you add the human element, the first thing that happens is those with money and power do everything they can to prevent anyone else from getting money or power. For a glimpse on what it looks like in the not too distant history (historically speaking) just look to the era of the robber barons and lateral integration. It is not coincidence that the most productive, expansive and over best period of history on this continent came after rules are regulations came into effect to limit the corruption of those with money and power. Not really. I don't know any rich people who would have a problem if you or I were to become rich also. In fact, many rich people love other success stories. I know many rich people who have helped other people start businesses or further their education or allow themselves to be given as references so that someone can become successful. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Just want to point out that ONLY the United State has 'freedom of speech' Every other country has a form of censorship board, weather or not that name it as such. Many nations have limits on things you can say, or write, without a possible arrest. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and the Presumption of Innocence are far from rights for most people living on this planet. They are so ingrained in us as Americans we take for granted that others outside our borders have the same rights. They do not. This one is the one that concerns me the most of what you listed. Don't get me wrong. I completely agree that freedom of the press is essential to having freedom. However, there also must be accountability within that same freedom. Right now, the press/media can put out what ever they see fit no matter if it is flat out wrong/made up/half true or implying something different than what reality is. So much of it is bought and paid for by various political powers. BUT, nobody in power will hold the media accountable because of two reasons. a) They don't want a back lash of people claiming they are violating the freedom of the press, and b) They buy and use the media/press just like their counter parts in ways to mislead the public. This accountability needs to come from the public. There needs to be outrage from the public when they are mislead by what the press is reporting. Instead, we have two sides that support their misleading press and keep moving on with the status quo. in large part because we have allowed large parts of the press become infotainment. And they spend very little time actually covering the 'news' anymore. So....you are somewhat agreeing with me that since it was the public that allowed this to happen, it is the public that will need to be outraged enough to cause a change. Link to comment
strigori Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Capitalism in the sense of economics being a free-for-all. As opposed to socialism, communism, etc etc. Regulated capitalism can be a wonderful thing. Unregulated capitalism just concentrates all wealth at the top 1%. Capitalism cannot be regulated. It's not an activity. It's only a concept defined by law that was developed as a way to motivate lazy workers and increase productivity. Capitalism is the equal guarantee and protection of free workers capital. That's it. It basically means, it doesn't matter who you are -- you can work, save up , and then invest your money in order to be more productive and amass wealth - without the threat of the government or more powerful individuals taking it away because there are laws protecting your capital, financial systems available to you to leverage your capital, and market economies where you can trade your goods/services. The idea that some "upper class" business owner could hire a "lower class" worker who could save his wages, start his own business and eventually compete with his previous employer - is a recent development in human history. -- Capitalism doesn't guarantee everyone multitudes of wealth, because not everyone can risk their capital and have the same success due to market competition. Success is a product of ambition and ability. Not everyone is equal in ability. Not everyone shares the same amount of ambition. Therefore, not everyone is guaranteed an equal outcome even if capitalism guaranteed them an equal opportunity to try. But something strange happens when capitalism is introduced where is wasn't allowed before - the workers begin to try and as a result the society as a whole becomes more productive and everyone involved benefits and is lifted economically. -- No doubt, capitalism results in a disparity of wealth and there is competition to gain more capital with the advantage going to those who already have acquired more than others. So what? Capitalism doesn't allow one person with much capital to prevent another person with very little from obtaining more. For that, you'd need other laws and regulations that interfere with free markets or threaten the concept of capitalism. -- There is a lot of magic and fairy dust there. Pure 'isms' do not work in the real world, only in the fantasy of the paper world. The instant you add the human element, the first thing that happens is those with money and power do everything they can to prevent anyone else from getting money or power. For a glimpse on what it looks like in the not too distant history (historically speaking) just look to the era of the robber barons and lateral integration. It is not coincidence that the most productive, expansive and over best period of history on this continent came after rules are regulations came into effect to limit the corruption of those with money and power. Not really. I don't know any rich people who would have a problem if you or I were to become rich also. In fact, many rich people love other success stories. I know many rich people who have helped other people start businesses or further their education or allow themselves to be given as references so that someone can become successful. They may say stuff, but watch where they spend their money. Take the Koch brothers, who spend more money per election cycle that everyone who posts in this thread will probably see in a lifetime, to further their own wealth and little else. Do they mind someone else getting ahead? It depends. Does that someone else mean they will see less money? If that potential exists, they will try to prevent it by almost any means available. For a great many of those who have money, the number one priority in life is furthering that wealth, and the rest of the world be damned. Link to comment
Recommended Posts