Also your implication that we aren't in a zero sum game is proven false. If it were true, why has the quality of life for the working class in the US stagnated or gone down since the 70s? This is fact, born out by all statistics. So if a small percentage keeping all the profits doesn't mean the other 99% aren't getting the shaft in your mind, why has it played out exactly the reverse in reality?
This is not what a zero sum game looks like:
If it isn't clear to you that an iPhone 4s is better than a rock (which it was largely made out of), then I don't think I will be able to convince you that economic activity is not a zero sum situation.
common sense, tons of empirical evidence and the example (or as we like to call them "thought experiment) I gave should convince any reasonable person.
you cannot remove capitalism completely. it is far too integrated into our lives at every level and not just this country but 90% of the world.
face it, it is human nature to want more. it is the same idea of hope.
if you had no hope of your future you would either commit suicide or go crazy.
it is human nature to want more, some people are content with what they have, some give up and some keep running.
capitalism brings out the worst in some BUT it also brings out the best in others. it is neither a good system or a bad one. targeting capitalism as the source of all problems is pointless.
the notion of everyone living at exactly the same level is extremely boring and would make life "vanilla" for the lack of a better word. competition is in our nature.
if you don't believe in competition, then you don't believe in evolution or revolution or any sort of progress.
as i said before, the solution is not to target capitalism but the players who are not playing fair and make an example out of them so that others dont do the same.
some of these players who exploit the system are mostly dishonest and lack moral compass. there is no solution to that except prosecuting them.
Do you agree or disagree that Capitalism is the problem we are currently facing? If you disagree, and believe Capitalism can be somehow made to "play fair", why are all the various models of capitalism failing for the working class across the world at the same time?
if they are failing, it is because the justice system has failed to provide justice.
(How that would ever even work, a bunch of uneducated in finances Americans duping these captain of industry bankers, I'll never know.)
Agreed.
Ultimately who is at fault?
The person who applies for a loan they never should have been approved for and get its.
Or
The idiot that approves the loan and hands over the money.
It used to be that banks crawled up your ass and camped out in the skull for 6-8weeks while they tried to figure out how you would repay the loan. People trusted the level of protection that banks put on themselves. If the bank thinks I can repay it, I probably can.
Instead what happened is they stopped doing that, and even gave people more money than what they needed. A few banks aggressively went out of their way to get people who should have never been in a loan, into one. "Here have this loan, no we insist, no take it!" "Oh ok sure why not".
When a bank opens its vault and shovels money out into the street you can't blame people for picking it up. The bank certainly can't try foul about loosing the money when they clearly could have hung onto it.
They did it because they knew the risk could be shifted away from themselves. This was a problem of safety guards being removed. Considering the banking system operated fine for 50 years with the institutions separated I think its safe to say that those guards need to put back in place before another batch of idiots cut their fingers off.
Also consider countries that haven't allowed their high risk investment firms to co-mingle with the stable savings and loan banks, really don't have issues with their financial systems... its just further proof the system can work, but people need to be responsible and held accountable. So far that isn't happening, if it does then the current system can be saved.
If it isn't clear to you that an iPhone 4s is better than a rock (which it was largely made out of), then I don't think I will be able to convince you that economic activity is not a zero sum situation.
common sense, tons of empirical evidence and the example (or as we like to call them "thought experiment) I gave should convince any reasonable person.
An iphone 4s for 20% of the population while another huge chunk can't even see a doctor is the much better analogy. It makes it painfully obvious what you're concerned about by using a luxury gadget as your example of how far we've progressed when people are still literally starving within the US.
Real wages have stagnated, education quality has gone down for the masses, infant mortality is abysmal. Yes we have Iphone 4s and the owner of Virgin has a private submarine and spaceship. That is not how we measure progress, in fact, again, it proves my point instead of yours, that this broken system only benefits the few, and *sometimes* in very isolated incidence that can't completely be controlled by those wealthy, it does indeed trickle down to the masses like the lifespan graph you posted. My rebuttal is that lifespan in the US is much lower than in the countries with more socialist models of healthcare, and less wealth inequality, again, proving you incorrect. It might not be zero-sum, but it is the case where if a few people hoard the majority of resources, the vast majority lose out.
You think that capitalism is a problem, but replacing it isn't the answer? How do you reconcile that? If something is broken beyond repair, you replace it. End of story.
I feel I stated my opinion fairly coherently.
Another monetary system will likely not work because monetary systems do not function in equilibrium with the nature of our planet, but a resource based economy would. Human beings have to get out of this "every man for himself" paradigm and move to a "what's good for all is good for me" philosophy. We all suffer from an ego-centrism affliction that will serve to end us someday.
Sure, that sounds well and good, but how are you going to do it? If not you, then who? How? Theres way too much that you can't even begin to answer for this to actually be viable.
This is 100% completely false. Small consumer loans plaid an insignificant portion of the current crisis AND they were pushed far more from the sides of the banks knowing they could make a profit off of it even if the consumers failed to pay it back by playing juggle-the-debt than it was from "dumb over consuming consumers" "deceiving" banks.
(How that would ever even work, a bunch of uneducated in finances Americans duping these captain of industry bankers, I'll never know.)
They took the bad loans, repackaged that bad debt and resold it to other people. You may have heard about it in the news.
An iphone 4s for 20% of the population while another huge chunk can't even see a doctor is the much better analogy.
That's a great example. It is not a zero sum game because instead of just witch-doctors, doctors exist. Instead of caves, houses exist. Instead of fucking sticks and rocks we have things, because it is not a zero sum game.
Sure, that sounds well and good, but how are you going to do it? If not you, then who? How? Theres way too much that you can't even begin to answer for this to actually be viable.
If you think it's wholly on me to solve this on my own, then you've missed the point of such a system. I'm doing my part by putting these ideas out there. It's important that people who hear these ideas and agree with them spread them to others so that enough people out there understand it and support it that we can collective and collaboratively make such a system reality. I can't make this happen, the people as a whole have to want it to happen and then make it so.
You think that capitalism is a problem, but replacing it isn't the answer? How do you reconcile that? If something is broken beyond repair, you replace it. End of story.
Capitalism isn't broken, the system that tries to help it is. right now there's no free market in the US. What exists is a system where failure is socialized, Hence the bail outs. That's not capitalism but more socialism, in a capitalist state the banks would have been left to fend for themselves.
thats what Capitalism is, your risks are yours and no one else's.
My rebuttal is that lifespan in the US is much lower than in the countries with more socialist models of healthcare
That's cool. Medical care is a credence good and probably benefits from government control, if you have strong government institutions, but I suspect that gap is from fat Americans eating too many cheeseburgers. I'm fat, and it's silly to pretend my shortened lifespan is the fault of our economic system.
Capitalism isn't broken, the system that tries to help it is. right now there's no free market in the US. What exists is a system where failure is socialized, Hence the bail outs. That's not capitalism but more socialism, in a capitalist state the banks would have been left to fend for themselves.
thats what Capitalism is, your risks are yours and no one else's.
You think that capitalism is a problem, but replacing it isn't the answer? How do you reconcile that? If something is broken beyond repair, you replace it.
Is see the toss it all out crowd as doing more harm than good. I don't think communism or socialism have failed, but that people scrapped their old system in favor of those new systems and the growing pains of switching systems where too great to bare so they said fuck it, again, and started over. Instead of reforming their current systems they scrapped them for something else and now those same growing pains are manifesting again and again.
The systems themselves aren't bad, they would work but governments are a work in progress not a strict set of guidelines that someone sketched out on a cocktail napkin one weekend, that can never be altered. That's a dipshit cult mentality and leads to nothing but problems.
There are great examples of socialist countries that haven't said fuck it and started over. Is socialism the answer? Or is stability and determination to fix what breaks the answer?
Can Capitalism in a democracy or republic work? That depends if you want to toss it out and start over.
It's a bit like Dreamers thread about finishing projects, if all you ever do is say fuck it and start over, you get really good at saying fuck it and never get to the valuable parts where you really need to practice and hone your craft.
Incorporate some of those idea? DEFINITELY! Say fuck it and screw yourself all over again?
Capitalism isn't broken, the system that tries to help it is. right now there's no free market in the US. What exists is a system where failure is socialized, Hence the bail outs. That's not capitalism but more socialism, in a capitalist state the banks would have been left to fend for themselves.
thats what Capitalism is, your risks are yours and no one else's.
The problem is Government Intervention.
There is no such thing as a free market. If you left businesses to their own devices, they would develop monopolies. The only way to prevent monopolies is to regulate them, but laws are just a response to an inability to solve a problem. You can't make people not steal, so you just make it illegal and punish those that steal. If you could get everyone to never steal, you wouldn't need to make theft illegal because nobody would be stealing.
Bail outs are socialism? Ha! That's why socialism is such a dirty word in America. Because people attribute government corruption with socialism. It's corruption plain and simple. The banks are in a capitalist state, they buy the government's power to prevent their failure, that's capitalism in its ugliest form.
If you think it's wholly on me to solve this on my own, then you've missed the point of such a system. I'm doing my part by putting these ideas out there. It's important that people who hear these ideas and agree with them spread them to others so that enough people out there understand it and support it that we can collective and collaboratively make such a system reality. I can't make this happen, the people as a whole have to want it to happen and then make it so.
Putting ideas out there/awareness has to be one of the most useless, over admired concept of the 21st century. Raising awareness and getting your opinion out there was a great concept when information was slow and a major hindrance to getting your message heard.
Today, anyone and everyone freely voices their opinions on the internet. Simply raising awareness or posting on an internet forum amounts to very little in modern society. You have to actually get out and do something about it, if all you're doing is sitting at your computer/couch posting on the internet to small niche groups of people who generally share the same opinions, but have little/no individual power to enact change, what have you accomplished?
Have you been out in the streets organizing for this OWS thing? Have you attended a single OWS/occupy anything meeting? At least these people are actually trying, instead of ranting endless on Polycount.
If you're not out doing it, who is? The masses of people you're recruiting to fulfill your agenda on polycount?
There is no such thing as a free market. If you left businesses to their own devices, they would develop monopolies. The only way to prevent monopolies is to regulate them, but laws are just a response to an inability to solve a problem. You can't make people not steal, so you just make it illegal and punish those that steal. If you could get everyone to never steal, you wouldn't need to make theft illegal because nobody would be stealing.
If there was a free market the banks wouldn't take that many risks, but during the clinton years the DE-regulation of banks, and letting banks gamble with invester's MONEY is the root of this! derivatives, and all the sort of loop holes that made wall street into a Casino.
Gambling with peoples money and investments is NOT capitalism.
If there was a free market their money would be what they would use to invest, not the money of the public.
The banks are in a capitalist state, they buy the government's power to prevent their failure, that's capitalism in its ugliest form.
That's not capitalism in it's ugliest form that's CORRUPTION in it's true form. Due to the passing of citizen's united. Which let's Corporations unlimited-ly fund elections.
Bail outs are socialism? Ha! That's why socialism is such a dirty word in America. Because people attribute government corruption with socialism. It's corruption plain and simple.
How would you feel if i had a business, and that business failed and then you had to pay for the failure? and you're right THERE IS a corruption, When that kind of policy is shoved down hard working people's throats!
Bail outs are socialism? Ha! That's why socialism is such a dirty word in America. Because people attribute government corruption with socialism. It's corruption plain and simple. The banks are in a capitalist state, they buy the government's power to prevent their failure, that's capitalism in its ugliest form.
Socialism is when the community, or society, owns the means of production. This is a generic definition I found by a bullshit 2-second wiki search. It also fits with my pre-existing notion of socialism.
Society owning production, also means society takes a hit when there's a failure.
Rich folks gamble with financial instruments, under not-socialism (I don't want to use the C word here), they should just be allowed to fail. Under what we actually have, they got bailed out and then got bonus checks. Where did the bail-out money come from? From the people, you and me.
So... a risk didn't pan out, there was a failure, and society took the hit. Sounds EXACTLY like socialism to me. Only we socialize only the bad things, only the risk, and none of the rewards.
Gambling with peoples money and investments is NOT capitalism.
Gamble with investments, that's the whole point, that is capitalism.
Do not gamble with people savings, homes or other loans that are the bed rock of our economy. The problem arose when certain people struck down the key provisions of the Glass Steagall Act which fixed the banking system after the last horrific collapse.
Meaning investment banks and savings and loan banks could co mingle and concoct crazy types of investments built on what was thought of as stable assets. Which was fine, until they relaxed the standards on the loans and handed them out to anyone who had a pulse (or not).
In the past if they made a bad loan they ate it, so banks crawled up into your skull before giving you a loan. When they could pass off any bad loan to their newly created investment arm who could pass it onto someone else, they did and it fucked the entire system over.
Undoing what a few greedy politicians had done in 1999 should be priority 1, but sadly they've only managed to push around marginal reforms that don't do much of anything, and those guys (Dodd/Frank) routinely get lamb basted by their political doppelgangers for "imposing" harsh restrictions and strangling a free system that "works so perfectly" if only they could remove the regulations and restrictions.
and it's getting political so I'll stop... other wise I'll just start ranting about idiots who love to hug smokestacks instead of trees.
The funny thing about a pro-socialism argument is that it boils down to pointing out that sometimes capitalism has problems or produces inequality, and they want to replace it with government because we all know governments never have problems or harm anyone
Mark, gambling with other people's money has a simple word to describe it: Theft. There's no need to twist it into something else. It's not socialism, and it's sure as hell not capitalism.
It's just simple theft. Legal theft in this case, but theft nonetheless.
Putting ideas out there/awareness has to be one of the most useless, over admired concept of the 21st century. Raising awareness and getting your opinion out there was a great concept when information was slow and a major hindrance to getting your message heard.
Today, anyone and everyone freely voices their opinions on the internet. Simply raising awareness or posting on an internet forum amounts to very little in modern society. You have to actually get out and do something about it, if all you're doing is sitting at your computer/couch posting on the internet to small niche groups of people who generally share the same opinions, but have little/no individual power to enact change, what have you accomplished?
Have you been out in the streets organizing for this OWS thing? Have you attended a single OWS/occupy anything meeting? At least these people are actually trying, instead of ranting endless on Polycount.
If you're not out doing it, who is? The masses of people you're recruiting to fulfill your agenda on polycount?
You talk like I'm the only who follows these ideas. Do you think I came up with this on my own? No, these are ideas derived from many people whom feel the way I do. Before you can get people to act, you have make them aware there is a better choice.
I have a 3 month old child to care for. I'd love to join the ranks, but my son comes first, so I do what I can from here. Furthermore, there are other ways to support OWS when you don't have the time/money to contribute. Don't try to diminish the merit of my argument by accusing me of not being out there with the protestors. I could very well put the same question to you.
Mark, gambling with other people's money has a simple word to describe it: Theft. There's no need to twist it into something else. It's not socialism, and it's sure as hell not capitalism.
It's just simple theft. Legal theft in this case, but theft nonetheless.
Investment is something that I choose to opt into. I enter in knowing that the money could be lost. For those that want to gamble they can.
The problems pop up when people are allowed to gamble with other peoples assets and those people aren't aware its being gambled.
As in savings and loan banks, being able to shack up with risky investment firms to package bad loans into risky investments under the guise of sound investment. Because it came from an institution with a long history of surviving off of picking the right people to loan money to, it got a high rating. They where trading on their good name and not much more...
If they where separated again and banks had to survive off of people paying off their loans over a long period of time then things would be fine. The gamblers could burn through cash and no one would care but the gamblers.
Investment is something that I choose to opt into. I enter in knowing that the money could be lost. For those that want to gamble they can.
The problems pop up when people are allowed to gamble with other peoples assets and those people aren't aware its being gambled.
As in savings and loan banks, being able to shack up with risky investment firms to package loans into risky investments. Gamble with your house, without you knowing it.
Not disagreeing with any of that.
I'm just saying, it's simple theft. It's not some element that's inherent to capitalism, or socialism, or any ism really (except maybe corporatism or fascism).
You talk like I'm the only who follows these ideas. Do you think I came up with this on my own? No, these are ideas derived from many people whom feel the way I do. Before you can get people to act, you have make them aware there is a better choice.
I have a 3 month old child to care for. I'd love to join the ranks, but my son comes first, so I do what I can from here. Furthermore, there are other ways to support OWS when you don't have the time/money to contribute. Don't try to diminish the merit of my argument by accusing me of not being out there with the protestors. I could very well put the same question to you.
You could easily put the same question to me. The difference here is i'm not sitting on my high horse, talking down to people, telling them how to live their lives or telling them what they should believe in.
I also do not have the audacity to sit around posting on the internet and act like that makes me better than someone else, or have delusions that I am actually making a difference.
I will freely admit that I am too lazy/don't care enough to go out into the streets and yell or whatever. But you're clearly the loudest most opinionated voice here, with the most extreme viewpoints. If you really feel as strongly about these issues as you do but you choose not to actually get out and do anything about it, to me that is just pathetic.
I am lazy and admittedly so, but atleast i'm honest with myself.
For someone so certain that their ideals are right and just, you certainly do not seem to put in much effort. If you're actually doing things than by all means, please share with the class. Ways that people can help OWS without actually participating physically would be appreciated by some.
Bullshit. That's some random claim with no backing or evidence.
Socialism is when the community, or society, owns the means of production. This is a generic definition I found by a bullshit 2-second wiki search. It also fits with my pre-existing notion of socialism.
Society owning production, also means society takes a hit when there's a failure.
Rich folks gamble with financial instruments, under not-socialism (I don't want to use the C word here), they should just be allowed to fail. Under what we actually have, they got bailed out and then got bonus checks. Where did the bail-out money come from? From the people, you and me.
So... a risk didn't pan out, there was a failure, and society took the hit. Sounds EXACTLY like socialism to me. Only we socialize only the bad things, only the risk, and none of the rewards.
There is no such thing as a free market. An unregulated market (which is a truly "free" market) will inevitably fall into monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies. With only a handful of companies dominating the market, they collude in a cartel fashion to control prices and bar any competitors from entering the market.
A regulated market, if properly implemented, can protect the public from predatory companies by enforcing fair competition. The ultimate goal would be to achieve perfect competition. This would reduce the barrier to entering the market, make it easier to get out and allow the public to drive market prices rather than companies trying to manipulate the public and the market. But this only works so long as the government can't be corrupted. This is not a free market either, but a regulated one.
A free market is an impossible fantasy because either the government regulates it or the most wealthy businesses control it (i.e. monopolies and cartels).
I'm just saying, it's simple theft. It's not some element that's inherent to capitalism, or socialism, or any ism really (except maybe corporatism or fascism).
Well, when properly regulated and separated it can work. It's easier to dust off the safe guard that kept the system working for 50+ years than it is to deal with a whole brand new system where people haven't even begun to think of all the ways it can be exploited. Throw it out and go with something new, not only do you end up slaying new dragons that you never thought about, but all the old ones come back to life in various ways and have to be dealt with.
I don't think the method of government a society matters as long as its fair and operates for the greater good of the people it serves. What's more important is that they stick to it and work out mechanics and systems to fix it as it breaks. Constantly switching forms of government will lead to more disasters and more desperate situations.
Reform and progress might not be exciting or all that instantly gratifying for the ADHD world we live in, but its a much more stable system than "burn it all down, execute the power brokers" every 30 years. You end up with fucktards like:
Mao, executing intellectuals and "reeducating the masses".
Stalin, Same shit different country.
The Ayatollah running Iran.
Castro running cuba.
BLA BLA BLA...
These are people that had ideas, and on paper they seemed good but then went horrifically off track as they dealt with things they never thought of. It's like trying to build a ship out of pieces while floating around out at sea in the middle of a storm. You can't think, nothing works right and you make bad decisions just to survive. That is not a good and stable path for the majority of people on the planet.
We have a base, it might have a few rotten boards but at least we're on dry land where we have a chance to look it over and determine the best fix possible.
I'll use Cuba as an example. Despite all of its set backs in leadership and the embargo, it has stabilized and is improving slightly. Is it operating in the best interest of the people? Not quite but it shows signs of moving that way. Is that better than another bloody overthrow and another oppressive regime imposed by a different brutal dictator? Probably for now. Slow progress is probably better than a total reset.
You could easily put the same question to me. The difference here is i'm not sitting on my high horse, talking down to people, telling them how to live their lives or telling them what they should believe in.
I also do not have the audacity to sit around posting on the internet and act like that makes me better than someone else, or have delusions that I am actually making a difference.
I will freely admit that I am too lazy/don't care enough to go out into the streets and yell or whatever. But you're clearly the loudest most opinionated voice here, with the most extreme viewpoints. If you really feel as strongly about these issues as you do but you choose not to actually get out and do anything about it, to me that is just pathetic.
I am lazy and admittedly so, but atleast i'm honest with myself.
But you do have the audacity to tell someone whom you know nothing about that he is lazy and in denial of it? Where do you get off? My extreme stance on the issue causes them to be without merit? Just because what I propose is radical, doesn't mean I'm wrong. What is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. What I propose may not be perfect and if there's a better one, I'll support that, But what we have now is a lot worse. I see quite a few people here arguing that the system is right or wrong, but I don't see much talk about how to make it better except from me and Ben. At least I'm trying to bring up different concepts for a better society, you're just dumping attitude on the people who have the least popular viewpoint. So my ideas are extreme. So what? It doesn't make them wrong nor does it give you merit to tear me apart.
I'm just saying, it's simple theft. It's not some element that's inherent to capitalism, or socialism, or any ism really (except maybe corporatism or fascism).
Well... give a thief your money knowing that he'll lose it and you're an idiot not a victim. If the system funnels money to thieves (which it does) then it needs to be fixed. Giving the thieves a new playground, a clean slate and unbridled opportunity to screw people over will only end the same way. Fix the people, and whatever government you choose it will work.
Capitalism, like guns or even a video game when used properly does more good than harm. Making sure it operates appropriately so innocent people don't get hurt is the key.
Personally there needs to be some major reforms taking place in what business schools are teaching. This whole, fuck over anyone and everyone to make a quick buck needs to end before anyone talks about switching forms of government.
So I guess you missed the big graph of people living longer all over the world?
The only person missing anything is you attributing that graph to capitalism, when all the major medical advances of the modern age have happened with extreme subsidization by the government. Pharmaceuticals pour their money into advertising and lobbying, not R&D. Every single major medical advancement of the last 100 years had heavy, if not the majority or even entirety of it's funding coming from tax money (and mostly in universities).
That is not proof of capitalism improving the lives of everyone. That is proof that pooling resources as a society for the benefit of all is a boon. Further this with the fact that the more socialist a country's medical delivery plan is, the better it's metrics in terms of quality of care and lifespans, means that anything medical related is going to make capitalism look worse, not better.
I also like your gut opinion about why Americans have lower lifespans as if it's relevant. The reason Americans have lower average life spans despite numerous countries (including Iceland!) having similar obesity statistics is because of the lack of access healthcare. Period. Also you are ignoring the fact that Americans didn't decide because of some North American gene to eat only fattening food. The amount of corn syrup, preservatives, hormones, and lack of healthy alternatives in urban areas is directly related to the profit motive in the food industry.
Seriously, it's like every time you open your mouth you prove more of my points, not yours.
Actually in this case he is exactly right. The US financial system has privatized profits and socialized losses. It's basically all of the flaws of capitalism and socialism rolled into one.
The funny thing about a pro-socialism argument is that it boils down to pointing out that sometimes capitalism has problems or produces inequality, and they want to replace it with government because we all know governments never have problems or harm anyone
Socialism does not rely on central planning (that means government). You are thinking of communism. Why you keep contributing with an authoritative tone when you are just plain wrong on so many things is an enigma.
Also this ignores the fact that the word "government" is not all encompassing or even a useful term unless you've demonized it. Iceland has a government, but it's extremely responsive to the people. That might be a factor of size, or that no industry has been able to grow large enough to corrupt the system yet because of how poor it was in the past, but this idea that "government" will always be this monolithic entity that never answers to the will of the people is a fallacy.
People don't want to replace capitalism with socialism but keep the current corrupt governments, they want to also replace the government with a group of people directly accountable, in a system that doesn't allow a few people to accumulate enough wealth to corrupt the system through bribes and campaign contributions. The idea of having some elected officials representing you is not something to be afraid of in all cases. I know I sure don't have enough education to do any central planning for education or social services or any of those important government provided services, but I do believe in a system without such easy corruption that people concerned with actually solving these problems could do a lot better job than the current politicians do.
Seriously, it's like every time you open your mouth you prove more of my points, not yours.
That's because some people here (myself included) are trying to say that we don't have capitalism. Others, like you, insist that we do have capitalism and that it's shit. Nobody is arguing that what we have now is shit. Just that it's not capitalism. So when we bring up examples of how shitty it is, you automatically associate that with capitalism. That's why it's proving your points. It's only doing that in your mind though.
I swear, this whole thread is nothing but a war of definitions. Can hardly find anything here that people genuinely disagree on. It's all who has the more correct definition, and people misinterpreting things because they gloss over someone's post instead of actually reading it fully.
Mao, executing intellectuals and "reeducating the masses".
Stalin, Same shit different country.
The Ayatollah running Iran.
Castro running cuba.
BLA BLA BLA...
I'm not going to paint any of these examples of flawless saints, but does any american in here really think they got an accurate education on any of these leaders or their forms of government? Mao and Stalin had a ton of flaws and committed outright war crimes, but they also vastly improved other metrics in terms of life spans, access to education and medical care, transportation etc.
The version of world history taught in american schools if full of outright cartoon characters, especially when combined with hollywood/comics/games which have no reason for accuracy and every reason for easy black&white villains when it comes to any system other than America brand Capitalism (tm).
I went to the Lenin museum in Finland, and while I'm sure they like to paint a rosy photo of him (he is responsible for granting Finland's sovereignty from under Russia), the difference between the idea of Lenin as taught by my Virginia education, and the reality of his life and accomplishments was simply staggering.
Also it's funny you should mention Cuba.... Cubans have higher average lifespans, lower infant mortality, and a higher literacy rate than Americans. Despite being under embargo by a nearby world super power for decades. It's not a perfect system, but it's nowhere near as bad as most people probably think it is. I didn't even know any facts about Cuba before a couple of years ago, but I "knew" it was "bad" Fidel=Bad, cuba=bad. Why is that? propaganda, plain and simple.
That's because some people here (myself included) are trying to say that we don't have capitalism. Others, like you, insist that we do have capitalism and that it's shit. Nobody is arguing that what we have now is shit. Just that it's not capitalism. So when we bring up examples of how shitty it is, you automatically associate that with capitalism. That's why it's proving your points. It's only doing that in your mind though.
I swear, this whole thread is nothing but a war of definitions. Can hardly find anything here that people genuinely disagree on. It's all who has the more correct definition, and people misinterpreting things because they gloss over someone's post instead of actually reading it fully.
Alright, does "corporatism" strike you better? hehe strike you...
That's because some people here (myself included) are trying to say that we don't have capitalism. Others, like you, insist that we do have capitalism and that it's shit. Nobody is arguing that what we have now is shit. Just that it's not capitalism. So when we bring up examples of how shitty it is, you automatically associate that with capitalism. That's why it's proving your points. It's only doing that in your mind though.
I swear, this whole thread is nothing but a war of definitions. Can hardly find anything here that people genuinely disagree on. It's all who has the more correct definition, and people misinterpreting things because they gloss over someone's post instead of actually reading it fully.
In both Socialism and Capitalism (and even libertarianism) you exchange some kind of money unit for goods. That's identical in all systems, so it's not relevant to the debate. The primary difference between socialism and capitalism, is that instead of profits being shared equally between all workers based on effort, a large portion of the profits are being kept by a select few based on arbitrary laws defining who "deserves" the profit.
That system of a few people keeping the majority of the profits a company generates, is what we have in America. For sure. Now, since it has been like that for decades, they have used this accumulation of wealth to pervert many aspects of the larger market so that losses are not faced by themselves, but this does not make it "not capitalism". Capitalism does not rely on people facing consequences when they make mistakes, that is the supposed outcome in a libertarian free market. Capitalism can totally exist with heavy state support of their monopolies and practices, it's exactly what is happening now.
It's a chicken and egg system. You are implying that this weirdo government/finance/business relationship we have right now some how materialized out of the ether, and I am saying it exists how it does *because* of capitalism allowing the holders of wealth to write the system exactly to benefit themselves.
You can argue that isn't the definition of capitalism or terms or whatever, but this is the system we have now. The few getting all the wealth. AND! coincidentally, that's exactly what the protests are about, the 1% having it all, and the 99% being left behind.
Some "anarchists" fucking things up by vandalising property. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86XhCwHhwn8&feature=youtu.be
I feel (from various things in the video) that they were not part of the movement. Looks like plants to me. You have to know this messes up the message of the movement, right?
In both Socialism and Capitalism (and even libertarianism) you exchange some kind of money unit for goods. That's identical in all systems, so it's not relevant to the debate. The primary difference between socialism and capitalism, is that instead of profits being shared equally between all workers based on effort, a large portion of the profits are being kept by a select few based on arbitrary laws defining who "deserves" the profit.
Again you go with those weird definitions. We both believe the same thing it seems. That the distribution should be based on effort, and it should be equal. We both realize that's not the way it is today.
You say that it would be more that way under socialism, and capitalism is what made it what it is today.
I say that it would be more that way under a free-market, and that socialism is what made it what it is today.
The only reason it's backwards is because we're working off of different definitions. Talk about propaganda... seems like everyone has been washed to use conflicting definitions. But we all still mean the same thing.
Now, since it has been like that for decades, they have used this accumulation of wealth to pervert many aspects of the larger market so that losses are not faced by themselves, but this does not make it "not capitalism". Capitalism does not rely on people facing consequences when they make mistakes, that is the supposed outcome in a libertarian free market. Capitalism can totally exist with heavy state support of their monopolies and practices, it's exactly what is happening now.
Again, weird definitions. (Free-market) Capitalism does in fact rely on people facing consequences. It's an inherent part of the system. Put plainly, how will there be bailouts without the government there to do the bailing out?
Isn't that like the ultimate socialist argument? That there needs to be a social safety-net? Free-market people will then point out that the safety net will be used by bigwigs to get bailouts.
Again, definitions. My definition of free-market capitalism includes people biting it when they fuck up. Yours doesn't, hence the disagreement. But in substance, we're saying the same thing.
It's a chicken and egg system. You are implying that this weirdo government/finance/business relationship we have right now some how materialized out of the ether, and I am saying it exists how it does *because* of capitalism allowing the holders of wealth to write the system exactly to benefit themselves.
No, it materialized out of people's desire to socialize things. First it was the military. Gotta unite to fight against [insert evil here] (usually the Germans it seems). Then it was out of fear of banking, so they created national banks. Then it was out of a perceived desire for welfare, in comes Social Security, Medicare and all those programs.
With all those programs comes taxation. It's no coincidence that 1913 saw both the introduction of the Federal Reserve and the IRS. And SS and Medicare soon followed.
The propaganda always seem to go in the favor of socialism, and taking care of people. That's how they establish those bureaucracies. Nobody argued with the New Deal, because it was for the greater good of society. Nobody argued against the Military Industrial Complex, because we had to fight to "Make the world safe for Democracy".
It always stems from people's desire to socialize things.
Then once the instruments are in place, the higher-ups abuse them in their own favor. Military contracts, bribing congressmen, the whole shebang. It's all about opening streams of income from the lower class to the upper class. I'm sorry, but social programs accomplish exactly that. I know that's not what they're meant for. But that's what they do.
You can argue that isn't the definition of capitalism or terms or whatever, but this is the system we have now. The few getting all the wealth. AND! coincidentally, that's exactly what the protests are about, the 1% having it all, and the 99% being left behind.
Again, not arguing against any of that. You're absolutely right. Which is why I'm getting tired of arguing all these definitions. We agree!
Putting ideas out there/awareness has to be one of the most useless, over admired concept of the 21st century. Raising awareness and getting your opinion out there was a great concept when information was slow and a major hindrance to getting your message heard.
Today, anyone and everyone freely voices their opinions on the internet. Simply raising awareness or posting on an internet forum amounts to very little in modern society. You have to actually get out and do something about it, if all you're doing is sitting at your computer/couch posting on the internet to small niche groups of people who generally share the same opinions, but have little/no individual power to enact change, what have you accomplished?
Have you been out in the streets organizing for this OWS thing? Have you attended a single OWS/occupy anything meeting? At least these people are actually trying, instead of ranting endless on Polycount.
If you're not out doing it, who is? The masses of people you're recruiting to fulfill your agenda on polycount?
I regularly post news articles on Facebook and can guarantee that 70% of my friends list doesn't even know about the movement.
How do you stop a movement? You don't let people know it is happening.
Getting information out there isn't a concept, it's an action. One person reads an article I posted. That person shares it on facebook, their friends share it, and then they all talk about it in person as well.
Why are you getting mad that Greevar has different views than you....?
A society that uses currency will always have inequality. A society that uses currency will always, eventually, either destroy itself or go through massive, massive reform.
We have the resources to do away with currency, and people smart enough on this rock to make it happen.
Do you even understand what needs to be done in the next 6 months to stop the US from going bankrupt?? Do you actually have ANY understanding as to how fucked the US is if we keep doing things the way we currently are?
I actually know people who are stocking up on survival supplies and learning new survival skills, wiring generators to their house with a hole to exhaust outside, completely rational people who have even served in the military who are beginning to stockpile foods that last for a long time.
Do you have ANY idea how close to the tipping point we are if nothing is done?
I'm not going to paint any of these examples of flawless saints, but does any american in here really think they got an accurate education on any of these leaders or their forms of government? Mao and Stalin had a ton of flaws and committed outright war crimes, but they also vastly improved other metrics in terms of life spans, access to education and medical care, transportation etc.
The version of world history taught in american schools if full of outright cartoon characters, especially when combined with hollywood/comics/games which have no reason for accuracy and every reason for easy black&white villains when it comes to any system other than America brand Capitalism (tm).
I went to the Lenin museum in Finland, and while I'm sure they like to paint a rosy photo of him (he is responsible for granting Finland's sovereignty from under Russia), the difference between the idea of Lenin as taught by my Virginia education, and the reality of his life and accomplishments was simply staggering.
Also it's funny you should mention Cuba.... Cubans have higher average lifespans, lower infant mortality, and a higher literacy rate than Americans. Despite being under embargo by a nearby world super power for decades. It's not a perfect system, but it's nowhere near as bad as most people probably think it is. I didn't even know any facts about Cuba before a couple of years ago, but I "knew" it was "bad" Fidel=Bad, cuba=bad. Why is that? propaganda, plain and simple.
I completely agree the bad is over emphasized and the good hardly ever talked about, especially the closer to DC you get.
However the education I got on Mao and the others squares with what is on Wikipeida now. Which I'm sure is slanted and biased but does cover a lot of their accomplishments. I did grow up in a pretty liberal state and at the time the public education system tried to present all sides, instead of just beltway propaganda.
A lot of the education and medical advancements would have gone into place regardless of whoever was in power. Sure they implemented them and tried to broaden the case of education and healthcare but those where global advancements, much in the way farming techniques don't really belong to one country but get spread around because everyone recognizes the benefit for everyone. In most cases the advancements also came at huge costs in lives and brutal suppression. Mostly as a result of how they rose to power which flavored how they ran their government.
Under Mao, there was no such thing as community decent, or intellectualism for that mater. What he said went, or you did. That still flavors the Chinese government of today, heavily. The Chinese people want a more open and transparent government but they don't want to overthrow it like Mao did, which is probably for the best.
I brought up Cuba because in the last few years and even over the last week a lot has happened to give small slivers of freedom back to the Cuban people.
Today Cubans are allowed to buy and sell real estate.
Last week the government gave back the right to sell and buy used cars.
Cars still are treated like family and cost 20x more than in any other country in the world but at least the people don't have to be afraid of horrific retribution for selling their car on the black market.
Since Fidel stepped down a lot more freedoms have been granted, like public broadcasting has opened up slightly, still pretty far from a free and open society.
Hugo Chavez went to Cuba... to be treated for cancer. While I think Chavez is running his country into the ground that's still huge that a president of any country would choose to go to Cuba for treatment. Not as backwater as the US government would have you believe.
So with all that said, is the system that Fidel set up prefect and the way every country should be run? I don't think so, not by a long shot I would hate living under the system they have now. But with enough time and enough work, it like China could become something stable, open and fairly democratic while still holding onto their own identity. If you look at how far places like Cuba and China have come in the last 50 years and how far they have to go, I can adjust my expectations for change in the US a tiny bit. People who thought that Obama was going to solve the worlds problems overnight should be applauded for their optimism, mocked for their unrealistic expectations and probably flogged for thinking they didn't have to do anything to change things.
Governments only change so long as there is constant unrelenting pressure applied which is the only way to keep them accountable. So the idea that "everything will be fine if we just adopt a new system" is just as dangerous as not doing anything. If you look at places like Cuba and China and the good they have done for their people and look at what it took to bring about those changes (violent overthrow) then we should work to make sure that doesn't need to happen. Much in the same way you say Unions wouldn't need to exist if employers treated their employees fairly. Governments wouldn't need to be overthrown if they did their job properly, listened to their people and did what was right.
If the Egyptians, Tunisians and Libyans aren't vigilante their chance at a true government that works for the people will be co-opted by power hungry mad men, again...
This isn't responding to what's directly above or what was posted most recently. Just some thoughts I had while reading these past several pages.
I don't think this is a problem with capitalism itself. I don't think this being a "global" thing is proof that it is, I think it's rather proof that it isn't. The world has always worked in patterns, it's simple history. The more crowded the world gets, the more connected people are, the more you'll see it with anything, ever. Things aren't all "failing" at the same time, people are simply reacting all at the same time, because that's what people do.
Additionally, while I'm glad to see people taking an interest as a whole, I'm also bothered by the mentality that people who aren't out there making lots of noise are somehow not helping, or are being "lazy". While the people in the streets are surely going to get noticed, the real improvement is going to happen because of a few people who talk rather than yell, who show alternatives rather than simply make demands or express how unhappy they are. In reality, it probably will be the people sitting at their desks.
In my eyes, one person living off the grid - showing people that there are alternatives, that's worth 100 people with picket signs.
Sorry, had to do it, but well said nevertheless. If we can't find a better way to do it, I'd love to be part of a group that makes games and gets to keep 100% of the value of their work instead of handing it over to a publisher that sucks up all the value for themselves.
The only person missing anything is you attributing that graph to capitalism, derpa derpa derpa
The point at question was whether the economy was a zero sum situation. I guess you forgot that, or don't know what "zero sum" means (even though you brought it up)?
The world has always worked in patterns, it's simple history. The more crowded the world gets, the more connected people are, the more you'll see it with anything, ever. Things aren't all "failing" at the same time, people are simply reacting all at the same time, because that's what people do.
It's also generational. The bigger the generational gap the larger the uphevel when the torch is passed from one generation to another. It's no wonder why so many Arab countries are turning over when their populations are largely under 30 and being ruled by those in their 60's 70's and 80's.
Why you keep contributing with an authoritative tone when you are just plain wrong on so many things is an enigma.
I have a degree in economics. Went to numerous economic conferences. I have run multiple businesses. My current company innovated in video game distribution by coming up with the Humble Indie Bundle.
You spend more time saying "you're wrong" and then changing the subject than you do addressing any real points.
FWIW. From what I understand. That graph is based on averages. Infant mortality has reduced over the years. Its not so much people are living that much longer. Its just that more people are existing longer. (Yes I know that sounds the same...)
I wish I could give some data on this, but not sure were to look.
P.S. Ninja, Economics? You do accounting by chance? (jk)
FWIW. From what I understand. That graph is based on averages. Infant mortality has reduced over the years. Its not so much people are living that much longer. Its just that more people are existing longer. (Yes I know that sounds the same...)
I wish I could give some data on this, but not sure were to look.
You are right about the data.
So here is the point: utility comes out of nowhere and is created using junk. The reason infant mortality is going down is in part because we took some random sticks and made houses. We invented the wheel. We harnessed the power of fire. No person at all is worse off from us having the wheel.
Clearly people don't want their babies to die, and so using this metric we can see at least in that way people's lives have gotten better and better as a whole for everyone on average.
A zero sum game is a game in which for every winner there is a person who loses to an equal extent. Clearly the economy is not a zero sum game.
P.S. @Oxy
Oh man, I hate accounting. Wolfire actually has 2 economists. John got his degree from Yale while mine is from University of Oklahoma, and so he has all the fun of doing our accounting
Fire Bernanke? Fire the whole Federal Reserve Bank! Revoke their charter! Make it solely the power of the US Treasury to issue currency and make it illegal for anyone else to do so. That's the first step to solving this. Also, throw everyone involved in the Fed in jail for fraud.
Replies
This is not what a zero sum game looks like:
If it isn't clear to you that an iPhone 4s is better than a rock (which it was largely made out of), then I don't think I will be able to convince you that economic activity is not a zero sum situation.
common sense, tons of empirical evidence and the example (or as we like to call them "thought experiment) I gave should convince any reasonable person.
face it, it is human nature to want more. it is the same idea of hope.
if you had no hope of your future you would either commit suicide or go crazy.
it is human nature to want more, some people are content with what they have, some give up and some keep running.
capitalism brings out the worst in some BUT it also brings out the best in others. it is neither a good system or a bad one. targeting capitalism as the source of all problems is pointless.
the notion of everyone living at exactly the same level is extremely boring and would make life "vanilla" for the lack of a better word. competition is in our nature.
if you don't believe in competition, then you don't believe in evolution or revolution or any sort of progress.
as i said before, the solution is not to target capitalism but the players who are not playing fair and make an example out of them so that others dont do the same.
some of these players who exploit the system are mostly dishonest and lack moral compass. there is no solution to that except prosecuting them.
if they are failing, it is because the justice system has failed to provide justice.
Ultimately who is at fault?
The person who applies for a loan they never should have been approved for and get its.
Or
The idiot that approves the loan and hands over the money.
It used to be that banks crawled up your ass and camped out in the skull for 6-8weeks while they tried to figure out how you would repay the loan. People trusted the level of protection that banks put on themselves. If the bank thinks I can repay it, I probably can.
Instead what happened is they stopped doing that, and even gave people more money than what they needed. A few banks aggressively went out of their way to get people who should have never been in a loan, into one. "Here have this loan, no we insist, no take it!" "Oh ok sure why not".
When a bank opens its vault and shovels money out into the street you can't blame people for picking it up. The bank certainly can't try foul about loosing the money when they clearly could have hung onto it.
They did it because they knew the risk could be shifted away from themselves. This was a problem of safety guards being removed. Considering the banking system operated fine for 50 years with the institutions separated I think its safe to say that those guards need to put back in place before another batch of idiots cut their fingers off.
Also consider countries that haven't allowed their high risk investment firms to co-mingle with the stable savings and loan banks, really don't have issues with their financial systems... its just further proof the system can work, but people need to be responsible and held accountable. So far that isn't happening, if it does then the current system can be saved.
An iphone 4s for 20% of the population while another huge chunk can't even see a doctor is the much better analogy. It makes it painfully obvious what you're concerned about by using a luxury gadget as your example of how far we've progressed when people are still literally starving within the US.
Real wages have stagnated, education quality has gone down for the masses, infant mortality is abysmal. Yes we have Iphone 4s and the owner of Virgin has a private submarine and spaceship. That is not how we measure progress, in fact, again, it proves my point instead of yours, that this broken system only benefits the few, and *sometimes* in very isolated incidence that can't completely be controlled by those wealthy, it does indeed trickle down to the masses like the lifespan graph you posted. My rebuttal is that lifespan in the US is much lower than in the countries with more socialist models of healthcare, and less wealth inequality, again, proving you incorrect. It might not be zero-sum, but it is the case where if a few people hoard the majority of resources, the vast majority lose out.
I feel I stated my opinion fairly coherently.
Sure, that sounds well and good, but how are you going to do it? If not you, then who? How? Theres way too much that you can't even begin to answer for this to actually be viable.
They took the bad loans, repackaged that bad debt and resold it to other people. You may have heard about it in the news.
here is a simple overview of the basics:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/mortgage-backed-security.htm
Haha, I love it.
That's a great example. It is not a zero sum game because instead of just witch-doctors, doctors exist. Instead of caves, houses exist. Instead of fucking sticks and rocks we have things, because it is not a zero sum game.
I mean this shit is sooooo super obvious.
If you think it's wholly on me to solve this on my own, then you've missed the point of such a system. I'm doing my part by putting these ideas out there. It's important that people who hear these ideas and agree with them spread them to others so that enough people out there understand it and support it that we can collective and collaboratively make such a system reality. I can't make this happen, the people as a whole have to want it to happen and then make it so.
Capitalism isn't broken, the system that tries to help it is. right now there's no free market in the US. What exists is a system where failure is socialized, Hence the bail outs. That's not capitalism but more socialism, in a capitalist state the banks would have been left to fend for themselves.
thats what Capitalism is, your risks are yours and no one else's.
The problem is Government Intervention.
So I guess you missed the big graph of people living longer all over the world?
That's cool. Medical care is a credence good and probably benefits from government control, if you have strong government institutions, but I suspect that gap is from fat Americans eating too many cheeseburgers. I'm fat, and it's silly to pretend my shortened lifespan is the fault of our economic system.
Oh man, thank you...
Since this thread is moving pretty quick today... you might have missed this:
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1458409#post1458409
There is no such thing as a free market. If you left businesses to their own devices, they would develop monopolies. The only way to prevent monopolies is to regulate them, but laws are just a response to an inability to solve a problem. You can't make people not steal, so you just make it illegal and punish those that steal. If you could get everyone to never steal, you wouldn't need to make theft illegal because nobody would be stealing.
Bail outs are socialism? Ha! That's why socialism is such a dirty word in America. Because people attribute government corruption with socialism. It's corruption plain and simple. The banks are in a capitalist state, they buy the government's power to prevent their failure, that's capitalism in its ugliest form.
Putting ideas out there/awareness has to be one of the most useless, over admired concept of the 21st century. Raising awareness and getting your opinion out there was a great concept when information was slow and a major hindrance to getting your message heard.
Today, anyone and everyone freely voices their opinions on the internet. Simply raising awareness or posting on an internet forum amounts to very little in modern society. You have to actually get out and do something about it, if all you're doing is sitting at your computer/couch posting on the internet to small niche groups of people who generally share the same opinions, but have little/no individual power to enact change, what have you accomplished?
Have you been out in the streets organizing for this OWS thing? Have you attended a single OWS/occupy anything meeting? At least these people are actually trying, instead of ranting endless on Polycount.
If you're not out doing it, who is? The masses of people you're recruiting to fulfill your agenda on polycount?
If there was a free market the banks wouldn't take that many risks, but during the clinton years the DE-regulation of banks, and letting banks gamble with invester's MONEY is the root of this! derivatives, and all the sort of loop holes that made wall street into a Casino.
Gambling with peoples money and investments is NOT capitalism.
If there was a free market their money would be what they would use to invest, not the money of the public.
That's not capitalism in it's ugliest form that's CORRUPTION in it's true form. Due to the passing of citizen's united. Which let's Corporations unlimited-ly fund elections.
How would you feel if i had a business, and that business failed and then you had to pay for the failure? and you're right THERE IS a corruption, When that kind of policy is shoved down hard working people's throats!
Bullshit. That's some random claim with no backing or evidence.
Socialism is when the community, or society, owns the means of production. This is a generic definition I found by a bullshit 2-second wiki search. It also fits with my pre-existing notion of socialism.
Society owning production, also means society takes a hit when there's a failure.
Rich folks gamble with financial instruments, under not-socialism (I don't want to use the C word here), they should just be allowed to fail. Under what we actually have, they got bailed out and then got bonus checks. Where did the bail-out money come from? From the people, you and me.
So... a risk didn't pan out, there was a failure, and society took the hit. Sounds EXACTLY like socialism to me. Only we socialize only the bad things, only the risk, and none of the rewards.
Do not gamble with people savings, homes or other loans that are the bed rock of our economy. The problem arose when certain people struck down the key provisions of the Glass Steagall Act which fixed the banking system after the last horrific collapse. Meaning investment banks and savings and loan banks could co mingle and concoct crazy types of investments built on what was thought of as stable assets. Which was fine, until they relaxed the standards on the loans and handed them out to anyone who had a pulse (or not).
In the past if they made a bad loan they ate it, so banks crawled up into your skull before giving you a loan. When they could pass off any bad loan to their newly created investment arm who could pass it onto someone else, they did and it fucked the entire system over.
Undoing what a few greedy politicians had done in 1999 should be priority 1, but sadly they've only managed to push around marginal reforms that don't do much of anything, and those guys (Dodd/Frank) routinely get lamb basted by their political doppelgangers for "imposing" harsh restrictions and strangling a free system that "works so perfectly" if only they could remove the regulations and restrictions.
and it's getting political so I'll stop... other wise I'll just start ranting about idiots who love to hug smokestacks instead of trees.
It's just simple theft. Legal theft in this case, but theft nonetheless.
You talk like I'm the only who follows these ideas. Do you think I came up with this on my own? No, these are ideas derived from many people whom feel the way I do. Before you can get people to act, you have make them aware there is a better choice.
I have a 3 month old child to care for. I'd love to join the ranks, but my son comes first, so I do what I can from here. Furthermore, there are other ways to support OWS when you don't have the time/money to contribute. Don't try to diminish the merit of my argument by accusing me of not being out there with the protestors. I could very well put the same question to you.
The problems pop up when people are allowed to gamble with other peoples assets and those people aren't aware its being gambled.
As in savings and loan banks, being able to shack up with risky investment firms to package bad loans into risky investments under the guise of sound investment. Because it came from an institution with a long history of surviving off of picking the right people to loan money to, it got a high rating. They where trading on their good name and not much more...
If they where separated again and banks had to survive off of people paying off their loans over a long period of time then things would be fine. The gamblers could burn through cash and no one would care but the gamblers.
Not disagreeing with any of that.
I'm just saying, it's simple theft. It's not some element that's inherent to capitalism, or socialism, or any ism really (except maybe corporatism or fascism).
You could easily put the same question to me. The difference here is i'm not sitting on my high horse, talking down to people, telling them how to live their lives or telling them what they should believe in.
I also do not have the audacity to sit around posting on the internet and act like that makes me better than someone else, or have delusions that I am actually making a difference.
I will freely admit that I am too lazy/don't care enough to go out into the streets and yell or whatever. But you're clearly the loudest most opinionated voice here, with the most extreme viewpoints. If you really feel as strongly about these issues as you do but you choose not to actually get out and do anything about it, to me that is just pathetic.
I am lazy and admittedly so, but atleast i'm honest with myself.
For someone so certain that their ideals are right and just, you certainly do not seem to put in much effort. If you're actually doing things than by all means, please share with the class. Ways that people can help OWS without actually participating physically would be appreciated by some.
There is no such thing as a free market. An unregulated market (which is a truly "free" market) will inevitably fall into monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies. With only a handful of companies dominating the market, they collude in a cartel fashion to control prices and bar any competitors from entering the market.
A regulated market, if properly implemented, can protect the public from predatory companies by enforcing fair competition. The ultimate goal would be to achieve perfect competition. This would reduce the barrier to entering the market, make it easier to get out and allow the public to drive market prices rather than companies trying to manipulate the public and the market. But this only works so long as the government can't be corrupted. This is not a free market either, but a regulated one.
A free market is an impossible fantasy because either the government regulates it or the most wealthy businesses control it (i.e. monopolies and cartels).
I don't think the method of government a society matters as long as its fair and operates for the greater good of the people it serves. What's more important is that they stick to it and work out mechanics and systems to fix it as it breaks. Constantly switching forms of government will lead to more disasters and more desperate situations.
Reform and progress might not be exciting or all that instantly gratifying for the ADHD world we live in, but its a much more stable system than "burn it all down, execute the power brokers" every 30 years. You end up with fucktards like:
Mao, executing intellectuals and "reeducating the masses".
Stalin, Same shit different country.
The Ayatollah running Iran.
Castro running cuba.
BLA BLA BLA...
These are people that had ideas, and on paper they seemed good but then went horrifically off track as they dealt with things they never thought of. It's like trying to build a ship out of pieces while floating around out at sea in the middle of a storm. You can't think, nothing works right and you make bad decisions just to survive. That is not a good and stable path for the majority of people on the planet.
We have a base, it might have a few rotten boards but at least we're on dry land where we have a chance to look it over and determine the best fix possible.
I'll use Cuba as an example. Despite all of its set backs in leadership and the embargo, it has stabilized and is improving slightly. Is it operating in the best interest of the people? Not quite but it shows signs of moving that way. Is that better than another bloody overthrow and another oppressive regime imposed by a different brutal dictator? Probably for now. Slow progress is probably better than a total reset.
But you do have the audacity to tell someone whom you know nothing about that he is lazy and in denial of it? Where do you get off? My extreme stance on the issue causes them to be without merit? Just because what I propose is radical, doesn't mean I'm wrong. What is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. What I propose may not be perfect and if there's a better one, I'll support that, But what we have now is a lot worse. I see quite a few people here arguing that the system is right or wrong, but I don't see much talk about how to make it better except from me and Ben. At least I'm trying to bring up different concepts for a better society, you're just dumping attitude on the people who have the least popular viewpoint. So my ideas are extreme. So what? It doesn't make them wrong nor does it give you merit to tear me apart.
Capitalism, like guns or even a video game when used properly does more good than harm. Making sure it operates appropriately so innocent people don't get hurt is the key.
Personally there needs to be some major reforms taking place in what business schools are teaching. This whole, fuck over anyone and everyone to make a quick buck needs to end before anyone talks about switching forms of government.
The only person missing anything is you attributing that graph to capitalism, when all the major medical advances of the modern age have happened with extreme subsidization by the government. Pharmaceuticals pour their money into advertising and lobbying, not R&D. Every single major medical advancement of the last 100 years had heavy, if not the majority or even entirety of it's funding coming from tax money (and mostly in universities).
That is not proof of capitalism improving the lives of everyone. That is proof that pooling resources as a society for the benefit of all is a boon. Further this with the fact that the more socialist a country's medical delivery plan is, the better it's metrics in terms of quality of care and lifespans, means that anything medical related is going to make capitalism look worse, not better.
I also like your gut opinion about why Americans have lower lifespans as if it's relevant. The reason Americans have lower average life spans despite numerous countries (including Iceland!) having similar obesity statistics is because of the lack of access healthcare. Period. Also you are ignoring the fact that Americans didn't decide because of some North American gene to eat only fattening food. The amount of corn syrup, preservatives, hormones, and lack of healthy alternatives in urban areas is directly related to the profit motive in the food industry.
Seriously, it's like every time you open your mouth you prove more of my points, not yours.
Actually in this case he is exactly right. The US financial system has privatized profits and socialized losses. It's basically all of the flaws of capitalism and socialism rolled into one.
Socialism does not rely on central planning (that means government). You are thinking of communism. Why you keep contributing with an authoritative tone when you are just plain wrong on so many things is an enigma.
Also this ignores the fact that the word "government" is not all encompassing or even a useful term unless you've demonized it. Iceland has a government, but it's extremely responsive to the people. That might be a factor of size, or that no industry has been able to grow large enough to corrupt the system yet because of how poor it was in the past, but this idea that "government" will always be this monolithic entity that never answers to the will of the people is a fallacy.
People don't want to replace capitalism with socialism but keep the current corrupt governments, they want to also replace the government with a group of people directly accountable, in a system that doesn't allow a few people to accumulate enough wealth to corrupt the system through bribes and campaign contributions. The idea of having some elected officials representing you is not something to be afraid of in all cases. I know I sure don't have enough education to do any central planning for education or social services or any of those important government provided services, but I do believe in a system without such easy corruption that people concerned with actually solving these problems could do a lot better job than the current politicians do.
That's because some people here (myself included) are trying to say that we don't have capitalism. Others, like you, insist that we do have capitalism and that it's shit. Nobody is arguing that what we have now is shit. Just that it's not capitalism. So when we bring up examples of how shitty it is, you automatically associate that with capitalism. That's why it's proving your points. It's only doing that in your mind though.
I swear, this whole thread is nothing but a war of definitions. Can hardly find anything here that people genuinely disagree on. It's all who has the more correct definition, and people misinterpreting things because they gloss over someone's post instead of actually reading it fully.
I'm not going to paint any of these examples of flawless saints, but does any american in here really think they got an accurate education on any of these leaders or their forms of government? Mao and Stalin had a ton of flaws and committed outright war crimes, but they also vastly improved other metrics in terms of life spans, access to education and medical care, transportation etc.
The version of world history taught in american schools if full of outright cartoon characters, especially when combined with hollywood/comics/games which have no reason for accuracy and every reason for easy black&white villains when it comes to any system other than America brand Capitalism (tm).
I went to the Lenin museum in Finland, and while I'm sure they like to paint a rosy photo of him (he is responsible for granting Finland's sovereignty from under Russia), the difference between the idea of Lenin as taught by my Virginia education, and the reality of his life and accomplishments was simply staggering.
Also it's funny you should mention Cuba.... Cubans have higher average lifespans, lower infant mortality, and a higher literacy rate than Americans. Despite being under embargo by a nearby world super power for decades. It's not a perfect system, but it's nowhere near as bad as most people probably think it is. I didn't even know any facts about Cuba before a couple of years ago, but I "knew" it was "bad" Fidel=Bad, cuba=bad. Why is that? propaganda, plain and simple.
Alright, does "corporatism" strike you better? hehe strike you...
In both Socialism and Capitalism (and even libertarianism) you exchange some kind of money unit for goods. That's identical in all systems, so it's not relevant to the debate. The primary difference between socialism and capitalism, is that instead of profits being shared equally between all workers based on effort, a large portion of the profits are being kept by a select few based on arbitrary laws defining who "deserves" the profit.
That system of a few people keeping the majority of the profits a company generates, is what we have in America. For sure. Now, since it has been like that for decades, they have used this accumulation of wealth to pervert many aspects of the larger market so that losses are not faced by themselves, but this does not make it "not capitalism". Capitalism does not rely on people facing consequences when they make mistakes, that is the supposed outcome in a libertarian free market. Capitalism can totally exist with heavy state support of their monopolies and practices, it's exactly what is happening now.
It's a chicken and egg system. You are implying that this weirdo government/finance/business relationship we have right now some how materialized out of the ether, and I am saying it exists how it does *because* of capitalism allowing the holders of wealth to write the system exactly to benefit themselves.
You can argue that isn't the definition of capitalism or terms or whatever, but this is the system we have now. The few getting all the wealth. AND! coincidentally, that's exactly what the protests are about, the 1% having it all, and the 99% being left behind.
Not workers, everyone. The whole of society. The loss was taken by society in general, hence Socialism...
It does. Yes.
UGH!... we sound like parrots repeating these things. lol
@ GREEVAR: THANK YOU! thats the problem!
Chopper view of a march at yesterday's general strike in Oakland:
http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/raw-video-newschopper-2-footage-of-huge-crowd/vD4mx/
Some "anarchists" fucking things up by vandalising property.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86XhCwHhwn8&feature=youtu.be
I feel (from various things in the video) that they were not part of the movement. Looks like plants to me. You have to know this messes up the message of the movement, right?
I hear others referring to them as "Black Bloc" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bloc
Strange stuff...
Again you go with those weird definitions. We both believe the same thing it seems. That the distribution should be based on effort, and it should be equal. We both realize that's not the way it is today.
You say that it would be more that way under socialism, and capitalism is what made it what it is today.
I say that it would be more that way under a free-market, and that socialism is what made it what it is today.
The only reason it's backwards is because we're working off of different definitions. Talk about propaganda... seems like everyone has been washed to use conflicting definitions. But we all still mean the same thing.
True.
Again, weird definitions. (Free-market) Capitalism does in fact rely on people facing consequences. It's an inherent part of the system. Put plainly, how will there be bailouts without the government there to do the bailing out?
Isn't that like the ultimate socialist argument? That there needs to be a social safety-net? Free-market people will then point out that the safety net will be used by bigwigs to get bailouts.
Again, definitions. My definition of free-market capitalism includes people biting it when they fuck up. Yours doesn't, hence the disagreement. But in substance, we're saying the same thing.
No, it materialized out of people's desire to socialize things. First it was the military. Gotta unite to fight against [insert evil here] (usually the Germans it seems). Then it was out of fear of banking, so they created national banks. Then it was out of a perceived desire for welfare, in comes Social Security, Medicare and all those programs.
With all those programs comes taxation. It's no coincidence that 1913 saw both the introduction of the Federal Reserve and the IRS. And SS and Medicare soon followed.
The propaganda always seem to go in the favor of socialism, and taking care of people. That's how they establish those bureaucracies. Nobody argued with the New Deal, because it was for the greater good of society. Nobody argued against the Military Industrial Complex, because we had to fight to "Make the world safe for Democracy".
It always stems from people's desire to socialize things.
Then once the instruments are in place, the higher-ups abuse them in their own favor. Military contracts, bribing congressmen, the whole shebang. It's all about opening streams of income from the lower class to the upper class. I'm sorry, but social programs accomplish exactly that. I know that's not what they're meant for. But that's what they do.
Again, not arguing against any of that. You're absolutely right. Which is why I'm getting tired of arguing all these definitions. We agree!
I regularly post news articles on Facebook and can guarantee that 70% of my friends list doesn't even know about the movement.
How do you stop a movement? You don't let people know it is happening.
Getting information out there isn't a concept, it's an action. One person reads an article I posted. That person shares it on facebook, their friends share it, and then they all talk about it in person as well.
Why are you getting mad that Greevar has different views than you....?
A society that uses currency will always have inequality. A society that uses currency will always, eventually, either destroy itself or go through massive, massive reform.
We have the resources to do away with currency, and people smart enough on this rock to make it happen.
Do you even understand what needs to be done in the next 6 months to stop the US from going bankrupt?? Do you actually have ANY understanding as to how fucked the US is if we keep doing things the way we currently are?
I actually know people who are stocking up on survival supplies and learning new survival skills, wiring generators to their house with a hole to exhaust outside, completely rational people who have even served in the military who are beginning to stockpile foods that last for a long time.
Do you have ANY idea how close to the tipping point we are if nothing is done?
Government. By the people, FOR the people.
However the education I got on Mao and the others squares with what is on Wikipeida now. Which I'm sure is slanted and biased but does cover a lot of their accomplishments. I did grow up in a pretty liberal state and at the time the public education system tried to present all sides, instead of just beltway propaganda.
A lot of the education and medical advancements would have gone into place regardless of whoever was in power. Sure they implemented them and tried to broaden the case of education and healthcare but those where global advancements, much in the way farming techniques don't really belong to one country but get spread around because everyone recognizes the benefit for everyone. In most cases the advancements also came at huge costs in lives and brutal suppression. Mostly as a result of how they rose to power which flavored how they ran their government.
Under Mao, there was no such thing as community decent, or intellectualism for that mater. What he said went, or you did. That still flavors the Chinese government of today, heavily. The Chinese people want a more open and transparent government but they don't want to overthrow it like Mao did, which is probably for the best.
I brought up Cuba because in the last few years and even over the last week a lot has happened to give small slivers of freedom back to the Cuban people.
Today Cubans are allowed to buy and sell real estate.
Last week the government gave back the right to sell and buy used cars.
Cars still are treated like family and cost 20x more than in any other country in the world but at least the people don't have to be afraid of horrific retribution for selling their car on the black market.
Since Fidel stepped down a lot more freedoms have been granted, like public broadcasting has opened up slightly, still pretty far from a free and open society.
Hugo Chavez went to Cuba... to be treated for cancer. While I think Chavez is running his country into the ground that's still huge that a president of any country would choose to go to Cuba for treatment. Not as backwater as the US government would have you believe.
So with all that said, is the system that Fidel set up prefect and the way every country should be run? I don't think so, not by a long shot I would hate living under the system they have now. But with enough time and enough work, it like China could become something stable, open and fairly democratic while still holding onto their own identity. If you look at how far places like Cuba and China have come in the last 50 years and how far they have to go, I can adjust my expectations for change in the US a tiny bit. People who thought that Obama was going to solve the worlds problems overnight should be applauded for their optimism, mocked for their unrealistic expectations and probably flogged for thinking they didn't have to do anything to change things.
Governments only change so long as there is constant unrelenting pressure applied which is the only way to keep them accountable. So the idea that "everything will be fine if we just adopt a new system" is just as dangerous as not doing anything. If you look at places like Cuba and China and the good they have done for their people and look at what it took to bring about those changes (violent overthrow) then we should work to make sure that doesn't need to happen. Much in the same way you say Unions wouldn't need to exist if employers treated their employees fairly. Governments wouldn't need to be overthrown if they did their job properly, listened to their people and did what was right.
If the Egyptians, Tunisians and Libyans aren't vigilante their chance at a true government that works for the people will be co-opted by power hungry mad men, again...
I don't think this is a problem with capitalism itself. I don't think this being a "global" thing is proof that it is, I think it's rather proof that it isn't. The world has always worked in patterns, it's simple history. The more crowded the world gets, the more connected people are, the more you'll see it with anything, ever. Things aren't all "failing" at the same time, people are simply reacting all at the same time, because that's what people do.
Additionally, while I'm glad to see people taking an interest as a whole, I'm also bothered by the mentality that people who aren't out there making lots of noise are somehow not helping, or are being "lazy". While the people in the streets are surely going to get noticed, the real improvement is going to happen because of a few people who talk rather than yell, who show alternatives rather than simply make demands or express how unhappy they are. In reality, it probably will be the people sitting at their desks.
In my eyes, one person living off the grid - showing people that there are alternatives, that's worth 100 people with picket signs.
Join an indie group that has that idea.
The point at question was whether the economy was a zero sum situation. I guess you forgot that, or don't know what "zero sum" means (even though you brought it up)?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/02/age_and_leadership
It's also another reason why a lot of old white duffers don't like Obama, he's a lot younger than they are and cleaning up a mess they created.
I have a degree in economics. Went to numerous economic conferences. I have run multiple businesses. My current company innovated in video game distribution by coming up with the Humble Indie Bundle.
You spend more time saying "you're wrong" and then changing the subject than you do addressing any real points.
FWIW. From what I understand. That graph is based on averages. Infant mortality has reduced over the years. Its not so much people are living that much longer. Its just that more people are existing longer. (Yes I know that sounds the same...)
I wish I could give some data on this, but not sure were to look.
P.S. Ninja, Economics? You do accounting by chance?
You are right about the data.
So here is the point: utility comes out of nowhere and is created using junk. The reason infant mortality is going down is in part because we took some random sticks and made houses. We invented the wheel. We harnessed the power of fire. No person at all is worse off from us having the wheel.
Clearly people don't want their babies to die, and so using this metric we can see at least in that way people's lives have gotten better and better as a whole for everyone on average.
A zero sum game is a game in which for every winner there is a person who loses to an equal extent. Clearly the economy is not a zero sum game.
P.S. @Oxy
Oh man, I hate accounting. Wolfire actually has 2 economists. John got his degree from Yale while mine is from University of Oklahoma, and so he has all the fun of doing our accounting
Fire Bernanke? Fire the whole Federal Reserve Bank! Revoke their charter! Make it solely the power of the US Treasury to issue currency and make it illegal for anyone else to do so. That's the first step to solving this. Also, throw everyone involved in the Fed in jail for fraud.