This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
A 14 Year Old Explains Why Socialism Fails
Via Shrey's Finance blog (reportedly a 14 year old Brit's thoughts),
Socialism is one of the biggest breakout economic ideologies of the 20th century. Although the UK general election was won by capitalists, socialism has more advocates than ever before, as a growing contingent are proposing a redistribution of wealth. You just need to look at the 250,000 people who protested on Saturday against the Conservatives’ cuts; only for them to announce £12 billion of welfare cuts a short time later. It is easy to see from this that socialism is becoming increasingly popular in modern society as more and more people are becoming aware of the perceived inequality that exists between the affluent 1% and the rest. However, I am of the opinion that socialism cannot work in modern society, or any society, for that matter, and my reasons are below.
Firstly, socialism does not reward hard work. Say, for example, that Raj works twice as hard as Mark. Surely Raj should be entitled to twice the pay that Mark gets. However, they both get the same. Over time, Raj will grow wise to the unfairness which is blighting his life, and he will work the same amount as Mark, as, after all, they do not get proportional rewards for their labour. This creates a culture of entitlement where everyone feels as though they need rewards for minimal, or no, work. This undermines the basic human principle of “work hard, reap rewards”, and means that laziness is promoted, which can only start a chain reaction towards a gradually more irresponsible society. This means that even the young children, growing up, know that whatever they do, they will just earn the same as someone else and so do not need to work hard, as there is no hope of a large reward, so work ethics stagnate.
Moreover, socialism will also undermine innovation. The great innovators of society, such as Bill Gates, are, mostly, the ones who become members of the 1%. This shows that innovation and producing products which people actually want to buy reap gigantic financial rewards, which is part of the reason that innovation is at an all time high these days. If innovation is not so heavily rewarded through the Socialist “redistribution of wealth”, people will not want to innovate anymore, as they are getting the exact same rewards as the non-innovators, the people who, frankly, add nothing to society. This kills innovation as the rewards are going equally to everyone, in effect, rewarding the non-producers and punishing the producers. It is like, as I read on another website, taking the average of a class and giving everyone in the class the class average. Of course, the worse students in the class would jump at this proposition, however the top students would not be so joyful. This is exactly what socialism stands for, except on a larger scale.
Finally, socialism, contrary to popular belief, undermines the basic moral values of a person and promotes instant gratification. As people, after some years in a socialist society, will be predisposed to getting something for nothing almost instantaneously, they will not want to slog to get what they want and instead will become almost like a small child to his parents, in that they want everything very quickly, having done almost no work to actually achieve it. Now take the example of the small child, and just think that even adults are subscribing to this ideology! This behaviour is toxic in a modern society and will slowly kill the hard working, positive nature that characterised the American Dream. To an extent, we are already seeing this with the Obama administration, with the American public slowly becoming disaffected a-la Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye. Why should they work if they can get everything from the state?
Herein lies the problem with socialism, in that the bad eggs are rewarded and the good eggs are punished. Is this the kind of society we would like to promote? I think not.
»
- 69280 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
CPS is already on the way
British royal family are not socialists.
no, just parasites
Like the Rothschilds, Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein to name a few. Pretty sure they are not socialists either. Whoever wrote this identified what is wrong with fascism, not socialism.
Fascism is socialism, the Rothschilds, Blankfein & Dimon are living proof.
No, they are very different concepts. Among other things, socialism involves the state, by force, placing the means of production (factories) in the hands of the workers. Last time I checked, that basic component of socialism does not exist in any Western society. Western society has elements of socialism such as welfare, but it is predominently a fascist system. I'm fine with a debate about what's wrong with welfare, but simply labeling something you don't like as "socialism" because Americans have been programmed since birth to believe socialism is inherently evil, is counterproductive. I do get your point, though, that fascism is somewhat akin to socialism for the rich. But that couldn't be further from the point of this article.
The goal of socialism is communism.
-Lenin
Give 'em an inch....
-TeamDepends
Which is kind of ironic, because in all of the socialist paradises of the 20th C (Union of Socialist Republics, Cuba, etc.), you had to be a member of the communist party.
So, is Fidel Castro a communist (he blongs to the party), but he keeps on saying Viva el socialismo, Hay que salvar el socialismo.
I think statist a-hole who wants to control your life covers both bases pretty well. This applies to fascists, too (everything in the state, nothing outside the state. -Musolini)
Your communist does not care about truth or facts, only the party line and donkeys.
Castro's Cuba is a pretty good example of communism. Scandavia is a good example of a democratic socialist system, with the socialism part fairly watered down but still a lot closer to the true definition than any Western nation.
Welcome to Stockholm ladies, DO NOT walk around after dark unless you are packing heat. Oh wait, you can't do that.
@LTER:
"...socialism involves the state, by force, placing the means of production (factories) in the hands of the workers"
A definition of socialism? Where did that come from? Dictionary? Textbook?
Scandinavia isn't part of the Western world? Are they redistributing geography at this point or what?
I always think of Scandinavia as Northern European, which I distinguish from Western nations such as England, France, Spain, the US, etc., but I'm sure you're right that it is considered part of the "West" if we're talking about East versus West.
Socialism is a 19th century product. I understand you equating socialism/communism with the origin of the Soviet empire in 1917 and therefore the 20th century; however, the idea very much predates 20th century thought. This can be forgiven, but I highly recommend you read the text before writing further. One serious question, if you are against socialism/communism then why would you publish your 7 June 2015 post entitled “Why the USA needs Robert Reich as Secretary of the Treasury?” Beyond damaging your credibility, you do know Reich supports the redistribution of wealth through the tax system to support free education, not unlike socialism/communism, don’t you? Marx/Engles’ second plank of their manifesto is a heavy progressive or graduated tax, and their 10th plank is free education. I can assure you, Reich has not changed his mind: http://robertreich.org.
Marx/Engles argued that ‘political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.’
The problem is thinking in old paradigms. Within 30 yrs., a vast majority of all labor will be robotized. There will be no work, as we have known it, for most people. Even intellectual capital will be replaced, in time, by AI. Assuming we make it that far and can control the machines, socialism will be inevitable. Perhaps with the grind of daily work eliminated, more time could be spent in "higher" pursuits and I don't mean chemical ones, although that is more likely than not.
These past paradigms are quickly becoming irrelevant. We are arguing over something which will be completely archaic in a short time. Shit is moving at warp speed!
Of course that only a 14 years old brain washed idiot can equal socialism with getting goodies for free without work - typical scarecrow technique used by the neo-fascists. Only retards who don;t even care to read the philosophy of socialism or didn't live for one day the statist fascism masked under the denomination of socialism or malevolent political agitators would promote such non-sense - latest most likely, be aware.
YOU...
love the koolaid.
creepy.
u - just a bisonian feed @ mckaka
I know, I know azzoooleee, truth hurtzzz the azz like too much jalapeno ...
Truth knows not only how to spell but how to reason too.
for nazi grammar'iests forms matter more then content so yahoo, listen to word bisonia 'cause KK ass melted ur nanometric sized brains
https://youtu.be/sSujY05C-2s
Socialism rocks. I'll take my free dental and FEMA trailer any day of the week. Word to your mother.
Socialism rocks. I'll take my free dental and FEMA trailer any day of the week. Word to your mother.
No shit.
I think luc blew out his CPU or something.
hehehe - truth hurts bisonians :) ...
State sponsored socialism dates at least back to Prussia mid-19th c. Before that there were the "pilgrims" and their experiments at starvation.
Bear - it takes a willingly educated brain to know, understand in their original intent and develop further ideas & actions based on this factual knowledge accordingly to someone's perception of social integration which also depends on someone's level of socio/psychopathic issues. In an era dominated by president blowjobs, attention to illiterate celebrities trending selfishness & public sex instead of common social problems - it makes me wonder if in fact the Dark Lords are maybe right, with cattle - socialism is never going to work, and the only way to get rid of the cattle is a massive reset, die-off.
Literally everything that matters is east of the US.
Geography
The 180th meridian or anti-meridian is 180 degrees east and west of the primer meridian. East extends prograde from the prime and retrograde is west. They meet at the anti which forms the dateline geographically as we measured it on a calender. Relevant currently because the days are getting longer so leap second was today but thats the moons doing and another topic. Also because a Greek was one of the first on record to deal with the earths rotation. Now this line runs just east an island of Alaska. Therefore the US is as west as you can get and Russia as east. There are also some pacific islands but whatever.
Its all relative really, now even science can be changed to seek whatever goal they see fit so now the calender line is not straight at all its just a social construct like basically everything else these days. You throw politics in there and what is east west up down black white boy girl can change on a daily or hourly basis.
East v. West is the 2nd most irrational construct (gummint being THE most irrational) of human doings.
East or west are relative terms. I could be east and west of you simultaneously.
"The goal of socialism is communism. -Lenin"
Exactly. Once a country starts down the socialisim/communisim road it can't turn back and totalitarianism will be the end result. Until revolution. Even then who knows what the outcome might be.
Socialism is 'soft' communism, which with time and control, becomes 'authentic communism'.
It does exist, google "Cooperatives"
Just a couple quotes so I don't clog up the "communal" thread...lol:
"Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private proprerty" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.
(Ernst Huber, Nazi party spokesman; National Socialism, prepared by Raymond E. Murphy, et al; quoting Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939))
To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.
(Nazi head of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels; In Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Farrar, 1941), pg. 233.)
I won't be sacrificing my individualism to anyone, anytime, ever ;-)
But really, how different is our system?
We pretend to have Private property. Fact is all property belongs to the state, and I lease my plot from them on a yearly basis. Instead of this payment being called "Rent" it's called "property taxes"
If I don't pay my property taxes, they first lien, then sieze my priavte property.
If the "ccommunity" comes up witha "better" use of my "private" property, like they want to build a stupid stadium or some such, they simply kick me off of my "private property" and pay me some token sum.
Exactly right, they've been bangin away at us since the late 1800's.
And one more for the "unbelievers"...lol, about two minutes in "...who commits themselves to this socialist state..." - Adolph Hitler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szAuzBs86iI
I hate fucking socialists, of all kinds. Rich, poor, black or white...all.
Do you really need to resort to using Adolph Hitler in order to make your point? Hitler was no socialist. He was a fascist autocrat. What he called himself as a matter of propaganda to sell himself to his population has no meaning in a rational debate about pure capitalism versus capitalism mixed with elements of socialism such as using taxes to build roads and schools. America has become fundamentally fascist, not socialist. The fascists who run things use elements of socialism to keep the serfs in check. That is an entirely different problem than blaming socialism for what ills America.
Hitler was not a National Socialist. You heard it here first.
Na·zi nounhistorical noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
I didn't know that the labels politicians placed upon their parties were accurate. I guess all those dictators who called themselves presidents were actually not dictators. And the German Democratic Republic, the prior communist dictatorship East Germany, was actually a democratic republic. I could go on and on.
So it hasn't occurred to you that every single politician who has offered you a socialist Utopia is lying to you?
Unlike the title of a position you can actually see what they do. They National Socialist were every bit socialist, statist, collectivist, autocratic governments. You can judge them on their action and even the titles they like and choose. When we see nations like "The Peoples' Republic of ..." we know that it actually means "The Government's Complete Control of ..." said nation.
It is really not difficult. It is just that the Left wants to move some bad guy autocrats to the right and you cannot. The proper right is Libertarians or (real) anarchists. You cannot have autocratic oppressive states by definition.
You and your logic, facts, and rational discourse... you think you're so smart. You don't fit in here. I like it.
Another member of The Church of Hitler Wasn't a Nazi.
It's only fair.
"An adhesive strip bandage is not a bandaid! A bandaid is an adhesive strip bandage! Get it straight! They're obviously completely different! dammit!"
Workers of the world unite!
Whatever....
need I say it... /sarc
You done shuffling deck chairs on the titanic yet?
Hitler nationalized several industries. Volkswagon anyone? There is no fucking fundamental difference between Fascism and Socialism. Both are equally oppressive to the individual. By your own neither system ever exists without the other. Of course the Fascist must give in to socialist programs. Socialist programs (like roads, schools, and welfare) are meant to drive demand for things sold by....corporations.
Nmewn, thanks for the link. Wow, what an orator. What scares me is when this thing does finally blow up that tptb find a guy such as this or an evil MLK. Wow. Scary.
How do you recognize it? I know a lot of you will pupu it but the only thing I have found is God. Power leaves me cold, as does money, as does sex, as do friends. I do still trust family fully knowing that they will let me down as well. You may say that it is just my axons and dendrites craving for something to hold onto, or it is in my DNA, but as my DNA driven hammerhead thumbs try to type on this tiny screen I know it is more than that. I don't believe, I know. I have found that I truly can't know much but I do know one thing. Not preachin, just sayin that there will not be many to trust.
Hey look up tonight in the western sky. Venus and Jupiter are almost right on top of each other.
Thanks again Nmewn.
Because we are armed. Any other questions?
Your first private property is your body. First time ever, guaranteed by the Constitution. Draft what?!
I'm old enough that the shine is off the apple. When I throw down, it will be a sacrifice for a greater gain. Turn off the TV and get busy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szAuzBs86iI
The Jews controlled the banks in Germany just like they control the banks today. The banks used interest and inflation to rob the people of their property, which led to the rise of National Sozialism in Germany, which was about RESPONSIBLE use of community resources. Since the currency was a common resource, the bankers (Shalom!) that controlled money IRRESPONSIBLY had to be rooted out.
Today the banks are using interest, and the bankers are using theft through the fractional reserve fiat system, to rob people of their property. Discrimatorty interest rates (Wouldn't it be nice if we could all borrow at 0% from the fed?), access to capital, and thieving bankers (Shalom!) are squeezing the people too hard again, right into slavery.
But will Bernay's system of PR and destraction succeed in keeping them there? Only time will tell...
Communism is where the workers own the means of production. Socialism is where the state owns the means of production and capitalism is when there is private ownership of production.
Correct. Thank you. This is why Obama, for all his flaws, is neither a Socialist nor a Communist.
The extreme form of capitalism is when corporations own the means of production and the government. That is called "Fascism," and that is where the policies Obama has fostered lead, no matter what he thinks or says.
In the real world, distinctions between communism, socialism and fascism (to name but a few) appear to be meaningless. Human nature is such that all of these systems lead to a coterie of oligarchs controlling the vast majority of the people. Call it the politburo, the Party, TPTB, whatever; some people are driven to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of others, and those who just want to live their lives and be left alone are eventually swallowed up by these aggressors. So while in theory there may be differences between these -isms, in practice they all lead to the same condition. Why worry about these distinctions without differences?
Because everyone has their favorite ideology that they will defend in theory because in its pure form it is perfected. Of course the reason WHY these ideological forms are never perfect is because all of them are used as a means to aggregate power and corruption. Some, like socialism and communism, are simply more efficient at it than free market capitalism, but ultimately they all become corrupted. While socialists will claim what we see occurring around the world IS NOT socialism because the state does not "own" the means of production, they willing ignore the fact that there are no, none, ZERO businesses that are not ultimately controlled by government at some level, and all becoming more so. So does it really matter if business is owned by government or simply co trolled by government? A distinction without a difference? Further government is our "silent" partner in that they assume NO responsibility in the performance or results of our business (nor anything they happen to produce) yet claim a considerable portion of the proceeds, costs which ultimately are borne by the customer.
Additionally socialists choose to completely ignore wealth redistribution which is another considerable and important plank of socialism/communism.
Regardless, the issue is power and corruption, and what political economic system best facilitates it. Fascism IS corruption, so it is an adjective to other systems indicating such. Embrace socialism or communism or any other ism, but none will save us, as we are the problem. Humans will always attempt to corrupt any system and as was commented upon the signing of our constitution, it is only fit for a moral society. We ain't got that.
Funny, I've been arguing with my wife about this. I believe humans are inherently good. She believes the opposite. After reading your post, I fear she may be right.
Even if we we're all ubermensch, most free market capitalists (ie. Rothbardians, Austrians and the rest of the non-geo libertarians) ignore that without land there can be no opportunity. There is enough willful ignorance for the sake of idelogical purity to go around on all sides.
I like one of your subpoints, Oldwood.
The old school socialists like Stalin and Castro seized companies and property and gave control to the State. The modern socialist is a bit wiser because people are wary of those types of socialists and you have to admit it did not work very well..at all, actually. Now, you no longer need to seize property for the benefit of the comrades. You simply write infinite regulations and you take your cut with tax policy. In the USA, you assert the 10th Amendment gives government unlimited control of the entire economy and therefore all of life. No other amendments are necessary.
So, the modern socialist can set the price and terms of labor, contracts, products, import, export, interest rates, and even performance. You do it with millions of pages of rules, certifications, licenses, fees, permits, filings, reviews, approvals, labeling, inspections, authorizations and taxes. There is no real meaningful control of property or trade, at least none that is out of your reach or authorization.You cannot even move around without governement documents any more.
Even though I deeply despise socialist-leftists, this is so beautiful, brilliant and beyond the understanding of the E-Network crowd that it brings actual tears to my eyes.
It goes a step further, too. If there is some "market failure" (an economic impossibility) or something goes wrong economically you actually blame the companies, the business leaders or actually, freedom itself. This gives more not less impetus to government intervention. The tentacles will grow further and the lemmings will nod their heads in unison to the increased intervention.They will applaud you (the government) as you destroy the economy and their own liberties.
The modern socialist game is far more sophisticated...but the end will be the same.
see above post about band-aids.
yeah, i wrote it.
As a Cuban borned in the late 5o's and now exiled in the USSA,, I see it differently..
Communism is a religion, that employs the socialist economic model to keep the people in check...
A capitalist economy produces consurmer goods.(Has factories). Could be under the freemarket, socialist, or, facist model..
Free market system allows private ownweship of production and transfer of goods and services..
Socialism is a economic model where the few in power, nested in the government, control the means of production, and no real private ownership exists.
Facism is an economic model where the few in power, nested outside of the government, control the government and control the means of production, and quasi private ownership could exist..
Most countries today employ a mix of the above systems..
I could quibble about some of the finer points but you have it right in the main.
It would be best to lump fascism, socialism and even Communism all under the "statist" label. In all of these ideolgoies the State is supreme and has the power to rule, regulate, favor and punish in all areas. No property or contract is fully safe if the State decides you are worthy of it's attention.
Being from S. Florida originally I appreciate the vehement anti-socialist sentiments of the Cuban community, at least the older ones.
Good effort at trying to educate about the difference. The problem with capitalism is that you out of other people's capital to steal.
Preach it, comrade and get my check in the mail ASAP. It's so good to finally find someone who understands that his paycheck actually belongs to me.
It's all about production where the product is the individual human being.
Whether it's the controlling or owning of the product and its inherent freedoms the difference is moot. Leasehold?...Freehold?....Fascism?...Communism?
The distinction is a nuance of the flavors of feudalism where ultimately it is irrelevant because the individual [and his or her potential (capital)] ceases to exist.
Among other things, socialism involves the state, by force, placing the means of production (factories) in the hands of the workers. Last time I checked, that basic component of socialism does not exist in any Western society.
+++++++++++++++++++++
You just failed to look in depth.
Western Europe has many requirements for agreements with woth workers before corporations can take many actions. US has labor relations laws that restrict management actions without worker agreement. GM was driven to bankruptcy by labor unions.
Fascism, socialism, communism. They're all authoritarian systems implemented by central planners. They all promise utopia and deliver dystopia.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONGWRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
SOCIALISM IS WRONG CUZ MARX WAS WRONG.... AND HE REPORTLY HAD LOUSY HYGEINE (KINDA LIKE TODAY'S SOCIALISTS
http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/07/debtors-and-savers.html
Goddamit....Fascism is just socialism with different fucking labels for inept buraucracies. In fascism, the bureau is replaced with the corporation. There is no fucking difference other than the labels and the millions murdered.
The end fucking result is the same. A few oligarchs end up with all the fucking wealth.
Your distinction had some vitality to it in the 1930s when the Soviets did indeed own the means of production. Germany's dispensing with direct ownership involved control by indirection. The secret police played prominent roles both places so, all told, it was totalitarian either places. Fascism was probably economically superior because bureaucrats didn't waste time trying to assign prices to and quotas for pencils, aspirin, coal, beer, and oranges.
Both approaches were evil for distortion of the economy (and attendant waste) and for what they allowed unopposable leaders to do. Today, socialism is adequately understood as involving massive interference in the market economy, the same waste and distortion (e.g., carbon credits, Solyndra, social engineering, race pandering, open borders, social destruction), the same aggrandizement of the political class, and the same disdain for the wishes of the subject peoples.
Socialist today know it's unnecessary to own the MOP or to strong arm industrialists. Our crony capitalism is the perfect, state-of-the-art flowering of socialist thought and experiment. It's the perfect storm of dishonesty, exploitation, lies, and oppression and, as lunatic Sweden demonstrates, state madness and Orwellian bullshit are by no means things of the past. Arithmetic and the necessary lying will bring it all down
yes, the house is roaring on fire, and you want to discuss if the fire alarm is working or not.
grab the thesaurus, and keep going......
I don’t think there has ever been a better explanation of the importance of incentivising self governance and hard work than in this example – EURO countries should take heed.
From a post on another site by 'Lou cipher':
A US economics professor made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (Substituting grades for money - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied 'hard' were upset and the students who studied 'little' were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied 'even less' and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied 'little'.
The second test average was a 'D'. No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that "socialism" would also ultimately 'fail' because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that!
Remember this at the next election.
Here are 5 excellent sentences that sum up why the EU will fail.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
"1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation."
---I have a response. 1. If all the money is concentrated at the top, the velocity of money slows down. People do not have access to that money no matter how hard they work. So they are not starting with a "B", they are starting with a D-. If they work their butts off, they may obtain a C. Moreover, You can legislate the poor into prosperity by giving them oppotunities. An example is you can have this $600 a month money if you spend it on local businesses that are privately owned (otherwise, the money will be spent at Walmart and go straight back to the weathly, stock market, or gambling on derivatives).
2. No, most of the money was gained by the ultra rich was without having to work for, it was generally an investment and gained from the work of the poor and middle class. You are citing classic Keynesian economic propoganda. Money isn't a finite source right now so it is not limited. Every time there is a loan it is money created from nothing which causes inflation.
3. You mean the government taking money from the people via taxes and giving it to banks to "save the economy" by maybe lending out some with interest rates for profit and gambling the rest on derivatives for THEIR OWN short term gain? You have this in reverse. THe money has increasingly gone from the bottom to the top since the 70's. This is not from people not working, it is from people not being compensated for profits earned.
4. You can multiply wealth by dividing it. See velocity of money. THe more money changes hands the better off society is. If you give lower to middle class money it is spent. If you give money to rich, it is in the stock market and gambled on dervatives.
5. The rich don't have to work cause they have enough money to do whatever they want and think they are superior in intellect and have confirmation bias creating bs like this flawed economic outlook.
I must admit your rebuttal does not make sense to me. (could be me)
You talk of the velocity of money as if it was a thing, that sounds like the broken window fallacy.
in rebuttal two you say that money isn't finite yet you talk of it being concentrated in rebutal 1?
people spending money they don't have to buy things they don't need is not the answer to the question of capitalism
He starts off OK but then reverts to "some powerful bureaucrats have the right and moral obligation to give what you earned to someone else for your own good." His theme song should be Will Get Fooled Again.
You're correct to question his view on redistribution of wealth and the velocity of money. When money is redistributed to those who haven't earned the money it will most likely be malinvested thereby decreasing productivity. Money given freely to those who do not produce but only consume leads to a decrease in available goods and services which makes everyone poorer.
Velocity of money slows down when concentrated at the top as seen in capitalism. They sit on it and do not spend it, or it is malinvested to non-productive asset in an attempt to make more money. Bill gates lost over a billion in one day from yesterdays stock market. That didn't go to his employees! Thus it isn't changing hands for products or productivity (money hoarding).
Money is not finite, it is fiat. They print it from paper. It was a response from a previous comment that "money is finite" and must be worked for or taken from one to be given to another. If it must be worked for, then why does the .01% have 60% of the money or whatever it is? Seems like it is taken from the worker and given to the rich, not taken from the rich and given to the poor which was his false intended comment. The "finite" comment of money is disproven by fractional reserve banking, which adversely affects the lower and middle class, not the rich. So we have two things screwing us, the fractional reserve infinite money "printing" (most is now digital) through loans and that is compounded by the rich hoarding money and not giving it to employees.
I don't know how your last comment is contrary to anything I've said.
Fiat can serve as currency when legal tender laws are enforced but it does not qualify as money which among other things functions as a store of wealth.
I could not digest the point he was pushing due to his repeated misuse of the word "money."
Philosophically speaking if most had no "money" then local swaps of value would be the only option - talk about supporting your community! In reality a community would be shock and awed if they forsook the almighty yellen-buck.
Imperialism is not capitalism. Corporatism is not capitalism. Fascism is not capitalism. Imperialists, corporatists, and fascists, however, require useful well-intentioned misguided idiots to think capitalism is the culprit.
404ward!
I tried to explain this to LTER elsewhere but I'll repeat it here:
Capitalism in no more or less than the sensible realization that if one invests the fruits of today's labor one can be more productive tomorrow. For example if a man can catch five fish by fishing all day and he needs to eat four fish each day to survive then he might dry and save the one extra fish over four days, take a day off from fishing and use the time to make a net with which he can catch twenty fish tomorrow. It has absolutely nothing to do with using violence against others. That, as I have noted, is the method by which governments exist.
How precisely do they "sit on it", pray tell? That must be one hell of a precariously positioned chair Bill Gates has in his house. Too bad he had to liquidate his company to amass that small mountain of dollar bills, right?
The rich do not HOARD money, they INVEST IT. When the rich invest their capital, that is what makes society FUNCTION, not what makes it break. Only the feeble minded think that people who both earn more than $50,000 a year and are not financially retarded would actually store much of their savings as cash in a bank.
You have everything ass backwards.
The reason that companies are sending almost all their free cash flow out in the form of stock buybacks and dividend payments is that it no longer makes sense to invest in the future in the Obama economy, and it is only going to get worse whenever he is replaced with the next idiot. It is not a failure of capitalism, it is a reaction of capitalists to the final stages of a conversion to socialism, one which has been ongoing for decades.
Remember this at the next election.
Why? The USSA does not have real elections and the Supreme Court said ANYONE can vote now.
Game over. Oh and thank the Pentagram and troops for doing their Constitutional duty and upholding their oath. Especially the military brass.
Thieves and tyrants and their useful idiots intent on serving the weak and poor by punishing the productive. They have selected the weak and marginals to empower, using progressive guilt against those who have actually worked to get ahead. Ask the racist hater Trump, who called it the way it is and was punished for it, while Sharpton can preach real hate to no repercussions at all. We must yield to political correctness and this is the fulcrum of their power. It requires not our defeat, but our voluntary surrender. Issues cannot be discussed because truthfulness is racist, homophobic, or simply hate speech, punishable by social media or court of law.
I'm more concerned about the empowerment of the banking cartel. End that and most of the rest of the crap falls away.
"Fascism is socialism, the Rothschilds, Blankfein & Dimon are living proof."
This is true, but that is like saying humans are all murderers. Socialism has plenty of degrees. For instance, most basic government functions (road maintenance, sewers, police forces....The military....) are by definition socialism. An interesting thing, speaking of degrees, is that what we call Communist (Soviet Union until '91 or so) is actually not trully communist. That was what the five year plans were for.... to get closer to communism. True communism has never been practiced. I would argue it is impossible on any scale.
But my point is..... don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Maybe we need more terms.... like Socialism 1 vs Socialism 10. 1 is Magna Carta era.... about 3 is our founding father's world (streets, public good, schools). 5 is New Deal. 4-6 is modern Europe. 10 is full on Commie Soviet. Whaddya think?
Communism is an economic and government system. Socialism is an economic system. People think Socialism is Communism, but Socialism provides the right to own personal property and have freedom of religion etc. The economy needs to have more social control cause corporattions have lobbyists who give rights to businessses at the expense of the communities, employees, environment, and customers. Like the TPP. Europe is not failing because of socialism, it is failing cause of the Euro being the standard across too many different countries and those countries are taking out too much in loans. We would be in the same boat but we can print our own money and have the worlds reserve currency.
"Socialism provides the right to own personal property and have freedom of religion etc."
How debilitating it must be to believe that you don't own your own body and that your rights are bestowed by an elite class that neither knows nor cares about you.
"Europe is not failing because of socialism, it is failing cause of the Euro being the standard across too many different countries and those countries are taking out too much in loans. We would be in the same boat but we can print our own money and have the worlds reserve currency."
The ECB can print as much currency as they like and they've promised to do just that as long as it saves the strong rather than the weak.
Your rights are somewhat bestowed upon you in Capitalism as well. Do you fail to see it? I was referring to the difference in Communism and Socialism. But you can continue to question my validity if you please. Merica.
So then Greek is considered weak? What makes them weak the debt incurred to GDP ratio? What about Italy Spain Portugal? Are they weak? Do you know? Cause they won't be able to pay off the debt according to their GDP and are next.
The ECB can print currency. They just can't outsource the inflation as well as we can. Also, even though we can print money that doesn't mean the dollar isn't screwed just like the Euro. We are kicking the can.
"Your rights are somewhat bestowed upon you in Capitalism as well. Do you fail to see it?"
Yes, I fail to see that which exists solely in your imagination. Every individual since the dawn of man has had the right of self ownership. This right exists despite the fact that many people with supposedly moral and helpful agendas do everything in their power to deny the exercise of that right.
Can you seriously tell me that you do not own yourself and that you can only protect your interests by giving others the power to use violence against you? That's the nature of government, it is at odds with the nature of man and that is why government always fails in due course.
Why not chose to interact voluntarily with others in a way that reflects your true nature in an effort to secure the right of self ownership for yourself, your family, friends and neighbors? Isn't that better than playing into the fantasies of those who claim to own you?
"I'm in favor of reason over whim. As far as I'm concerned, and I think the rest of the movement, too, we are anarcho-capitalists. In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." -- Rothbard
KingGenius, you have so much bad theory, economic and political that it will take many books to square it away. However, you do represent many fractured beliefs of many other people.
Just ask yourself if giving government MORE power will actually reduce the things you hate or increase it.
Ask yourself if your purpose in life was to be born and immediate coopted into someone else's plan for life or if you should be the captain of your own ship for better or worse. What ideologies promote the former or the latter?
Do you own yourself? Do others own themselves? Should you be forced without compensation to serve the purposes of others without your consent?
Is government the source of most evil or the preventer...on net? I am not asking what they SAY they are, I am asking about what they actually do historically.
You can figure out other questions based on these. Read accordingly.
lol...that might be a better way to measure it instead of socialists always going into their preferred denial method of arguing "Its never been truly tried!" and "Fascists are right wingers not leftwing socialists!"
Absolute bullshit.
There are no better examples of a fascist than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, by any measure no one would call them "rightwing" with them always wanting to ban shit or impose their will on "the masses" all the while, their cronies get richer.
Its a fucking joke being played on useful idiots.
Au Contraire, anybody on the left who knows what words mean would call Hilllary Clinton and Barack Obama Right Wing. They are, and always have been. Actions, not words.
The whole farce of calling some socialists/communists/fascists Left or Right needs to be discarded. Such a scale leaves no room for people who believe in minimalist government. Or would you say those small-government types are centrists? Clinton and Obama may be fascists, but never have they been in favor of small government. Or do you want to simply deny the existence of libertarians and others who believe in limited government?
you miss the entire point. creating a system justifying seizing, controlling, or manipulating individual actions and property by way of a powerful and coercive government is inherently dangerous.
handing a psychopath a revolver is a bad idea. arguing over whether it has one bullet, three, or six is pointless.
the degree of danger offered by each different faction is inconsequencal.
Fascism is the blending of Socialism and Crony Capitalism or as some would call it Corporatism. There might be some nationalistic and police state associated with Fascism but that is just minutia. Both system take from one group to give to another. Both promote the same bad tendencies and destroy wealth and please do not bring up Sweden because plenty of evidence shows they are also becoming insolvant. It is alway the fate of a collectivist regime to end up insolvent.
Potato Potahto (Love ya Rand)
"The great innovators of society, such as Bill Gates, are, mostly, the ones who become members of the 1%."
This is the one part I disagree with. Nowadays, a greater and greater percentage of the 1% are attaining it with no work at all... namely the banksters and their ilk. They are criminals operating in a criminal system. This has to change fast or we are all doomed to slavery.
And this comes back to my contention that no socio-economic system can ever be perfect - whether capitalism, socialism, communism, etc... Because humans are imperfect and will game whatever system they're in and corrupt it. So the discussion shouldn't be which is the perfect system - but which is the best given human imperfection. In fact, some more advanced thinking than what we've come up with so far is required.
There has been far too much thought put into political systems the goal of which is to take what has been produced by others. An adherence to the principle that each individual owns himself and is a slave to no other man is what is wanted.
Right, every system sucks, so use one that sucks the least: competitive free markets in everything, especially in the issue of money.
All political systems will fail because, as you already pointed out, we need human 2.0. And that is an ethical, fairminded individual. But that by definition would eliminate most form of government. If man could rule himself then government would not be needed! You see where this is headed. If some self appointed dictator decide that man can be trusted to do the right thing, therefore he is going to force the stupid humans to toe the line. That already shows a lack moral and ethical values. And more so by the self appointed dictator who probably has his own agenda.
It boils down to two types:
Individualism - I do what I want with the sweat of my labors and leave other to their own fate.
collectivism - An enforcer that want to control the fate of others. It does not matter what the pretext for commiting the immoral act is. The Catholic church was implicated in many questionable things. The spanish inquisition comes to mind. The point is this; No one has the right to tell other what to do. It is immoral to do so.
I am not an anarchist but the most moral system is one where everybody does thing volutarily in his or her community. When the community no longer serves the individual he or she leaves for greener pasture. Any form of government that uses force to keep citizen under is rule is immoral because some of the members of the society will place themselves above the others.
We could go on and on. I think I will stop now :-)
"Individualism - I do what I want with the sweat of my labors and leave other to their own fate"
No! Individuals who respect themselves and others as individuals interact volutarily with others. It's like the difference between romancing a woman and raping her. There is interaction in each case but one is moral and the other is not.
Except that our society has now "evolved" to enforce happiness as a entitlement, a right. So we can't act individually because to now even breath puts others at risk, and worst of all is insult. We dare not offend those of a protected class for we now have affirmative action of self esteem. Those who have traditionally been disrespected now have the freedom to insult without retribution those who have held a majority position of power in the past....white folk....white hetero men to be specific. Retreat,defer, submit, but do not retort, argue or use facts. Statistics and facts are treated as weapons that only certain elevated groups are allowed to use. Like a man with an illegal gun, they will be punished and destroyed the if possible if they attempt to use facts and logic without a progressive license.
Not evolved, parasitized.
The entire idea of "perfection" is evil in and of itself. The idea of the "Perfectable Society" goes directly back to progressivism and National Socialism, even Communism. There is even the idea of the perfectable man.
This is where everyone gets fooled into empowering government. The basic idea is "Some people are bad so you need government to protect you." It becomes, "Everyone else is bad and out to screw you, so you need unlimited government." because only government people are good and never screw you over.
Capitalism, libertarianism and anarchism by definition take out that entire idea. People need not be perfect and in fact it is assumed they are not. That is why you have contracts and the purpose of governments, courts or common police forces are simply for redress. Honesty is better served without government power. Look at history if you are skeptical. Which countries have the worst products (if any), worst civil rights, worst economies, most poverty, most oppression, most depression? Is it countries with more government up autocracies or countries with the most freedom?
The answer is quite clear.
Dupe
I can think of no enormously wealthy person in this country whose money didn't come from the .gov, or who were not given a monopoly by the .gov
Bill Gates would not be who he is if the .gov did not buy his POS DOS. it was an on the fly OS that was not intended for retail sale, but the .gov didn't know or didn't care.
I disagree with that statement as well. "The great innovators of society, such as Bill Gates, are, mostly, the ones who become members of the 1%." -Inherited wealth from the 1% to their children (who have not earned it and most likely do not merit it) are mostly, the ones who become the new generation of members of the 1%. The fact that they do not merit it is supported by the 'rule of 1/3' when it comes to family owned business - (Approximately 1/3 of family owned business that are passed down to a new generation stay in business under the management of the new generation - same with each subsequent generations) See also:
But as you would expect, the wealthier the household is, the more wealth transfers they have received (I will group together and call these transfers "inheritance"). The least wealthy group of families have received, on average, $6,100 in inheritance. On the other hand, the wealthiest 1 percent of families have received, on average, $2.7 million in inheritance. So the wealthiest 1 percent of families have inherited $447 for every $1 the least wealthy group of families has.
http://www.demos.org/blog/1/21/14/reality-wealthy-inherit-ungodly-sums-m...
As outrageously lopsided as these inheritance disparities seem, they only reflect half of the inheritance problem. The funny thing about piles of wealth is that they deliver to their owners passive, unearned streams of income variously called rents, dividends, profits, capital gains, interest and so on. Those who get big inheritances can park those inheritances in investment accounts that just get bigger and bigger without them having to lift a finger. As a result, the gaping inheritance disparity actually grows even more gaping each year after the inheritances have been received.
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/24/death_of_meritocracy_how_inheritance_is_...
In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — typically get a substantial head start. So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400. - See more at: http://inequality.org/selfmade-myth-hallucinating-rich/#sthash.faCg5CPD....
Your falacy is to suggest that unless you can become as wealthy as Bill Gates, the system has failed. I personally, as well as many others I know, have had a good life and reasonable success having started with little or nothing. We should resist a government form that allows accumulated wealth to purchase it. Other than that I could care less what another has or earns. I do resent those who steal, and worse still manipulate and lever MY wealth to enrich themselves while also putting my wealth at risk. I'm not speaking of investing my money but back door levering putting the whole system at risk. Our problem is corruption and those systems in government that foster and enable it. We must get government OUT of business and business OUT of government. The first and best way is to eliminate ALL taxes on business. Every po!icy our government has reflects directly or indirectly revenue to itself or its primary funders. It's got to stop. As I believe that all business taxes are borne by their customers anyway and these taxes create burdens that imports do not bear, it only makes sense to get rid of them. The socialist mind set that all levied taxes will mostly be paid by "others" is part of the iillusion that iis killing us. So lets have a consumption tax. Easy to legislate, easy to comply, and best of all transparent. Business taxes are hidden within the cost structure. VAT is hidden as well and on businesses again who will try to buy protection or advantage. Stop it all with one simple transparent transactional tax. No audits, no shelters, no dodges, no super special backroom legislation.
Bill Gates started in the 1%.
What's wrong with fascism IS what's wrong with socialism. It was called National SOCIALISM for a reason! It was just that they dressed their idiot redistribution schemes a little bit to make it look like a "third way", which is completely idiotic to anyone who knows anyting about economics. Well, except for ECon PhDs witch doctors, who couldn't tell their ass from an economic contraction.
How about this plan: bleeding slobbering everybody's-a-winner socialism for bankers and politicians and other poo-bahs, but hardcore, randian, rugged individualism for everyone else (the peons)...
But that's the opposite of Rand's philosophy. She detested those who would exploit political power rather than trade value for value. It's in all her books.
I'm sorry, I left you off the memo ... I was describing the system we have now.
They always forget the mail room.
"Rothschilds, Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein to name a few...." all think marxism is the greatest system ever invented as long as they are holding the leash. which is why if you ever take the trouble to pull back the covers of most -ism groups you follow the money straight back to some 1%ers black box trust fund/endowment.
not a month ago it was proven soros was paying protesters to go to ferguson and baltimore. if you really want to be disheartened, check out the funding for the OWS movement.
But they are worthless...economically. Okay, they have value to the tabloids.
"British royal family are not socialists."
Feudal Parasites -- self-entitled, from one generation to the next. Cause some Shaman (priest, bishop) said so, proclaiming to speak for an Invisible Guy In The Sky. What a fucking racket!
The only thing more amazing, is that their collective Jedi Mind Trick ("God said so") actually works on the dumb Sheeple.
I want to be a capitalist on the way up and a socialist on the way down, OK?
This is BS...I want more free stuff. Hillary said college should be FREE. I love it. Stay in school, run up massive student debt, free load and live w your parents and/or relatives. Qualify for free Obama care, housing, and food stamps, free church food banks. Get involved in the growing legalized drug trade, always be a victim.. God bless America. Demand , don't ask, for more from your country. give nothing.
I don't think some people here get it. The only reason kids have to take out loans is cause the parents can't afford tuition, the kids can't work to afford tuition cause the jobs aren't there or are too low paid to compensate for the tuition increase. That "in my day" crap doesn't apply. I worked hard yadda yadda.
You were compensated and had affordable housing, medical, education etc.
Or maybe you all do get it and just like servitude for the rich. You would prefer tax dollars to go toward a 14 year war and handed over to rich subsidized corporations who do nothing but inflate the economy so the bubble can burst, you can't afford to pay off your loan, and they scoop it up for next to nothing.
Obama sucks yeah, but so do the current conservatives. The game is rigged wake the hell up. Here's your choice:
A. Republican
B. Democrat
C. Not dumb enough to fall for it anymore.
"That "in my day" crap doesn't apply."
I think I'm mostly on board with your observations but there is no doubt that the snare is tightening and those coming up today are less likely to understand the value of self improvemnet through hard work.
I certainly played around when I was younger but I also had the benefit of being close to grandparents who had lived through the Great Depression. Their shared experiences helped me get my act together when I was no longer cute enough to get away with whining for my supper. Do today's young folks have that advantage? Of course Ron Paul did pick up a majority of the youth vote so maybe there is hope.
I'm right on the cusp on Gen X and Millenial. I identify with Gen X more. I actually like to work cause if I don't I get bored and don't find satisfaction at end of the day, relaxation and sense of accomplishment. I had a large family and blue collar father, grandparents blue collar also went through the depression, so I didn't get much at all unless I worked around the house.
But I'm against working my ass off to build another man's mansion while I'm educated, experienced, and finding little opportunity.
I went to a Ron Paul rally. I like Ron alot. Ran is ok but I don't agree 100% at all. I'm cool with libertarian on social issues, but too libertarian on economic issues seems to result in people getting taken advantage of by corporations. Conservative and Dems alike instead of regulating corporations, they give them precedence over everything. Ppl focus too much on parties rather than the person, especially older folks. They consider themselves to be assocaited with an identity and do not escape that presumed id. Elite and media know this and exploit.
"Conservative and Dems alike instead of regulating corporations, they give them precedence over everything"
Giving more power to the elites and their cronies is the purpose of regulation and more broadly of government itself. You don't think that the elites demand the power to use violence against individuals in order to help individuals, do you?
"I went to a Ron Paul rally. I like Ron alot. Ran is ok but I don't agree 100% at all"
Ron would have been a step in the right direction but recognition of the individual's right of self ownership is the only thing that can reliably promote peaceful interaction and protect against compulsion by force. Libertarianism is only useful if it leads to voluntaryism and the full repeal of the power of elites to control others by force.
Consider adding this to your reading list. I think you're ready for it and it may help to open your eyes.
The Ethics of Libertyhttps://mises.org/products/ethics-liberty
@king - you seem thoughtful so I encourage you to reflect deeply on what the poet is trying to explain.
"The only reason kids have to take out loans is cause the parents can't afford tuition, the kids can't work to afford tuition cause the jobs aren't there or are too low paid to compensate for the tuition increase."
Seemingly plausible, but incorrect - the reason they take out loans is that no one has ever taught them how to measure value. As in evaluate your situation. How can someone engage in voluntary value swaps if they cannot discern value?
One example - accredited competency strengthening programs exist for as little as a few thousand dollars per year (~= $125/week). Competency in desired field creates the oppotunity to create value for others. Voluntarily. Fuck debt. Fuck can't.
Puutie's Paid Puppies will have this article blocked in Russia.
Control of internet in that country will not allow such insights to enter the country.
/thread
Hope no one finds out who this 14 year old is and sends him back for re-edumacation.
The 14 year old just explained the life of bankers.
This kid's only real mistake is to believe that most of the ultra-rich actually earned their wealth.
For every mega-rich entrepreneur who actually contributed to humanity, there are probably a dozen Wall Street grifters who have essentially stolen their billions with assorted financial scams and swindles.
I bet not one out of a hundred of the ultra wealthy set is anything but a FIRE pimp
This kid's only real mistake is to believe that most of the ultra-rich actually earned their wealth.
+++++++++++
If you look at the data, you will find that most of them did actually earn it. Or possibly it was the parent. But you don't find very many of a third generation who are in that top wealth list.
Leave out the Puuie Oligarchs who stole it with Puutie approval.
Yep, the article is wrong on all 3.
Socialism does reward hard work, big time. That is how Germany was able to rebound huge after WW1. It does this by having the employees of the company having a stake or ownership in the company. If all of the profits are just being funneled up by the owners, and you get a fixed hourly wage. What is the huge incentive to work hard? You get an extra dollar an hour? Nope. If the employees share the profits then you will work your butt off for more profit-it is incentive based.
Socialism doesn't undermine innovation, corpations and corporate rule crush competition (innovation) cause it threatens their profits. If the coporatocracy didn't have lobbyists to screw over competition and cut their costs so the cost to compete wasn't as difficult, innovation would thrive.
Third, basic moral values of you get what you earn have been long gone for decades. It's called instant gratification through debt loans in capitalism. That is why we are in the crappy situation we are in now, from intrest rate usury and unsustainable debt with the constant expectation of GDP growth.
I'd upvote you more than once if I could. You said it. It's a world of grey, not black and white. The US has always beena socialist country to some degree. 'The American Dream' is a socialist ideal... not what was coopted later by advertising agencies.
Here is a little bit from Wikkipedia, "
Would -10000000 you if we could. America was always about free-market capitalism. Sure, some like Rockefeller and Morgan gamed the system. But John D. said, "Competition is a sin." That is not capitalism. You sound like Barry: "Islam has ALWAYS been a part of America". You voted for Barry twice, didn't you?
Rockefeller did not game the system.
He lowered the price of kerosene and refined products by 75% wile consolidating the industry by paying fair prices.
His #1 problem was dealing with the railroad transport monopolies. He built pipes to go around the railroads.
Rockefeller was an opium trafficker and a demon cunt.
Ameican Dream now is consume and the paper chase rat race. Make enough money to get a good looking girl to sleep with, then knock her up and race for retirement so you don't have to work your ass off as much. Then you get bored not working and gripe on FB all day. It is not about happiness, moral values, loving your neighbor, being a part of your community, God, nor Country. It is pure competition. Money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is the root of all evil.
You are so close, yet...
stick around and hear what some ZHers are actually saying...
The vampire squid vexes you. Do not give it more of your power!
Divest and decouple from the game because you are and will always be the mark. Your life's blood and your mind's happiness, and your neighbor's respect ARE capital! Do not squandor the true riches of the universe which surround you.
I'm not buying that that is a fourteen year old. At least not a typical fourteen year old. Wait, not an American fourteen year old? OK I'll buy it.
The spelling of 'labour' is a hint. Not American.
"The great innovators of society, such as Bill Gates"
Go on then. What did he innovate?
Stealing OS code out of DEC's trashbins.
When was that? I knew he ripped off Xerox as did Jobs and Apple. I know Gates also hired David Cutler from DEC to write Windows NT Server.
Gates father was a well connected patent attorney. Self made and innovative? Hardly.
Jobs and Woz would be a better example. Not that I liked Jobs that much or Apple.
Legal intimidation as a business model
What arguments will those that own and control the resources make to justify Capitalism when human labor is no longer required to make all the stuff that people need to live and thrive? That day is rapidly approaching.
Human labor will always be required to some extent for the next 100 years or so. The question here is Automation. Our ancestry in the past innovated invented and created technological processes that make things much easier. WIth increased population, there is a constant decline in the amount of work through automation. But that doesn't mean there is a decline in the amount of production. But the production can't be bought cause the automation has increased profits for owners not for employees. Also, they need less employees. So basically, we should be able to work less and be paid more. People don't want to hear that. But the quality of life is being hoarded through capilatism and debt. People aren't mad cause they can get things through debt. Seal up the debt, people will demand better wages and more benefits for their tax dollar. I think it is being done by design. The old order out of chaos theory. How many bentleys do you need? They just want power.
Paging Eirik Marx Leninsson, please come to a red courtesy phone....
aspects of socialism are extremely helpful IF you want a civilised society.
Inexpensive social housing, an income safety net to prevent outright poverty and hunger, and a socialised medical and educational system affordable and accessible to all would be a good start.
Contrary to the authors viewpoint, these things provide a springboard which allows people to work hard, innovate and take greater risks than they otherwise could.
In rare cases you are correct but not at all economic aka negative net payback due to the human condition.
Absolutely !
You're talking about things that used to be done by charity, now done at the point of a gun underneath a mountain of paperwork, with 80%* of the cost of the entire enterprise being sucked up by people who are not the ones who actually need the charity.
*this number, if you hadn't guessed, is charitable
"Contrary to the authors viewpoint, these things provide a springboard which allows people to work hard, innovate and take greater risks than they otherwise could."
At the risk of getting you more downvotes, I could not agree more. I would add that there is no such thing as pure capitalism in any country in the world. Pure capitalism becomes corrupted and turns into Neo-Feudalism once a few people acquire enough wealth to become de facto Kings. The best and only way to keep that in check is with the rule of law, and using the power of the people to prevent massive wealth inequality and acquisition of dynastic wealth by a few.