Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
An adverse example of unrestrained capitalism would be where a company maximizes profit by securing raw materials from third world nations, purchasing them at an arbitrary level they effectively set. In fact democratic governments have been toppled because a nation wanted control of its own resources. In this case general poverty remains unabated and people have died because of it
AnitaPeterson
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 6,025
- 557
- 126
Why are so many people attacking the article?
I very much doubt that most of the naysayers are capable of writing at this level of intellectual depth.
Yes, we are facing economic crisis.
Yes, we are facing ecocide.
In 50 years or less, we're going to pay for the flaws of this system you're so eager to defend.
We need to find something better.
How can any of you deny these truths?
Democracy and capitalism, in the classical sense of the terms, cannot function "ad infinitum".
Look at the voter apathy we're dealing with.
The fact that people can vote and they have the mechanisms in place to do so does not, unfortunately, come with the obligation (yes, you read that right! obligation!) to be informed about the choices you make. Similarly, more and more politicians see their careers as a "license to steal", nothing more, nothing less.
Meanwhile, the biosphere is degrading, yet you still deny (or, at best, minimize) the extent of human responsibility in this process.
One day, not far from today, the amount of waste we produce, and the foolish squandering of natural resources, will cause catastrophic climate change.
One day, in the near future, you will all have to decide whether oil is more important for the manufacturing of plastic items or for fueling your car.
Classical capitalism is based on a surplus of production.
All the companies produce in excess of what's actually being consumed.
And the rest that doesn't get sold is scrapped. Sent to waste! Why is it that there are no economic incentives for recycling as much as possible? Do you really think that the world's reserves of oil, platinum, zinc, bismuth, cadmium and bauxite are infinite??? Or are you so sure that your (U.S.) military power will just allow you to make a grab for the last drops, when push comes to shove?
While you're stroking your egos on these boards, posting inane half-chewed opinions about the peachy state of your corner of the world, people in the poorest areas of the globe are dying of hunger, and don't even have the most basic conditions of living.
How much food does the West throw in the garbage, directly from the supermarket shelves, because it has passed the expiration date, while children are starving to death in various parts of the world??? Their ONLY fault is that they were born in those poor parts of the world.
We are far from being a wise and self-sustaining species.
And we have a long way to go until we learn what "solidarity" truly means.
There's a bookstore across the street from my workplace. Once a week, they leave huge cardboard boxes outside, to be picked up by the municipal waste trucks. Not for recycling, mind you - for dumping. One day, I looked inside one of the boxes... It was filled with books, ripped in half, their covers torn away.
How hard would it be to give the coverless books to various charities around the world? Nah, it's much too easy to just throw them away. Waste them!!!
Some (if not most) of you here can't think beyond your narrow little world - yet you accuse the writer of the article in the OP of being an "elitist", and "out of touch" with the world.
It's you who are out of touch.
And I'm ashamed by your lack of consideration and wisdom. I am turned off by the fact that we're part of the same species. Homo sapiens sapiens, indeed... NOT!
I very much doubt that most of the naysayers are capable of writing at this level of intellectual depth.
Yes, we are facing economic crisis.
Yes, we are facing ecocide.
In 50 years or less, we're going to pay for the flaws of this system you're so eager to defend.
We need to find something better.
How can any of you deny these truths?
Democracy and capitalism, in the classical sense of the terms, cannot function "ad infinitum".
Look at the voter apathy we're dealing with.
The fact that people can vote and they have the mechanisms in place to do so does not, unfortunately, come with the obligation (yes, you read that right! obligation!) to be informed about the choices you make. Similarly, more and more politicians see their careers as a "license to steal", nothing more, nothing less.
Meanwhile, the biosphere is degrading, yet you still deny (or, at best, minimize) the extent of human responsibility in this process.
One day, not far from today, the amount of waste we produce, and the foolish squandering of natural resources, will cause catastrophic climate change.
One day, in the near future, you will all have to decide whether oil is more important for the manufacturing of plastic items or for fueling your car.
Classical capitalism is based on a surplus of production.
All the companies produce in excess of what's actually being consumed.
And the rest that doesn't get sold is scrapped. Sent to waste! Why is it that there are no economic incentives for recycling as much as possible? Do you really think that the world's reserves of oil, platinum, zinc, bismuth, cadmium and bauxite are infinite??? Or are you so sure that your (U.S.) military power will just allow you to make a grab for the last drops, when push comes to shove?
While you're stroking your egos on these boards, posting inane half-chewed opinions about the peachy state of your corner of the world, people in the poorest areas of the globe are dying of hunger, and don't even have the most basic conditions of living.
How much food does the West throw in the garbage, directly from the supermarket shelves, because it has passed the expiration date, while children are starving to death in various parts of the world??? Their ONLY fault is that they were born in those poor parts of the world.
We are far from being a wise and self-sustaining species.
And we have a long way to go until we learn what "solidarity" truly means.
There's a bookstore across the street from my workplace. Once a week, they leave huge cardboard boxes outside, to be picked up by the municipal waste trucks. Not for recycling, mind you - for dumping. One day, I looked inside one of the boxes... It was filled with books, ripped in half, their covers torn away.
How hard would it be to give the coverless books to various charities around the world? Nah, it's much too easy to just throw them away. Waste them!!!
Some (if not most) of you here can't think beyond your narrow little world - yet you accuse the writer of the article in the OP of being an "elitist", and "out of touch" with the world.
It's you who are out of touch.
And I'm ashamed by your lack of consideration and wisdom. I am turned off by the fact that we're part of the same species. Homo sapiens sapiens, indeed... NOT!
I hate to do it but I am forced to conclude you're an imbecile.
I did two things in the post you claimed shows me to be mentally disturbed. I quoted a part of the link under discussion and I agreed with Caddy. Only a blithering idiot could conclude from either of those that I am mentally ill. So either you are a mental pygmy or in fact it is you who is insane.
There is, however, a cure for your kind of dolt behavior and it is rather simple. The next time you want to call somebody mentally ill simply make that case. Show, for example the reasons for your claim as I did explaining why you're as dumb as a brick.
It might be incoherent but it still holds true. There is a reason why capitalism has become the dominate system even if not in its most pure form.
He proposed that we create a ?new way of organizing human society and economy?.
New would imply that it had never been used before as opposed to a simple switch from more capitalistic tendencies to more socialistic tendency, among other systems that could be used, but he also attacked those socialistic tendencies as well.
He is proposing that a system that falls outside of all currently known economic abd social systems, that have come before or are currently used, be created. In doing so that is only setting up whichever nation that decides to use it for probable economic and social collapse.
I still think your thinking is incoherent and illogical. Imagine you were saying that some time in the past when it was Capitalism that was in need of invention. You know all about something that does not exist. Quite amazing.
Why don't you have the courtesy to critique what was said.
I had my daily dose of assholes already today so you're doing nothing for me.
I think Capitalism is a great system as long as it doesn't devolve into thievery, murder and slavery. Well known Capitalist practices used to inhance profits.
The trick is though that a socialist and capitalist mix, in various forms, has existed in all but name since very early in human history.
Giving something a name does not make it new.
Ma: The trick is though that a socialist and capitalist mix, in various forms, has existed in all but name since very early in human history.
Giving something a name does not make it new.
Mo: Link:
The Difference Between Capitalism and Mercantilism
Mercantilism is a doctrine about how the economy should work. Capitalism is an economic
system whose doctrine differs from mercantilism in some fundamental respects.
The capitalist doctrine is based on the premise of human equality and individual liberty. People should work and seek profit soley for personal fulfillment. If they would like to work for any other reason, they are perfectly free to do so. All the capitalist doctrine insists on is that no one may deliberately force or manipulate other people. Do anything you like except violate the rights of other people. Use authority only to protect those rights.
Mercantilism is based on the premise that people have a duty to their race and nation, or perhaps that their identity is that of the nation. People should work and seek profit to make themselves (meaning their nation) more powerful. The drive to power is an important element of mercantilism. If anyone disagrees, they should be subjected to authority. Mercantilism sets no ethical standards as to how its objective should be achieved. Seize every advantage you can, or else those who are willing to will take your place.
In actual practice, mercantilism predates capitalism. French Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert exemplifies the mercantilist spirit in the way he spoke to the king about economics on page 506 of the textbook. He argues that trade will increase the power of the state by stimulating trade. This trade will make people wealthier, enabling them to pay more in taxes and assist the state more effectively in wars.
In his Wealth of Nations, Scots economist Adam Smith argues 106 years later argues that people usually don't have the state's welfare in mind when they work. They work for their own interest. In his mind, this is the way it should be, and one should not think that the capitalist system benefits society any less than the mercantilist system, since by attempting to maximize his own profit he necessarily maximizes the profit of society as well.
As of today, capitalism has largely replaced mercantilism because mercantilism did not have the power to indoctrinate enough people to sustain itself. To spread itself, mercantilism requires a nationalist tradition to make disagreement with the state ideology rare enough to be dealt with effectively using force. Intense nationalistic feelings have proved to be more difficult to sustain than the alternative that the capitalist system called for.
By pitting corporation against corporation, rather than nation against nation, capitalism eliminated the need for nationalist doctrine. Its key technique lies in persuading people that everything that they do is their own choice. In other words, capitalism strictly limits itself to non-deliberate means of enforcing its ideas. Capitalism's continued success depends on the lack of aim in society. If there were an aim that all people wanted to pursue, then they wouldn't be working for their personal gain anymore and capitalism would be history.
The notion of human equality and individual liberty arrived rather recently in history and thus so did formal capitalism and so did it's name. And as you can see from the link capitalism will disappear if people develop a common aim. So if, as many seem to believe, we are in fact headed for ecological and social disaster then capitalism will die if people take up the aim to survive. The fact is that some will see what is happening way before other will, especially those blinded by the fact they are doing well. The fish will rot at the head and spread elsewhere.
You also assume that you know what new means and that new rules out anything related to what is older. I do not presume to judge what new is especially when I haven't seen it.
Giving something a name does not make it new.
Mo: Link:
The Difference Between Capitalism and Mercantilism
Mercantilism is a doctrine about how the economy should work. Capitalism is an economic
system whose doctrine differs from mercantilism in some fundamental respects.
The capitalist doctrine is based on the premise of human equality and individual liberty. People should work and seek profit soley for personal fulfillment. If they would like to work for any other reason, they are perfectly free to do so. All the capitalist doctrine insists on is that no one may deliberately force or manipulate other people. Do anything you like except violate the rights of other people. Use authority only to protect those rights.
Mercantilism is based on the premise that people have a duty to their race and nation, or perhaps that their identity is that of the nation. People should work and seek profit to make themselves (meaning their nation) more powerful. The drive to power is an important element of mercantilism. If anyone disagrees, they should be subjected to authority. Mercantilism sets no ethical standards as to how its objective should be achieved. Seize every advantage you can, or else those who are willing to will take your place.
In actual practice, mercantilism predates capitalism. French Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert exemplifies the mercantilist spirit in the way he spoke to the king about economics on page 506 of the textbook. He argues that trade will increase the power of the state by stimulating trade. This trade will make people wealthier, enabling them to pay more in taxes and assist the state more effectively in wars.
In his Wealth of Nations, Scots economist Adam Smith argues 106 years later argues that people usually don't have the state's welfare in mind when they work. They work for their own interest. In his mind, this is the way it should be, and one should not think that the capitalist system benefits society any less than the mercantilist system, since by attempting to maximize his own profit he necessarily maximizes the profit of society as well.
As of today, capitalism has largely replaced mercantilism because mercantilism did not have the power to indoctrinate enough people to sustain itself. To spread itself, mercantilism requires a nationalist tradition to make disagreement with the state ideology rare enough to be dealt with effectively using force. Intense nationalistic feelings have proved to be more difficult to sustain than the alternative that the capitalist system called for.
By pitting corporation against corporation, rather than nation against nation, capitalism eliminated the need for nationalist doctrine. Its key technique lies in persuading people that everything that they do is their own choice. In other words, capitalism strictly limits itself to non-deliberate means of enforcing its ideas. Capitalism's continued success depends on the lack of aim in society. If there were an aim that all people wanted to pursue, then they wouldn't be working for their personal gain anymore and capitalism would be history.
The notion of human equality and individual liberty arrived rather recently in history and thus so did formal capitalism and so did it's name. And as you can see from the link capitalism will disappear if people develop a common aim. So if, as many seem to believe, we are in fact headed for ecological and social disaster then capitalism will die if people take up the aim to survive. The fact is that some will see what is happening way before other will, especially those blinded by the fact they are doing well. The fish will rot at the head and spread elsewhere.
You also assume that you know what new means and that new rules out anything related to what is older. I do not presume to judge what new is especially when I haven't seen it.
- Mar 22, 2001
- 2,175
- 5
- 81
I guess I must be crazy then for completely agreeing with him. If capitalism was such a great system that didn't need much improvement then much of the world would not be in poverty. I don't really know if capitalism is the root of all evil, what I do know is this; the way we live today is not sustainable and the people of the world needs to be treated like humans. Besides capitalism I think that there are way too many people in the world today with our current level of sustainability. If I had my way, I would pull together the greatest scientists in the world to engineer a perfect birth control system.
But even then, mercantilism is still just a socialist capitalist mix based on the flawed assumption of a zero sum system which is then combined with the practice of imperialism.
His criticisms of both capitalism and socialism are what defaults it to a system based on something almost if not completely different from any system then what has come before.
That is unless he is proposing that we switch to an entirely communistic society but that has been tried before in other nations and because of such would hardly be considering a new system.
I also wouldn?t consider it a system that would prosper for any extended period. Even the largest so-called communist nation in the world is becoming capitalist in nature.
His criticisms of both capitalism and socialism are what defaults it to a system based on something almost if not completely different from any system then what has come before.
That is unless he is proposing that we switch to an entirely communistic society but that has been tried before in other nations and because of such would hardly be considering a new system.
I also wouldn?t consider it a system that would prosper for any extended period. Even the largest so-called communist nation in the world is becoming capitalist in nature.
The link I proposed suggested that capitalism ends when people pursue a common goal other than personal gain. That would be entirely new and not capitalism, socialism, or communism. It would be doing what is right for the survival of the planet. Your personal gain is of little value if you are going to go extinct or your children are. There is a possibility that humanity choses conscious evolution as a way to survive. If not, it's bu bye.
While that would not be true to those forms entirely, it does border on what communism was suppose be, though instead of for the people that would be for the planet, but he complained about what it was doing to people as well, and how it was forcing them to live in squalor. With that doing only what would be right for the survival of the planet isn't what he seemed to be calling for either.
But yeah, while not being communistic entirely, it has been and is still currently done in various tribes found across the world, and at the same time would be hard to enact on a wide scale due to the very nature of how most humans are.
But yeah, while not being communistic entirely, it has been and is still currently done in various tribes found across the world, and at the same time would be hard to enact on a wide scale due to the very nature of how most humans are.
There has to my knowledge never been a communist state. They have all depended on force.
If you drive toward a cliff you will find you break without anybody telling you to. Extinction creates its own internal imperative. All that is necessary is the lack of a state of denial.
The moment a person truly sees he is killing himself he will change.
- Mar 22, 2001
- 2,175
- 5
- 81
This sounds so pretty, until you realize that one guy has the land and the factories and the other ownership that means you work on his terms if you want to eat, you pay him rent if you want a home, you don't own much, but you are 'free'. Unequal ownership is the tyranny hidden behind the pretty words about equality in rights.
When the net effect is a system of a few very wealthy, and poor masses, it's bad, whatever the pretty words.
We have less inequality precisely because we take measures that violate 'pure capitalism'. What we have failed to do is to educate some people why that's needed.
And they become Libertarians, thinking that everyone will do great when those essential measures are not taken, instead of wages falling to sustinence levels - when paid at all, as opposed to people just being disposable to suit the whims of industry, so that if sometimes masses are lost to violent crime, disease, other effects of poverty, it's just 'overhead'.
Topic Title: My Professor's Paper
Actually, the paper was pretty good ... but without recommending any changes or alternatives it leaves yah hangin'.
I think he sometimes blames 'unbridled capitalism' a bit unfairly without consideration to 'semi-fascist' corporatism and corruption. Rand had a term for those Turds but it escapes me ...
Peterson had a thought that needs to be expanded ... over-production and waste. Can we have too much of a good thing? Why do we need 50 different hand lotions and 20 types of gatoraid?
While 'competition' may drive down prices it also presents the dilemma (and increased costs) that come from the need for 'marketing' to distinguish your product - especially when in that huge rack of hand lotion 1/3 of the product is made under the same parent company.
And Rand called the fascists, "Looters"
Actually, the paper was pretty good ... but without recommending any changes or alternatives it leaves yah hangin'.
I think he sometimes blames 'unbridled capitalism' a bit unfairly without consideration to 'semi-fascist' corporatism and corruption. Rand had a term for those Turds but it escapes me ...
Peterson had a thought that needs to be expanded ... over-production and waste. Can we have too much of a good thing? Why do we need 50 different hand lotions and 20 types of gatoraid?
While 'competition' may drive down prices it also presents the dilemma (and increased costs) that come from the need for 'marketing' to distinguish your product - especially when in that huge rack of hand lotion 1/3 of the product is made under the same parent company.
And Rand called the fascists, "Looters"
- Democracy and capitalism tend to go hand in hand due to the need for property rights as a prerequisite for production / wealth (without such rights there would be no legal enforcement of agreements, nor would people be assured that their gains would be protected). However, China and Singapore, for example, are examples of countries which are capitalist and yet totalitarian / authoritarian with respect to its political systems.
- Voter Apathy relates to democracy, which I already said is distinctive from capitalism (an economic system). It should also be noted that voter apathy has steadily increased since the 1960s (Iirc it peaked in 1963-1965), well after FDR's new deal and before Vietnam, the Gulf War, Reaganomics, etc.
- As much as Anita may deplore the waste that she experiences in a capitalist economy, perhaps she should keep in mind that capitalism also allows, if not encourages, recycling or entrepeneurial efforts at reducing waste. To give one example, restaurants tend to have leftovers which are usually dumped the next day. Supermarkets tend to toss food which is past the "sell by date" (with some exceptions such as perishables, food is edible past the sell by date). Someone concerned about reducing food waste could arrange to pick up food and then donate it to a non-profit (ie a food bank)
The final stage of communism has never been reached (where the state 'withers away'), true. But that proves nothing about the viability of communism. In fact, I could plausibly say that communism is a good theory but impractical, which is why it has never succeeded at least in the way Marx envisioned.
- Voter Apathy relates to democracy, which I already said is distinctive from capitalism (an economic system). It should also be noted that voter apathy has steadily increased since the 1960s (Iirc it peaked in 1963-1965), well after FDR's new deal and before Vietnam, the Gulf War, Reaganomics, etc.
- As much as Anita may deplore the waste that she experiences in a capitalist economy, perhaps she should keep in mind that capitalism also allows, if not encourages, recycling or entrepeneurial efforts at reducing waste. To give one example, restaurants tend to have leftovers which are usually dumped the next day. Supermarkets tend to toss food which is past the "sell by date" (with some exceptions such as perishables, food is edible past the sell by date). Someone concerned about reducing food waste could arrange to pick up food and then donate it to a non-profit (ie a food bank)
The final stage of communism has never been reached (where the state 'withers away'), true. But that proves nothing about the viability of communism. In fact, I could plausibly say that communism is a good theory but impractical, which is why it has never succeeded at least in the way Marx envisioned.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter