Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

@pagan,

Let me apologize in advance for the obscene length of this post. Surprised

pagan;121758 wrote:

Do i think that the people recognise the corruption? yes and no. I don't think people generally trust politicians or big corporations, but i don't think we realise the full extent of the in bred system and the way the media psychologically ties us in. Advertising, news propaganda, content generally.

I agree absolutely. The people are aware that there is corruption, they just haven't been able - thanks to corporate media et al - to determine what exactly is the nature and cause of that corruption. Thus has the establishment been able to continually redirect and neutralize the ignorant - albeit righteous - anger of the masses: i.e. by offering false solutions.

Quote:

What i am saying is that scale is the problem. It isn't just the scale of government and corporations. It is the scale of the population, the scale of the electoral process, the scale of religions. Scale means beaurocracy. The language of the machine. Scale requires the language of the machine to function. Its promise is savings of scale and stability of scale. Its a promise that comes at a great cost. It is impersonal and requires media to tie us all in and give it a 'personal' image. (else why would we vote?) Once we become locked in (psychologically and with infrastructure) it tells us what to aspire to. eg mortgages, insurance, careers, consumerism. The images are subliminal because on the face of it they are saying one thing (a government message, a product, the news) but written in are the assumptions of who you are. A worker, middleclass, a patriot, a christian, a consumer, a law abider. All of which are large scale descriptions. They sound personal, they claim you are free to choose, you see individual personalities and larger than life characters on the box ..... but it is a smoke screen. It isn't personal, it is distant. It cannot respond to your individual life, it is beaurocracy upon beaurocracy. It has to be because scale cannot function without it.

Quote:

The main problem is pychological. People think the machine is normal, but it is inhuman. It is abnormal.

I share your rage against the machine...:bigsmile: Modern society is decidedly abnormal, unatural and psychologically (and increasingly, physiologically) unhealthy. All the structures and institutions which constitute this machine are indeed founded on illusions and deceptions: generalities posing as personal relationships. All very true.

Quote:

And we have forgotten the alternatives...I am not talking about restricting the influence of large corporations i am talking about completely disasembling them. The same for government. The same for any large beaurocracy. And yes we will lose savings of scale, but we would regain relationship.

I am not talking about going back to the dark ages. We have gained a great deal of technology. Keep it. Use it. Imagine the uk without 70 million but 7. The US without 250 million but 25. There would be no need to fight for oil from the middle east. There would be no need for a carbon tax. The internet would still connect us. We could know about countries hit by famine and the like.

My emotional agreement with your statement of the problems aside, I have to shudder in horror at this suggestion. If I could snap my fingers and magically the population would drop by 90% and the world reform accordingly, would I do it? Perhaps. Would I ever accept a policy by which the state would in some manner or another reduce the population by a huge proportion? Absolutely not. My objection isn't only to the notion of state mandated population reduction in principle. Consider what kind of world would likely (as opposed to ideally) come into existence if such a policy were carried out. What kind of social structures prevailed in the world before the massive population boom of the industrial revolution? The post-industrial society will be the same as the pre-industrial society. As much as I hate Goldman Sachs, the Federal Reserve, the Defense Department, and the other parephanalia of our grotesque modern system, I wouldn't be quick to trade them for lords, tithes, and the right of prima noctis.

You may find it interesting that massive, global population reduction has been an aim of the Anglo-American establishment for several decades: since at least April 24, 1974, when Henry Kissinger (then White House National Security Advisor) issued National Security Council Study Memorandum 200, 'Implications of World Wide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.'

Why would these people, who have created and benefit most from the present system, want global depopulation?

The Anglo-American banking system with the Fed and BoE - in opposition to some extent to Continental European and Japanese banking e.g. - is not interested in production and growth. It's interested not in investment but in speculation. It does fund development, it seeks to create markets which, through its superior capital, it can then control, making profits as the middleman. Think Gordon Gecko. This is the fundemental reason for the collapse of American and British industry over the last few decades.

Internationally, our foreign policy and the basis of our soft power revolve around the process of systematically putting third (and since 1989 second) world nations into perpetual, development retarding debt-slavery. John Perkins wrote an excellent book (Confessions of An Economic Hitman) describing this in detail. We offer poor nations loans for genuine development projects, on the condition that they contract with our corporations. However, we grossly overestimate the value (measured in future tax revenue) of the to-be-built infrastructure. Therefore, a few years down the road, those governments have borrow more money to refinance and avoid bankrupcty. They refinance and refinance and refinance until they've accumulated so much debt that there's no possibility of remaining solvent without turning to the IMF. Then the IMF comes in and offers yet another refinancing, but with very strict conditions, such as ceding rights over minerals, opening markets to foreign capital, etc. In this manner, the Anglo-American banking establishment systematically parasitizes the world.

This whole system has to understood as motivated by more than a simple desire to profit. Wealth at a certain point is superfluous and becomes only a means to an end. The name of the game is control, which means that this corporate establishment doesn't care if it loses 90% of it's profits, so long as its competitors lose 99%. In this light, it becomes more clear why depopulation would be acceptable, even desireable. Zero growth and depopulation would prevent third world industrialization: i.e. keep the Anglo-American establishment in control of the world, even if that world shrinks considerably in terms of number of potential customers.

Henry Kissinger makes the argument. 'How much more efficient expenditures for population control might be than raising production through direct investments in additiona irrigation and power projects and factories.'

The proposed global 'cap and trade' system should be viewed in this light as well. What better way to prevent third world industrialization than by effectively pricing the poorer nations out of the energy market? Growth is and always has been directly proportional to energy consumption. Furthermore, the tax revenues are probably going to the IMF, which will then be able to issue currency and alot more debt against that asset, all in the service of these same interests.

So, long story somewhat short; population reduction is not going to create - however nice it would be - a decentralized, more free, and all around more pleasant world. On the contrary, it's going to create a high-tech version of 1300 A.D., under the control of the people currently in control - whom we both despise.

Quote:

And i don't think for one moment that the corporations and the government are in control. Individual top dogs like to think they are and they celebrate their gains and influence. But the beaurocracy survives because nobody is in control, everyone is dependent. Whether they are part of a power base or not.

The beaurocracy has become a life form. We are its cells. We follow its rules. And when we complain we use its language. We look for solutions to our problems within the language of the machine. We make films and music that criticises the machine, then leave the theatre feeling we have hope and gained a small victory. It is normality. Buy the film, buy the cd, take it home and watch it ..... then go to work, vote and abide by the law.

While I agree that large institutions have a kind of life of their own, which may drive society in a direction not intended by anyone, I think you underestimate the ability of the ruling class. Besides the semi-chaotiv dynamic you describe, large institutions have another characteristic; they are narrowly hierarchical. They allow a handful of prominent individuals to indirectly control massive numbers of people, economies, societies, etc. However impersonal this system may seem to the person at the bottom of the social hierarchy, the impression being made upon him is the personal expression of the people at the top. I once had a very chaotic theory of history and a very lowly opinion of the ability of government and societal institutions in general. But that changed as I learned more of the details. For instance, I'm reading a book right now about the history of British and American geopolitics in the last century, the contents of which demonstrate to me very clearly that governments and corporations are much more competant and intentional than we might think, and that many seemingly accidential developments are anything but.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

ok brightnoon (sorry for the hurried reply)

it is obvious that we agree much more than we disagree with regard to the present nature of the global system operating via the IMF, debt (foreign and at home) and the exploitation of third world countries by the rich governments. The use of media and so on.

But i am not suggesting that the state be responsible for reducing the worlds population. Far from it. I don't trust them any more than i trust the free market and corporations. I am talking about the disasembling of large beaurocratic government as well. All large beaurocracies. I am saying "no to large scale".

Now i am aware of kissenger et al and their talk of depopulation. But that doesn't make depopulation wrong per se. I am aware of the heirarchal tendency of ruling classes and that depopulation can be seen in the light of the establishment wanting control for a small elite. But 'no to large scale' is no to them.

I agree that the establishment want control. Totally. Why?..... because they haven't got it. I believe it is a constant frustration to them. Yes they can get together and cause chaos from which they profit. They manipulate the markets. Politicians play their part in economic policy, government contracts, tax policy and the law. Prior to an election both sides are bought so that the corporations always back the winner. I agree.

Quote:

brightnoon
As much as I hate Goldman Sachs, the Federal Reserve, the Defense Department, and the other parephanalia of our grotesque modern system, I wouldn't be quick to trade them for lords, tithes, and the right of prima noctis.

nor would i. But there is a big difference between now and 1300ad. Modern technology. The internet for a start. This enables people to connect and organise in ways unimaginable and impossible compared to then.

I will give an example. Swindon! Of all places. The carbuncle on the face of wiltshire. A sprawling chav town (well city in all but name).

"The Wiltshire town of Swindon is to become the first in the UK to provide free wireless internet access to all its residents."

Now i am not so naive as to believe that this is the revolution about to start lol but it shows what is possible. It could under a very different political climate mean that swindon and other cities are connected to each other and within. This could (not saying it will) completely change local politics. It gives everyone instant and collective access. If we were to return not to 1300ad but further back to the greek city states, then this would break the heirarchy of the ruling classes. Now i know they used slaves and such but we have dumped that idea now. But suppose now in a 'no to large scale' world you relate largely as a citizen not to your bloody impersonal government .... but to your local city. (1 tenth its present size). With internet scrutiny and access AND crucially the ability to see and hear those elected by your local city. decisions made not on considering world and national issues that the electorate rely totally upon the media to 'explain' to them, but on local issues that you can see and hear for yourself. Local knowledge implicit in the democratic process. You don't get to vote on what is going on in other regions. You are connected to them, to keep an eye on what they are doing.

The new technology can bring into being very new forms of banking. No longer a manager deciding who gets debt or not. But the people bidding with each other to loan and borrow to and from each other. And defaulters live in the community.

Now i am not saying that the people will be completely demobilised. That no trade nationally or internationally can occur. But in the context of a world population 1 tenth of what it is now, there will be less need to do so.

I believe that the internet is a unique invention in the history of mankind. Like the wheel and the contraceptive pill. It can change everything. The way we do things. It wouldn't be in the interest of a local city to take over its media and plunge them into debt. And besides, the internet is not elite controlled (yet). We would spot stupidity a mile off and have a direct voice of protest. Compare that to the million people who marched through london against the iraq war to no effect.

With regard to what the heirarchies are doing now. Yes i am deeply worried and suspicious. eg WT7 collapse. But i don't see them as in control. Evil and exploitative and a destructive influence yes. But for me power heirarchies could be radically reduced by the new technology. Take for example this very forum! Is justin our ruler?? Smile

(Bows to Justin out of respect) Are we about to be taken over if he sells out? lol

1 Reply

@pagan,

I can see well how this sort of society would be both feasible and desirable in world with a population enormously lower than at present. But I still have my fundemental concern...how exactly do we achieve such a world WITHOUT authoritarian state control of reproduction, or rationing of resources, or active extermination, all of which I - and from what I've gathered you - would be rabidly opposed to?

Do you suppose some kind of non-centralized movement on the part of the people could accomplish such drastic population reduction?

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

Quote:

brightnoon
Do you suppose some kind of non-centralized movement on the part of the people could accomplish such drastic population reduction?

Maybe. I honestly don't know. Fear maybe. Poverty maybe. But at heart a recognition that mass media democracy is a travesty of the meaning of democracy and consumerism is creating conflict and damage. But the internet maybe too. The internet has the ability to change minds without top down legislation. In the end it has to be some sort of awareness. .... and we cannot solve a problem without recognising the problem. We cannot adopt a vision of the future for our descendents, without articulating it. A sense of history too, where we can recognise our mistakes.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;60011 wrote:

Beyond Burgers And Computers

Dell Wikipedia: Theory of Conflict Prevention

The theory is that, with war becoming very expensive for nations in the 21st century, and global supply chains becoming an very important part of economies, nations can't afford to go to war with each others any more, to not interrupt business.
Examples are the China-Taiwan situation and the India-Pakistan conflict in 2001.

This is from The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman, I will probably do a review in the Book Review section.

# Tom Friedman has a theory: Two countries invested in a business together by being part of the same global supply-chain are less likely to go to war, as they are now heavily invested in the success of the business venture. Any interruption to that supply chain would be critical.
# Supply chains have evolved and they have effected politics the stability of countries, such as Asian countries. These countries are part of many supply chains and are good business.
# The price of war is dramatically higher than it used to be and many countries must consider the economic effect of a war on their country.
# For example, the China-Taiwan relations and India-Pakistan. These are two examples of how the globalization and supply-chains have caused countries to think rationally about the cost of war and have arrived at a solution.

So I'm looking forward to a bright and interesting future for mankind. All of the world producing and consuming is a win-win situation for everybody. People in poor nations get a better standard of living. But it will not be a matter of charity for those in rich nations as we will have to improve ourselves to keep up with the competition. Which is the best thing that can happen for a person.
I do see some potential problems:
- Lack of resources could pose a problem. But I think new technology can solve that, both on the energy as on the materials side.
- The education systems of most western nations is in the hand of liberals, that teach rejection of capitalism as evil.
- Stability is essential. Forces that wish to destroy it can have huge detrimental effects with little effort, trust can easily be destroyed.
- It is human nature to rather want others to have less than to have more themselves. This was tested in a study.
- We would have to restrain from government restrictions of capitalism for the sake of special interest, in the name of whatever - probably under the guise of equality.
- What I just named the "1984 Factor". Which means that with total equality of opportunity, one can only be "better" than others through effort and talent. If an oligarchy doesn't want that, it would keep others in poverty and ignorance through an Orwellian government.

Capitalism is an economic system, what about politics?

---------- Post added 01-24-2010 at 05:42 PM ----------

EmperorNero;99519 wrote:

Equality of opportunity doesn't mean that we all have the same amount of money and totally the same chances in life. It mean that we are not coerced by others, including the state.

Or suffer poverty, discrimination, threath of terrorism
Or will Capitalism go on like is has the last decades?

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;120417 wrote:

Just as imagined, you tell me the capitalist part of America has not caused any of the problems. The banks excessive stupidity in trying to manipulate the housing market is a socialist ideology,I think Karl mentions it, silly me.

Yes, that the government required the banks to loan to more poor people, even if those people would default on it, was a socialist policy.

That the bankers know they get bailed out by the taxpayer, so they could make dangerous investments, too is a government intervention into the free market.

xris;120417 wrote:

Once again you refer to fascist china as an example of democratic socialism acting against the freedoms of its population. How many times have I to tell you. China in fact, is more dictatorial capitalist than democratic socialist.

I don't get how acting against the freedoms of it's population somehow becomes a different thing under totalitarianism as opposed to under democratic socialism.
If your wife steps on your foot, that's the same thing as if your neighbor, who you hate, steps on your foot, right? Just because freedom is taken by someone else doesn't make it any different.

xris;120417 wrote:

When does the tax system of a socialist country differ from a capitalist? If you proportion your tax levies its only natural that certain citizens will pay more.

Well, for example under a consumption tax everyone can choose whether he wants to buy the product with the tax, it's not forced on everybody. A income tax must be gathered by coercion.

"Socialist taxes" are paid because we need the money to "do stuff". So you want to do something, then you figure out who you get the money from. It is spent on something the person paying it might not want, but the majority wants it.
"Capitalist taxes" are paid only as a compensation for costs on society that individual causes. For example the safety everyone gets from national defense amounts to a few percentage points of tax. But the rich don't somehow cause more strain on the defense budget. A progressive income tax discriminates against someone just for having more. If they cause more strain on the road system because they drive more cars, then they should pay a proportional amount of that. And of course a smoker should pay the costs of that, and the non-smoker nothing. And the coal plant should have to pay for the pollution, etc.
Otherwise somebody's bad behavior gets bailed out by somebody else, resulting in more f that bad behavior.

xris;120417 wrote:

Can you explain how failure is rewarded in a democratic socialist government?

Yes, if you give someone money for failing, but you give him no money for succeeding, than you have rewarded him for failing.
There are ways to do socialism without rewarding failure, I mentioned the negative income tax system.
So I'm not really against socialism, I am against intervention into the free market. Either in the form of rewarding failure or bailing out bankers.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

So the banks gave money to the poor as they felt sorry for them and felt it was their social responsibility? sorry but you are silly at times.

Whats this Chinese man standing on my foot? In china if they stand on your foot you have no recall to justice, in my country if any one stands on my foot , social democratic, I have the ability to remove it.

Taxes are gathered in any way possible.The rich pay less proportional in any government you would care to mention, social or capitalist. This idea that they distribute the wealthy mans money down to the poor is total nonsense. If you require X amount of money you will gather it the best way you can without upsetting too many influential people..the rich...If you want to tax the poor to the point of revolution, just give it a try and then tell me if capitalism as you see it works..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;122339 wrote:

So the banks gave money to the poor as they felt sorry for them and felt it was their social responsibility? sorry but you are silly at times.

Not because the banks felt social responsibility, because the government mandated them to.
This whole housing mess was created by government intervention.
The bankers know they are "too big to fail", so they made loans to everybody who couldn't possibly pay them back. In a free market a company wouldn't make such stupid decisions, because it would doom the company, but because the risk was socialized, they had nothing to lose.
If you go to Las Vegas, and you know if you lose somebody will pay you back, you are going to make crazy dangerous gambles.
This wasn't a failure of capitalism, but one of government intervention.

xris;122339 wrote:

Whats this Chinese man standing on my foot? In china if they stand on your foot you have no recall to justice, in my country if any one stands on my foot , social democratic, I have the ability to remove it.

:bigsmile: I don't get it. But that's all right.

xris;122339 wrote:

Taxes are gathered in any way possible.The rich pay less proportional in any government you would care to mention, social or capitalist. This idea that they distribute the wealthy mans money down to the poor is total nonsense. If you require X amount of money you will gather it the best way you can without upsetting too many influential people..the rich...If you want to tax the poor to the point of revolution, just give it a try and then tell me if capitalism as you see it works..

Not in my opinion, taxes shouldn't just "be gathered" for the stuff we'd like to have. Then you exactly get those weird distortions that you talk about, namely the rich and powerful making the middle class pay for everything they like.
Taxes should only be a way of compensating costs on society.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;122340 wrote:

Not because the banks felt social responsibility, because the government mandated them to.
This whole housing mess was created by government intervention.
The bankers know they are "too big to fail", so they made loans to everybody who couldn't possibly pay them back. In a free market a company wouldn't make such stupid decisions, because it would doom the company, but because the risk was socialized, they had nothing to lose.
If you go to Las Vegas, and you know if you lose somebody will pay you back, you are going to make crazy dangerous gambles.
This wasn't a failure of capitalism, but one of government intervention.

:bigsmile: I don't get it. But that's all right.

Not in my opinion, taxes shouldn't just "be gathered" for the stuff we'd like to have. Then you exactly get those weird distortions that you talk about, namely the rich and powerful making the middle class pay for everything they like.
Taxes should only be a way of compensating costs on society.

The banks acted through greed and self interest. It was the supreme act of stupidity, it was an act of capitalists crazed institution.It was neither asked for or demanded by your Republican, capitalist, government.

Try living in china and speaking out against the regime and then come to my country and you might understand the difference between the two.

So what stuff do you imagine they are gathering taxes for, that a capitalist country would not collect for. At the moment, the poor are paying more proportional than the middle classes, in this supposed socialist country.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;122344 wrote:

The banks acted through greed and self interest. It was the supreme act of stupidity, it was an act of capitalists crazed institution.It was neither asked for or demanded by your Republican, capitalist, government.

Everybody acts in self interest, all corporations per definition are as greedy as they can get away with. Since the dawn of man. Why would they suddenly decide to become more greedy than before? Because they could, because they had buddies in the government who would assure that if they fail they get bailed out by the public. And that's just what happened; first Bush and then Obama gave them a billion Dollars. This wasn't caused by capitalist "greed", xris, it was government intervention. Saying that greed caused this crisis is like saying that a particular plane crash is caused by gravity. Certainly planes wouldn't crash if it wasn't for gravity. But when thousands of planes fly millions of miles every day without crashing, explaining why a particular plane crashed because of gravity gets you nowhere.

xris;122344 wrote:

Try living in china and speaking out against the regime and then come to my country and you might understand the difference between the two.

I'm not at all saying the two systems are alike. I'm saying that a particular mechanism is utilized by both. Going back to the stepping on your foot analogy from before, if your wife steps on your foot, and you point that out as bad, would her response make any sense if it was "so you mean that I am like your neighbor, who you hate? I am nothing like him. There are vast differences between us." That's all true, but it doesn't change the fact that they both stepped on your foot and you don't like being stepped on the foot.

xris;122344 wrote:

So what stuff do you imagine they are gathering taxes for, that a capitalist country would not collect for. At the moment, the poor are paying more proportional than the middle classes, in this supposed socialist country.

If a person receives police protection, he should bear the cost of that. If a person drives on roads provided by the government, he should bear the cost of that. If a coal plant releases dirt in the air, it should bear the cost of that.

If you have a system where the payer is detached from who receives the service, then you get all sorts of weird economic distortions. Some of which you mention. For example that those with influence, the rich, make others pay for what they receive. Other distortions are that bad behavior is subsidized by others, so you get more of it. For example if the coal plant doesn't have to pay the cost of it's pollution. Then you'll get more pollution from coal. Or if a smoker doesn't have to pay the cost that his bad health poses on the heath system. Then you have more smokers.
You have to ask why the poor are paying more proportional than the middle classes... the answer is that the cost of being poor is subsidized.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;60014 wrote:

I have suspected such an answer from you xris, what can I do to pull you over from the dark side?

First off, Africa has great natural resources. They will be somewhat behind, but they will havethe same chances as the west and Asia.
Lower standard of living means lower wages, which is like a magnet to business.

In the early days of capitalism the Bank of Amsterdam converted every coin to a Guilder (city or State I think...) Traders paid with cheques, but overdrafts were not possible. New capital was found each time again, for exemple the Hudson-expedition.

This system stems from the Mare Nostrum, before and after ceasars.

Capitalism might be an incentive, but not a goal.

And wasn't the Civil War a war between two capitalist systems?

Parts of Europe have been wealthy trading nations. Still we had plenty wars over colonies, European territories and (emperial) successions. Trade florished, econmics developed but there was no Peace. Not even for a decade.

I guess I am a consul for the plebers today:Glasses:

1 Reply

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;122356 wrote:

In the early days of capitalism the Bank of Amsterdam converted every coin to a Guilder (city or State I think...) Traders paid with cheques, but overdrafts were not possible. New capital was found each time again, for exemple the Hudson-expedition.

This system stems from the Mare Nostrum, before and after ceasars.

Capitalism might be an incentive, but not a goal.

And wasn't the Civil War a war between two capitalist systems?

Parts of Europe have been wealthy trading nations. Still we had plenty wars over colonies, European territories and (emperial) successions. Trade florished, econmics developed but there was no Peace. Not even for a decade.

I guess I am a consul for the plebers today:Glasses:

I'm sorry, this and your las post. I don't get what you're saying.
Please elaborate.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;122351 wrote:

Everybody acts in self interest, all corporations per definition are as greedy as they can get away with. Since the dawn of man. Why would they suddenly decide to become more greedy than before? Because they could, because they had buddies in the government who would assure that if they fail they get bailed out by the public. And that's just what happened; first Bush and then Obama gave them a billion Dollars. This wasn't caused by capitalist "greed", xris, it was government intervention. Saying that greed caused this crisis is like saying that a particular plane crash is caused by gravity. Certainly planes wouldn't crash if it wasn't for gravity. But when thousands of planes fly millions of miles every day without crashing, explaining why a particular plane crashed because of gravity gets you nowhere.

I'm not at all saying the two systems are alike. I'm saying that a particular mechanism is utilized by both. Going back to the stepping on your foot analogy from before, if your wife steps on your foot, and you point that out as bad, would her response make any sense if it was "so you mean that I am like your neighbor, who you hate? I am nothing like him. There are vast differences between us." That's all true, but it doesn't change the fact that they both stepped on your foot and you don't like being stepped on the foot.

If a person receives police protection, he should bear the cost of that. If a person drives on roads provided by the government, he should bear the cost of that. If a coal plant releases dirt in the air, it should bear the cost of that.

If you have a system where the payer is detached from who receives the service, then you get all sorts of weird economic distortions. Some of which you mention. For example that those with influence, the rich, make others pay for what they receive. Other distortions are that bad behavior is subsidized by others, so you get more of it. For example if the coal plant doesn't have to pay the cost of it's pollution. Then you'll get more pollution from coal. Or if a smoker doesn't have to pay the cost that his bad health poses on the heath system. Then you have more smokers.
You have to ask why the poor are paying more proportional than the middle classes... the answer is that the cost of being poor is subsidized.

You are distorting the facts and changing the motivation. The capitalist government of Bush ,as you admitted he was, did not promise to pay of any mortgage that failed. Where do you get your information?

How you can tell me that china's government works to the same moral principles as a democratic country is beyond my comprehension. As for your sill analogy of my wife stepping on my foot, try again, it made no sense.

As for this pay as you go policy on policing , you are joking ? "someones trying to kill me"..... "that will be twenty dollars for the call out, sir and forty to arrest him"..... "if he asks us to assist him, it might be a matter of who has the most money, sorry sir but thats our policy."

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;122367 wrote:

You are distorting the facts and changing the motivation. The capitalist government of Bush ,as you admitted he was, did not promise to pay of any mortgage that failed. Where do you get your information?

Well, they didn't openly promise to, but the Bush administration did bail out the banks. Right at the end of the Bush administration.
You can look it up, that's what happened.

xris;122367 wrote:

How you can tell me that china's government works to the same moral principles as a democratic country is beyond my comprehension. As for your sill analogy of my wife stepping on my foot, try again, it made no sense.

I didn't say it works to the same moral principles. I said the policies have the same effects on the individual.

xris;122367 wrote:

As for this pay as you go policy on policing , you are joking ? "someones trying to kill me"..... "that will be twenty dollars for the call out, sir and forty to arrest him"..... "if he asks us to assist him, it might be a matter of who has the most money, sorry sir but thats our policy."

Not at all, the services are provided to everyone regardless. But we don't have to pay for stuff just because somebody needs to pay for them. Taxes represent an individuals cost on society. This includes choices, like the cost that a smoker poses on the heath care system, and services that we collectively decided on, even if the individual does not want them. Otherwise you get exactly the distortions you criticize, where the poor pay disproportionate amounts.

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

BUT the bush administration, advocated capitalist principles. It was not bailing out the poor but the rich capitalist bankers, the poor still lost their houses. No one helped them. Capitalism was on the brink of collapse, it needed the poors taxes to save it.

But china is not socialist, it is an authoritarian regime with no social principles and it supports capitalism. Give me one socialist agenda.

Taxes and socialism cushion the extremes of wealth. No one is forever rich, middle class or poor. Today's rich-man ,paying his taxes, maybe tomorrows pauper, would you deny him assistance? Today's poor student may create wealth for his country, would you deny him education because of his poverty or let him die because he has no health insurance?

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;122408 wrote:

BUT the bush administration, advocated capitalist principles. It was not bailing out the poor but the rich capitalist bankers, the poor still lost their houses. No one helped them. Capitalism was on the brink of collapse, it needed the poors taxes to save it.

They all advocate capitalist principles. That doesn't mean they follow them.
Capitalism is the private control of the means of production. The opposite of that being state intervention into the economy. Because the government intervenes in the form of helping the banks, does that somehow make it capitalist? As opposed to intervening on behalf of the poor, which then becomes socialist? No, it's government intervention regardless of who gets bailed out. So it's per definition anti-capitalist regardless of who gets bailed out.
Capitalism was on the brink of collapse because the government allowed the banks to make insane investments. Meaning the whole crisis started with government intervention.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

I think capitalism works with honest people. But as long as people avoid paying fair taxes. Recent resaerch showed Dutch multinationals hardly paying taxes.

---------- Post added 01-25-2010 at 01:09 PM ----------

I start to realize I grew up in a social-democrat country with goverment as an integral part of the economy. I studied BBA but also fail to see the point of a rich country with a poor population. Scholing, healthcare and security are an investment in future generations.

1 Reply

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;122433 wrote:

I think capitalism works with honest people. But as long as people avoid paying fair taxes. Recent resaerch showed Dutch multinationals hardly paying taxes.

Capitalism only works with a certain moral framework. It doesn't mean that everybody has to be completely honest in every situation, not being eager to pay your taxes is normal. But if everyone always tried to screw over everyone else to try to get the most out of it, with no regard to decency or morales, there wouldn't be the openness to run a free market.
That's why capitalism blossomed in early Islamic society. That had very advanced forms of early capitalism and was the most advanced part of the world. And that's why modern capitalism later developed in Christian western Europe.
And that why commies all try to make us moral relativists.

---------- Post added 01-25-2010 at 07:16 PM ----------

Pepijn Sweep;122433 wrote:

[/COLOR]I start to realize I grew up in a social-democrat country with goverment as an integral part of the economy. I studied BBA but also fail to see the point of a rich country with a poor population. Scholing, healthcare and security are an investment in future generations.

The US is not a rich nation with a poor population. Poor is defined as some bottom percentage of income or percentage of the population. A rather small part of "the poor" are genuinely poor. A large percentage has cars, air conditioning and TV's. Items that were considered luxuries only a generation ago. If everybody gets richer in capitalism, the commies scream "inequality".

That not everyone earns the same doesn't harm anyone if everybody is better off. I prefer that to "misery shared equally".

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;122427 wrote:

They all advocate capitalist principles. That doesn't mean they follow them.
Capitalism is the private control of the means of production. The opposite of that being state intervention into the economy. Because the government intervenes in the form of helping the banks, does that somehow make it capitalist? As opposed to intervening on behalf of the poor, which then becomes socialist? No, it's government intervention regardless of who gets bailed out. So it's per definition anti-capitalist regardless of who gets bailed out.
Capitalism was on the brink of collapse because the government allowed the banks to make insane investments. Meaning the whole crisis started with government intervention.

No it was because they realised that the capitalist system was failing, taking money from the poor to bail out the rich is the furthest away from a socialists ideology as you can get. I think your confused, socialism is not protectionism or intervention, its control of corporate greed and a system that allows for individuals to be valued whatever their ability.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;122454 wrote:

No it was because they realised that the capitalist system was failing, taking money from the poor to bail out the rich is the furthest away from a socialists ideology as you can get.

When the government mandated the banks to loan to people who couldn't afford it, that was socialism. Is that wrong?
The capitalist system was failing because of socialist intervention. Firstly the banks being mandated to do transactions they wouldn't normally do. Second in the form of the government "insuring" the risky decisions of the banks. If those risky decisions then lead to failing, you can't blame capitalism.

xris;122454 wrote:

I think your confused, socialism is not protectionism or intervention, its control of corporate greed and a system that allows for individuals to be valued whatever their ability.

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying "socialism is not intervention, it is the government intervening to...".
You see that it makes no sense. Capitalism is competition. So government action is per definition intervention into that competition, and it is per definition protecting someone from competition. Be it to make people "valued whatever their ability" or bailing out bankers.
You seem to think that when intervention protects poor people that's socialism, but when it protects rich people it somehow becomes capitalism. But you can't distinguish intervention based on who it protects. A government that is empowered to intervene on behalf of the poor will obviously use that power to intervene on behalf of it's powerful corporate donors.

That's why socialism never has the desired effects. But when socialism turns against the people, in the minds of socialists it is the fault of something else, which magically has nothing to do with the wonderful and noble intentions of socialism.
That's like telling people to jump off buildings, because you think then they will fly, but when they fall to their death, that somehow has nothing to do with your ideology, which is pro people flying.

1 Reply

Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know