Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

There's no guarantee that stocks always make money for its investors. Do you know what happened during the Great Depression? Even 2008-2009 were bad years for the stock market.
Not all companies listed on the stock exchange survive. Also, there's no way to predict economic performance for the future. None.
Those who invest for the long term usually make out very well, because "our" economy continues to grow. That's saying something when our country represents less than 5% of the world population, but we are the "richest" country in the world with our GDP exceeding $17 trillion dollars.
Consumption makes up 70% of our economy, and unemployment is below 5% which are good signs for us in this country.

The thing is my point isn't about investors gaining or losing. My point is it forces companies to constantly increase profit margins. This leads to dozens of bad outcomes for consumers and other businesses plus impacts on the environment.

The GDP is false. They use imports as GDP which is a lie. If another country produces the goods they are not domestic revenue. No Americans worked to make those goods so it's meaningless. The reason they started counting imports into GDP was to hide the fact that the US doesn't produce anything locally anymore. I bet the real numbers are negative.

Same for unemployment. They count people who fall off the list for collecting unemployment checks as working. They assume these people have jobs even if they don't. It's false data. Unemployment is probably more like 15%.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

The thing is my point isn't about investors gaining or losing. My point is it forces companies to constantly increase profit margins. This leads to dozens of bad outcomes for consumers and other businesses plus impacts on the environment.

No, it does not. That's because competition keeps most companies in line as to quality and price.

Do you own a Apple product? Have you ever had any problems with it? Have you gone to an Apple outlet to get it fixed?

If you have that experience, you'll know why Apple is such a successful company.

They're building their Campus 2 not one mile from our home.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2883747/why-apple-is-the-most-successful-company-in-history.html

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:

The thing is my point isn't about investors gaining or losing. My point is it forces companies to constantly increase profit margins. This leads to dozens of bad outcomes for consumers and other businesses plus impacts on the environment.

No, it does not. That's because competition keeps most companies in line as to quality and price.

Do you own a Apple product? Have you ever had any problems with it? Have you gone to an Apple outlet to get it fixed?

If you have that experience, you'll know why Apple is such a successful company.

There is very little to no competition in certain aspects of the economy. Where you might get four or five companies who market the same service or product but the work closely with each other to not undercut each other. Or worse where one company has a total monopoly over a product or service.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

You are lumping the stock market into capitalism. They are separate

First, that's the kind of economic system we are talking about now, so the two are currently inseparable. But maybe for good reason, because maybe capitalism cannot work without some form of a stock market..

I don't know this exactly, but I'll throw it out there..it seems to me that Capital is what drives capitalism. Capital is built off of investment, with money you don't have. In order to get that money for investment you need investors. i.e. essentially a stock market where people give you there money for you to invest in so they can get a return on that investment when your company (hopefully) makes good on the investment..

This is the whole reason for Marx's exposition on the subject. If you don't have an investment structure (in whatever form that takes), then I would argue you don't have capitalism. You have something else. Something much smaller. Something that cannot spur the gargantuan growth that mass investment via some kind of lending (stock market) fosters..

Growth is all important via a capitalist economy and is the reason why our current version of capitalism is so destructive, by its own nature, it cannot 'sit still'. It needs new markets, new products, is voracious and with current technology, has capacities for mass depletion/destruction of a human habitable planet.

Those capacities are just that. Capacities. Its mitigation is necessary and perhaps there is a way it could be controlled/harnessed to not be so destructive..

It seems to me then, that you would want to call non-investment competition something else besides capitalism, or in some way demarcate their differences..

Unless I am missing something..?

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

There is very little to no competition in certain aspects of the economy.

Please identify those products or services with no competition.
Here's the latest news on Apple's computer sales.

Quote:

Apple's Mac has reached 5.2% of worldwide computer sales, a 15-year high for the Cupertino, Calif., tech giant, according to a report by Needham & Co. analyst Charlie Wolf cited on GigaOM.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
There is very little to no competition in certain aspects of the economy.

Please identify those products or services with no competition.
Here's the latest news on Apple's computer sales.

Quote:
Apple's Mac has reached 5.2% of worldwide computer sales, a 15-year high for the Cupertino, Calif., tech giant, according to a report by Needham & Co. analyst Charlie Wolf cited on GigaOM.

How about Intel? Sure there's AMD but they have a strangle hold on AMD and can out price them any time they want and usual do. They corner the market on servers.

How about Pearson or PayPal?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I'll also throw this out there CI. I think your definition of capitalism is an ideal and ignores the ugly realities by which its goals are realized.

So, let me proffer an ideal. I don't believe human beings are greedy by nature. Socially, we evolved in small tribes and that evolutionary context created a necessity, an environment where, due to our especially frail constitution, we had to learn how to share duties and spoils of tribal efforts. There was a balance however that dictated that we also were selfish at times, but on the whole our selflessness worked to ensure survival and again, because of our frail nature, ensured survival on the whole..

It is outside forces that change that balance and I believe capitalism is one. It fosters greed and because, in our independent society, there are few constraining forces that push us to relative selflessness as tribal life did/does, that greed remains and grows unchecked, statistically speaking..

What makes it worse is that, again, we are so independent, we are removed from any need to be selfless. We are removed from what enables us to have capitalism in the first place. We are removed from understanding that laws are created by us and by definition are partisan and not of necessity (favouring the wealthy).

So, do we agree with Gordon Gecko? Is capitalism so far removed from any reality that it is an ideal? Or it is removed from creating conditions of greed?

The mass of human life is opposed to greed. There are few people outside of Gecko that would openly admit to being greedy and openly brag about it. It is, for the most part, concealed because we don't agree with it..How is capitalism supposed to bring good things if it fosters such a base behaviour? Outside of the mitigating forces I previously mentioned, I would argue it is not immune and, unchecked, is destructive for all the reasons we ostensibly are opposed to greed..

2 Replies

@catbeasy,

catbeasy wrote:

So, let me proffer an ideal. I don't believe human beings are greedy by nature.

I disagree. Ever been around a baby or infant? I don't think they realize anyone besides them exist. This behavior rears its head again around 12 to 14 when it's not only material demands but wisdom demands. You as a parent are no longer the expert, they are.

We are nothing but greed. Single occupancy SUVs driving around. How many people do you know offer a bed to a homeless person? How many billionaires offer families a few thousand dollars to pay their bills?

I could go on and on but you'll be depressed by the end of the list if you didn't kill yourself half way through it first.

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

If you believe capitalism is ugly, what other economic system do you prefer?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

I disagree. Ever been around a baby or infant?

This is not greed. Greed is taking more than you need. It also has a purposive element to it, which clearly is beyond an infant..and if you'd raised infants, you'd know once stated, they are fine. They only 'ask' for what they need.

Quote:

Single occupancy SUVs driving around. How many people do you know offer a bed to a homeless person? How many billionaires offer families a few thousand dollars to pay their bills?

You apparently didn't read what I said. Tribes don't have SUV's and billionaires. My point was exactly what you are saying. Our society creates conditions that foster greed. Capitalism is one of those conditions. Tribal communities by the nature of the conditions in which they exist foster cooperation.

Our 'nature' is probably neither selfless or selfish, but probably leans to selflessness due to the necessities of life under which we evolved. We are flexible though and other conditions such as what we see in an extreme society like our will overcome selflessness in favour of greed. I have it too, I'm not immune, this is no indictment of individuals, its what I consider a rational evaluation of a system based on our own standards..

Btw, kids do 'naturally' share as well as are 'selfish'..

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Well, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't know! I'm not that learned on all economic systems.

It is possible that some from of capitalism perhaps with extreme over-site may work(?) The question is difficult because I believe that differing economic systems may work under different political iterations.

Then again, maybe this is the best we can do. I don't know. I think its fair for someone to say they think this is the best we can do with all its destructive qualities. I don't think that's true, but at least in that assessment there's an acknowledgement of the correct qualities/properties we are dealing with. I've heard too much of how great capitalism is - but what I hear is an ideal. A perfection of trade and self regulation. But I believe this is just that: an ideal, something we see in our heads, but is ignorant of the reality with which that capitalism is actually prosecuted..

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

No economic system is perfect; it never will be. There will always be the have's and the have not's.
However, those under a democracy and capitalistic economy provides the opportunity for all to educate oneself and work hard to make a living. Even poor people can become wealthy, and have been proven by many; several have become wealthy without a college degree.

BTW, communism doesn't work, because it takes away the incentive to create, and everybody gets paid the same whether you're a doctor or a manual laborer.

Cuba is a good example. The average monthly income in Cuba is $20/month.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g147270-i91-k2265834-Don_t_Just_Tip_the_Maids-Cuba.html

A hotel housekeeper in the best hotels makes more than most people, because of tips from foreigners. Many earn more in one day than most professionals earn in one month.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

BTW, communism doesn't work

Communism is an ideal, those countries we call communist are not actually communist, they call their form "advanced socialism". The distinction is important.

When you say 'communism' doesn't work, what you are saying is that the particular form of advanced socialism that that particular society practised doesn't or didn't work. There may be a society where what we call 'socialism' works better than the mixed economy we have. We don't know. There are many many possible iterations under which to try various economic systems. The wholesale destruction of an economic system needs to be qualified under what conditions.

As I said before, 'communism' as its practised in various countries is just a form of capitalism that is state run..all the other elements are there. Part of the reason it 'doesn't work' is because those countries are dictatorial. Communism as its ideal does not have dictators, so they are bucking the ideal immediately. They recognize this which is why, in technical speak, they will call themselves Advanced Socialists.

Ostensibly Russia, for example, immediately after their revolution announced that they have to go through a period of time of transitional dictatorial rule - ostensibly 'on their way to communism'. This of course was bull ****. At least by Stalin and probably before, they had no intentions of handing rule over to the proletariat - ever. Communism isn't by its nature dictatorial. Its an ideal that thus far has never been captured.

Anyway, qualification. Just like I qualified what I said about capitalism. It may be that certain features of capitalism can be co-opted under a particular political/social iteration and be useful - to the extent that it mitigates the destruction and greed capitalism fosters (which is inherent in that system).

And as I said, the US isn't a purely capitalistic society. I agree there are features of our country that do well. To the extent we do well and prosper is to the extent that we have state intervention/regulation..

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

BTW, communism doesn't work, because it takes away the incentive to create, and everybody gets paid the same whether you're a doctor or a manual laborer.

I like this form of government, I must be a communist. Please keep in mind that not all conservatives nor progressives share identical views as their own group. opposite sides often share the same mores or agree politically on some issues.

Would you consider yourself to be a moral or ethical person who has empathy towards others?

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

catbeasy wrote:

Quote:
I disagree. Ever been around a baby or infant?

This is not greed. Greed is taking more than you need. It also has a purposive element to it, which clearly is beyond an infant..and if you'd raised infants, you'd know once stated, they are fine. They only 'ask' for what they need.

Quote:
Single occupancy SUVs driving around. How many people do you know offer a bed to a homeless person? How many billionaires offer families a few thousand dollars to pay their bills?

You apparently didn't read what I said. Tribes don't have SUV's and billionaires. My point was exactly what you are saying. Our society creates conditions that foster greed. Capitalism is one of those conditions. Tribal communities by the nature of the conditions in which they exist foster cooperation.

Our 'nature' is probably neither selfless or selfish, but probably leans to selflessness due to the necessities of life under which we evolved. We are flexible though and other conditions such as what we see in an extreme society like our will overcome selflessness in favour of greed. I have it too, I'm not immune, this is no indictment of individuals, its what I consider a rational evaluation of a system based on our own standards..

Btw, kids do 'naturally' share as well as are 'selfish'..

Sure within the tribe itself there might have been cohesion but can you rule out violent confrontations between tribes? In fact native Americans use to raid rival tribes for women and it has been theorized that this was necessary for healthy tribal cohesion. The Aztecs use to do this as well but not just for women but the stronger tribes would use extortion tactics on weaker tribes. It's not peaches and butterflies like you want to put forth.

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Very simple, what I mean by communism is the government/public ownership of all commerce. No private ownership.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

the government/public ownership of all commerce

This is defined as socialism, not communism. Communism would be worker control of production and thus commerce..

And al so called communist govt't have some private ownership..or what amounts to it in practice..

Its become a difficult thing to discuss because of the colloquial way in which we use it. But very important when discussing politics because we need clarity on terms. Just like you cannot say I'm free in this country. That doesn't tell me anything because it is a relative thing. I need to know what freedoms I have and why - specifics.

Consider when people hate socialism but tell them to lay off their medicare..there is a disconnect there..we live in a complex world, we need the clarity..

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism

1 Reply

I am between you two actually. I Agree with catbeasy a government is required because most people are stupid to take care of themselves or have any vaguest notion of equilibrium in an ecosystem that benefits everybody including themselves. That said I believe private property and business work way better to spike production and create wealth.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Merriam:
a theory advocating elimination of private property

a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

A final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
===================================================
So, there are varied definitions due to how this system was put in practice. The definition about a single totalitarian gov't owns production is what communism came to be known as, as a result of the soviet union originally being called communist. But that is not in the original definition.

The original definition, per the revolution was that workers seized control of production and it was assumed that from there, things would defacto become equitable. Basically without top down management. When Lenin took over he said there would have to be a period of transition where the few would have to rule because the masses were too stupid at that point - which he called advanced socialism, but eventually folks would become educated and power would transfer to the people. This is the last definition that Merriam shows..

That never happened. Probably Lenin, certainly Stalin had no intention of giving up power. So, the SU remained an 'Advanced Socialist' state. (this is govt of the soviet union 101)

However, because their revolution was ostensibly communist, they were called communist and when other countries followed suit and had similar dictatorships, communism began to be associated with that style of governance..hence that dictionary definition.

These are important distinctions because there output, results and practices can be quantified, referenced, are on a scale. So, when you look at practices, they are closer to socialism than a more pure definition of communism. I personally don't think the definition of a totalitarian state controlling production to describe communism is helpful because, 1. that's not original definition and 2. related, its not the only type of communism that can be conceived. That definition is too limited. Which is probably why they included the other definitions in the dictionary you referenced..

0 Replies

Would the World be Better off Without Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know