Forum Post: Capitalism for Dummies
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 10, 2011, 2:14 a.m. EST by HitGirl
(2263)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
He who has the capital (money) exploits those who do not in order to gain even more capital. Imagine you're invited to play a game of Monopoly except one player starts the game with a million dollars and the others start with 500 dollars. Not very fair is it? I doubt that you'd even want to play that game. But that's capitalism.
So the question is: What do we do about it?
Your analysis is short-sighted. Capitalism will always be unfair, even if someone doesn't start the game with $1 million. Because eventually someone will get $1 million. And once you have $1 million, you have an infinitely greater ability to increase your wealth and income than everyone else.
So capitalism will always end with a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, leaving everyone else broke.
The solution is to put an end to the backwards, medieval, barbaric, cruel, uncivilized idea that the means of survival should be privately owned by a small group of wealthy people for their personal benefit. We should put an end to what Al Capone called our thug economy where you take as much as you can and to hell with everyone else.
The solution is to replace capitalism with democracy, just like we replaced monarchies with democracy. The means of production should be democratically owned and controlled just like the means of law making should be democratically owned and controlled.
All our wealth and progress has come from science, not capitalism. Capitalism just allocates that wealth unequally.
If our economy was democratically owned and controlled, our income would be democratically allocated. There would be no poverty, everyone would be wealthy.
If everyone was an equal owner in the economy, differences in income would be limited to whatever was necessary to get people to do difficult work or give their maximum effort. So the top earners would not be able to make any more than say 4 times more than the lowest income earners, which means every worker would make at least $115,000 per year and as much as $460,000 per year.
If our economy was democratically owned and controlled, we could earn those incomes by working part time. 55% of all workers are wasting their lives doing pointless jobs that can be automated with existing technology. So if we automated those jobs and put those workers in the jobs we couldn't automate, we would be able to cut the work week in half without decreasing production.
And if our economy was democratically owned and controlled, we would have began the transition to a green economy a long time ago.
The reason why capitalists are able to maintain their control and rule over society is the same reason why Kings were able to maintain theirs: they own all the instruments of propaganda. They own the newspapers, radio stations, magazines, tv stations, churches, schools, governments and politicians which brainwashes the public into thinking there is no legitimate alternative to their rule over society and their rule is just because anyone who works hard can join them.
http://youtu.be/Hip1HR0BJk4
http://youtu.be/FSoglDcRbAg
If we "democratically" control wealth, it's not Democracy anymore, it's Communism.
We don't necessarily have to completely scrap our system and abandon capitalism to get ahead, we just need to clean it up and move back toward a model where we direct the money instead of letting it follow us. I think we had the "capital is power" discussion on another thread, and essentially that's the only point I'm making. Running society for the benefit of the markets is essentially the tail wagging the dog, and mostly that's what we're here to stop.
I can't imagine anything more illogical than saying if we democratically control something it is no longer democracy.
Communism is a stateless, moneyless society.
If we democratically control wealth - the means of survival - and still use money and still pay people to work and charge a price for the goods and services you take, it is not communism.
We do not have the technology to achieve communism.
Every family-owned farm, on the outskirts of states, their governments, wars, and taxation are and were communist. Indigenous people don't have a desire for surplus, production and exchange-value, you might say, so they aren't communist until they have our modern, western conditions.
This is the bullshit we live with.
It is perfectly easy to imagine, simply, stupidly in our stupid human minds that can only hold so many thoughts at once... that with increasing automation, with greater technological efficiency, no one need be hungry or without shelter, even in lieu of a full-time job. We live in abundance that is stifled by those who seek to profit on scarcity, and so they create it artificially.
The major thing that prevents this ideal imagination is the fact of guns and military, co-ordinated globally to protect the rights of property that are owned less-and-less by people. Our inefficiencies lie in this protectionism as much as our health, as we poison ourselves seeking temporary relief from this permanent idiocy that is so obviously wrong that denial and delusion are psychologically well-adjusted positions to take.
Well said.
Despite the fact that we have the resources and technology to produce a near unlimited amount of anything, capitalism has left us with a society where 97% of all workers earn a below average income, 50% of all wage earners make less than $26k, 1 in every 3 people are near or below poverty, 16% are underemployed, 52 million are without health insurance, and 55% of all workers are wasting their lives doing pointless jobs that can be automated with existing technology.
What you just described as communism is not communism. There is no antithesis between a price for good and services and the use of money and communism. There is between capital and communism because capital is the social relation of a relatively smaller and smaller group privately owning the means of production whilst an ever increasing part of the population have only labor to sell under the terms dictated to them by capital. The reason why a communist revolution is worthwhile is not only because it is a more democratic form of society but because the social relations under capitalism can no longer adequately drive the the development of the productive forces. That development now actually needs more cooperation and a more equitable distribution of the benefits to continue to drive further development. What is happening today is capitalists are investing in China and India and elsewhere because they can make much more profit with essentially redundant technologies. It is not in their interest to develop the productive forces further. To put it in terms of self-interest: under capitalism it is to your advantage to arrest your self interest to a bottom line; under communism your self interests have the opportunity to develop beyond narrowing your mind to such a myopia.
No, what I described is in fact communism.
What you described is Marxism, or Marx's critique of capitalism.
Where do you get the description that communism is a stateless, cashless society? I suspect you need to get your information from sources a little more sophisticated than Wikipedia. It is silly to use these two criteria as definition of communism. Why? Because capitalism has a great deal to do with the cashless society now and if globalization is anything, it is the sublimation of all borders particularly those of nation states by the flows of capital. So the two criteria you choose to define what communism is are in fact the way advanced capitalism works. You should not try to pretend to be so authoritative when your education has barely begun.
"It is silly to use these two criteria as definition of communism."
Read my comment again. I don't use 2 criteria to define communism. I defined it as:
"Communism is a hypothetical stage society will reach after capitalism once it develops the technology to eliminate scarcity. It is speculated that once you eliminate scarcity, you don't need money or property or government."
So you will wind up with a moneyless, propertyless (in the means of production), stateless and classless society.
Cite your source that you think disputes this definition.
.
"capitalism has a great deal to do with the cashless society now and if globalization is anything, it is the sublimation of all borders"
Huh!?!
Everything within a capitalist society has a price tag and requires the use of money to purchase. Capitalism has not made anything free!!
And stateless means no state, not open trade between countries!! States are stronger than ever in today's capitalist world.
.
"You should not try to pretend to be so authoritative when your education has barely begun."
I'm 40, my education began a long time ago.
Not long enough if you imagine it is finished. Firstly, nothing will be free in communism. In fact, because in capitalism it is possible to not pay for the consequences of the externalities of the production process and the consequences of your actions (the ecological damage from the market economy is one example; another is the bailout of financial institutions following the GFC) in communism there will be less free things because more will be taken into account to accurately cost/price/value whatever is done as a more authentic assessment of productivity.
States are nowhere near as strong as they were. The two world wars were the apotheosis of nation states. Now states are increasingly superficial and redundant. One of the reasons the Right is fond of vilifying the UN and other multilateral organizations and institutions is the diminishing influence and power of their home ground: the national economy. The USA is exemplar of the diminishing power of states. Before it could reasonably said that if the USA sneezed the rest of the world caught cold. How long has the USA been recessed? Whilst much of the rest of the world is rapidly, economically developing. OWS is another indication of the diminishing power of states. The rapidity of the way it spread internationally and its stated source of inspiration, the Arab Spring demonstrate both nations and nationalism's mounting irrelevance.
40? You have another 10 years of intense study ahead of you at least. That's if you haven't wasted any of your time thus far. Ask me nicely and I will provide you with a reading list.
"nothing will be free in communism"
There are no price tags or money in a communist society. Everything is free.
"States are nowhere near as strong as they were"
States are as strong as they ever were. The government today has a far greater impact on society than it did 70 years ago. It regulates more, offers more social programs and consumes far more revenue.
I don't know what you think OWS has done by getting kicked out of all their occupations and not enacting a single law or eliminating any part of government that shows the state has diminished.
And the Arab Spring did not replace states with anarchy. They replaced one regime with another. The state is as strong.
.
"You have another 10 years of intense study"
I obviously have not read every political science book, but I'm pretty sure I understand the field without the need for 10 more years of intense study.
.
"I will provide you with a reading list"
Sure.
We are not getting very far. I say, in a communist society nothing will be free; you say everything will be free. Lets try another tact. For something to be free in an economy it has to require no work. At present, work is generally oppressive. Part of the oppression is work's drudgery, boredom, insecurity, destruction, cretinism, dehumanization, and physical harm. More importantly, work in a capitalist society makes matters worse. The harder workers work now, the more wealth is accumulated by capitalists which is then used to improve productivity and eliminate jobs. The harder workers work now the quicker they are out of a job.
A communist society will not eliminate work, it will attempt to free it from its present predicament. The aim here is to make it more creative so that work will be more in the workers' interest. The point of a communist society is to liberate work not make everything free.
Although what you said is true about communism, that is not what makes a society communist. What makes a society communist is its goods and services being free. And like I said in the previous comment, by free, I don't mean things are produced without labor. I mean you are not charged a price. The price of everything is $0.
If a capitalist society eliminated drudgery and made all jobs creative, like you described, it would still be capitalist. It would not be communist.
You need to provide the source of the definition of communism you are using. Then it would help if you explained what you mean by price. This is where this exchange is bogged down.
In response to your last comment: it is impossible for capitalism to eliminate drudgery. It relies on workers working against themselves, making life a drudgery. Workers create all the wealth but capitalists take possession of it.
The way you have written your last comment makes it seem as if I was suggesting capitalism could manage a situation where there would not be drudgery and all jobs were creative. I take it you are not suggesting I am saying this and I am only pointing this out because it is an indication that in most of what I have read of your posts it seems to me you are too loose with your words.
You need to provide the source of the communism definition and your explanation of what you mean by price for this exchange to develop.
From the Communism entry in Wikipedia, which was based on Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme:
"Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless and revolutionary socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production...In Marxist theory, communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals."
In Engels's The Principles of Communism, he defines communism as "the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat." That liberation can only come from eliminating scarcity which he believed was possible if one of the developed countries organized production according to a central plan based on cooperation instead of competition. The rest of the developed countries would then follow suit.
In today's society if you want a tv, you have to go to a store and use your available income to pay whatever the price of the tv is. If you do not have enough money to buy the tv, you cannot take it. In a communist society, you walk into a distribution center and just take whatever tvs you want. Nobody will stop you or ask for income. There is no money. Everything is free.
Well I shall read Critique of the Gotha Programme to get the context and whether the Wikipedia entry is accurate. But before that the quote only mentions that communism is an ideology aiming at a classless, moneyless, stateless and revolutionary socialist society. It does not say communism is only the end. The implication is, it is a project towards that. For example, most of the West sees China's use of the market economy as a turn away from communism but if China is using the market as a way to more quickly arrive at an advanced economy to enable "distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals" then it is practicing communism now.
The Engels quote speaks of eliminating scarcity. Engels had a less sophisticated comprehension of most things compared to Marx. I suspect his idea of scarcity is relative to the historical conditions prevailing in his day. I don't think Marx would argue you could eliminate scarcity because being human we can invent needs and the higher the needs then probably the more scarce your time becomes. Marx in fact ran out of time before the first Marxist revolution.
The last paragraph is most worrying. It draws conclusions which do not follow from the prior statements. Its whole perspective is of a present day consumer that dreams of at last getting something for free. It is not that the situation it describes isn't possible. The truth is it is becoming more and more practical. But the tv could only be described as free if consumerism remains the prevailing perspective. This is not very likely after a Marxist revolution. Hardly anyone will be content with the bourgeois ideal of freedom which is to be one who is born to consume. In communism you will have far better things to do, like making history. In any case, even with take-whatever-you-like-distribution-centers it still won't be free. You might not have to hand over money but in communism workers rule and the real cost to them and the world will be better appreciated.
A communist is clearly someone who wants society to reach communism. But a communist society is a society that has achieved communism, that is moneyless, stateless, propertyless and classless, not a society on its way.
China is not communist. But as Marx pointed out, only a developed country can achieve communism. China cannot. It doesn't have the productive capacity to. All the communist revolutions happened in the third world. They did not happen in the US or England or Germany or France as Marx predicted.
A communist revolution is not going to change people's desire for tvs or to consume. And I disagree that a consumer will better appreciate the cost when everything is free than if they have to spend a portion of their limited income.
Communism is the redistribution of wealth in the extreme, to the point where no matter what occupation you are you earn the same income as everyone else. Communism is Socialism in the extreme, just as a Free Market Economy is Capitalism in the extreme. A "stateless, moneyless society" would be a form of anarchy, which can never exist.
Your definitions are wrong.
Communism has nothing to do with redistributing wealth.
Communism is a hypothetical stage society will reach after capitalism once it develops the technology to eliminate scarcity. It is speculated that once you eliminate scarcity, you don't need money or property or government.
Technology enables you to reach such an abundance that you no longer need goods and services to be rationed with money, people can take all they want. And automation is so advanced, all the jobs nobody wants to do are done by machines, so you don't need to pay people to work.
No society has ever achieved communism. We do not have the technology to achieve it. I advocate the use of money, prices, markets for goods and services and working for an income. So I do not advocate communism.
However, just like everyone equally "owns" the government in a democratic society, I also advocate that everyone equally "own" the economy.
Democracy is a society where power rests with everyone equally. Our current society where a wealthy few rule and own everything is not democratic.
Have you ever read A Communist Manifesto? Communism is established by the rising of the Proletariat. What you're talking about is, once again, a form of Utopian Anarchy.
The communist manifesto does not explain what communism is. It was just an attempt to use the political process to put society on the road towards communism.
A communist society is an anarchist society. But Marx was against any kind of utopia and wrote criticisms of what he called the utopian socialists who thought it would create a perfect society.
I just finished reading A Communist Manifesto, it explains what communism is. And if Marx was against a utopian society why did he attempt to, as you claim, "put society on the road towards communism" unless he believed it to be better than the current system? Which makes communism a form of utopia, by your own reasoning Marx believed in utopian societies.
Marx went out of his way not to describe what a communist society would look like or how it would operate. He called the people who did utopian instead of scientific.
Communism is a better society than our current one.
But it is not a perfect society. So it is not a utopian society.
It depends on your definition of a utopian society. A utopian society could be defined as any society better than the current one. But fair enough point.
While you're describing the "how" in how Communism is theoretically implemented, I don't think you're understanding "what" it is.
While I don't advocate Communism (or any extreme utopian view) I think you might understand the theory behind it better after reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production
Well it depends on what form of communism you're talking about.
I probably should have said "marxism" instead.
I personally do not want the morons in this country making decisions for me. Let the restuarant people decided how to run their store.
Democracy is a society where power rests equally with everyone. But it only gives you equal power over SUBJECTIVE decisions. In the economy, it gives you equal power over the subjective question of what should the economy produce. It does not give you equal power over the OBJECTIVE, technical decisions of how to meet that production demand such as how to build a car or how to properly run a restaurant or how to fix a cavity in a tooth.
and the kings owned the armies ...
and the police just in case the brainwashing doesn't work.
back in the days of monarchy , was there ever great economic depressions ? .. how could that be when they had absolute rule ?
They didn't have large market economies. It was mostly agrarian. So there was no such thing as the business cycle. What they did have was regular famines from inevitable crop failures.
Go to hell you jew loving capitalistic whore. Fuck you and the 1%. One day you will all be reeducated.
Wow, that is a lot of racism and hate. Hitler was delusional just so you know.
And I'm not sure where you get the impression that I love capitalists in my post that says we should eliminate capitalists and replace them with democracy.
I'm with you on the Democracy thing. Right now we're fighting a group of oligarchs who are doing everything in their power to shove their free-market fascist utopia down our throats. Sorry about the other HitGirl - it's not me. Just click on the names. Some right-wing nutcase out to make me look bad. Deception is all they ever have.
Unfortunately, if we don't organize with the specific demand to replace capitalism with democracy, it will never happen.
We need to recruit the working class. I believe we can because a democratic economy means the minimum wage would be $115k for working part time. But they need to be informed that there is a far superior alternative.
Are you part of any organized effort that is advocating this kind of change?
I'm a member of moveon and PDA. Don't know if that's what you mean.
Those organizations just want improved capitalism. They are not looking to replace capitalism with democracy.
Democracy should rule capitalism not replace it. You do need an economic system.
Did you read my original comment?
You cannot have democracy and capitalism. They are opposites.
Capitalism should be replaced with democracy.
Just like we replaced monarchies, and its private ownership of government, with democracy so the means of law making are publicly owned and controlled for the equal benefit of everyone, we should replace capitalism, and its private ownership of the economy, with democracy so the means of survival are publicly owned and controlled for the equal benefit of everyone.
To make society fully democratic, all elections should be publicly financed. AND all businesses should be publicly financed. AND the total income produced by all businesses should be paid to all workers according to a plan that is democratically established through the collective bargaining process at the national level where differences in income are limited to whatever is necessary to get people to do difficult work and give their maximum effort.
If we democratically determined that the top earners should make no more than 4 times more than the bottom earners, that would enable us to pay everyone from $115,000 to $460,000 per year (1) - enough to make everyone wealthy and eliminate nearly every social problem we have. And since we can automate half the jobs we do, we can pay these incomes for working part time (2).
All our wealth and progress has come from science, not capitalism. Capitalism just allocates that wealth unequally.
Despite the fact that we have the resources and technology to produce a near unlimited amount of anything, the thug system of capitalism, where you take as much as you can and to hell with everyone else, has left 97% of all workers earning a below average income (3), 50% of all wage earners making less than $26k, ONE HALF of all Americans near or below poverty, 18% underemployed, 52 million without health insurance, and 55% of all workers wasting their lives doing pointless jobs that can be automated with existing technology (2).
Capitalism is a backwards, medieval, barbaric, cruel, uncivilized system that has no place in the modern, democratic world.
People deserve a government of the people, by the people, and for the people and they also deserve an economy of the people, by the people, and for the people.
The way to replace capitalism with democracy is with a general strike. Every worker in the economy, except for critical/emergency workers, goes on strike, and they don't go back to work until we have an economy where all businesses are publicly financed and total income is democratically allocated.
Raising the minimum income to $115k and reducing the work week to 20 hours is a deal that workers will find worth striking for.
(1) http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/#comment-339860
(2) http://occupywallst.org/forum/are-you-rebels-or-revolutionaries-choose-revolutio/#comment-71303
(3) http://occupywallst.org/forum/solution-raise-the-minimum-wage-to-110000-per-year/#comment-335999
I will check all this out when I have the time. Thanks for your well thought-out response :) Links copied to my word pad.
Democracy is the tool of capitalist, socialism is the only way for true equality.
Democracy is a society where power rests with everyone equally.
You can have soviet socialism where the means of production are publicly owned and administered by an unelected dictatorship.
Or you can have democratic socialism where the means of production are publicly owned and administered by everyone equally by how they spend their money and who they vote for in positions of power.
Undemocratic socialism is the tool of tyrants and has been a complete disaster everywhere it was tried.
Only democracy works.
There is no such thing as democracy and capitalism. They are opposites. The US has some democracy in government and no democracy in its economy. I want to have full democracy in government and the economy.
If OWS was unelected we would rule peacefully. If anyone had a problem with our leadership we would simply remove them from the equation. Everyone else would be equal and love would be our strength. Whose with me.
"If anyone had a problem with our leadership we would simply remove them from the equation"
There is a system for that. It is called democracy.
That's a Ron Paul quote, right?
Good analogy of the free market. Now, let's regulate the shit out of them
We already HAVE regulated the sht out of them. 130,000 pages when Clinton left office... and now that book has grown to 160,000 pages when Bush left office.
Obviously the wrong regulation because Clinton is responsible for GATT deregulation which shipped all the manufacturing jobs overseas. The commodities futures modernization act which deregulated the commodities market resulting in speculative bubbles for lifes essentials. . He also repealed the Glass Steagall Act which deregulated the commercial and investment banks resulting in the collapse of 08. Maybe I'm just clueless.
very astute and right on!! also he threatened to enforce the Community Reinvestment Act which prompted banks to lend on a subprime basis,,, obviously a major contributing factor to the current state of the economy. CFMA also paved the way for those dangerous CDS that blew up Lehman and many other firms. Political incompetence (failure to think of the possible outcomes of legislation) needs to stop.
Thank you for the insight. I will build on that when I have time to research.
Clinton's Comptroller of the Currency (Ludwig) says repealing Glass-Steagall didn't cause the crash. I posted the video in a top post.
Yes and Joseph Goebbels said Hitler didn't kill anyone in the camps.
That's a non-sequitor that does nothing to refute Mr. Ludwig's comment. He's an expert and his opinion has weight. Yours has none.
Ok, My opinion means nothing. How about Willian K Black? Do you know who he is? If not please check his credentials. William k Black:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omqe2gWZgGg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
At NO point did he explain HOW the repeal of Glass-Steagall caused the 2008 bubble and subsequent crash. Thanks for wasting 11 minutes of my time. I will now conclude that you have ZERO argument to support the fallacious claim that if G-S had still be in effect, the crash would Not have happened. I will continue to hold my belief that, even with Glass-Steagall in effect we'd have a crash. (After all we had crashes under G-S before.)
If you REALLY want to understand economics (which you do not presently), then you should be listening to this guy (the first half of each show) : http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/
.
Oh, you need it explained to you. You should have said so. Let me dig something up that will simplify it for you. BTW, I watch Max regularly and he also agrees repeal of G S was a huge part of the collapse. Now I have to dig for you.
Your explanation of capitalism is simplistic yet quite correct. The first one in (with the capital) has the upper hand.
The most important thing we can do about it is get money out of politics so that the people with the money at least cannot buy our government.
And your solution is just as correct. I would add that proper taxation of wealth promotes a healthy economy and a more harmonious society.
Right again. And, when do we get proper taxation? When we get our government back! Can't wait. This was a great post HitGirl. Understanding this basic premise of capitalism is so so important. Oftentimes people blame themselves for being poor and the rich pat themselves on the back (full of hubris) for being rich when meanwhile it is just that simple rule of capitalism that caused both.
People who are successful usually earn it. I have worked two and three jobs at times in my life, as have many people, to gain a little more, to hopefully make the future easier for me and my family.If someone is poor, they can pursue a path to gain more wealth. It is a choice. Look in your class yearbook at all of the people who came from modest means and later excelled in a particular field. It is most often obtained through hard work. And tell me exactly how many times you have seen a rich person pat themselves on the back full of hubris? This simple rule of capitalism you speak of is bullshit. You can make yourself into that which you choose to be. It may take risk and failure, but if one has a well thought out plan, and puts out effort, one can become a teacher, a scientist, an engineer, or a business owner.
98% of the wealth owned by the top 1% has been inherited, not earned. That inherited wealth, put in hedge funds and the like that are barred from ordinary people, not the efforts and labors of the wealthy, builds virtually all of the new wealth today. There has never been a time in American history in which there was less chance for income mobility. Never. The poor are more likely, despite their best efforts, to stay poor, and the rich, despite their most cognitively challenged sloth, are less likely to end up poor. The odds against real income mobility are nearly 100%.
You bootstraps scenario is no longer any more than a vestige of a shell of a ghost of a myth.
You're very judgmental assuming that poor people don't work hard. Poor people work harder than most at menial back-breaking jobs earning wages that never allow them to save capital to invest in a better future. Capitalism is an economic system based on exploitation. HitGirl explained it well. And, I've known plenty of wealthy people who think they are superior to poor people. I, personally, value people on much more important things than how much capital they have amassed.
poor people don't work hard theyre generally lazy black people with nothing to offer except bitching and whining. Capitalism gives them an excuse never to strive, that is the evil of capitalism
No. That is racist and you are sounding like a troll.
Your a troll, I stand in parks and hold signs that say "Occupy" I am changing the world. What you ever done? I voted for Obama so I can't be racist.
Good for you beauty. I am glad you value people on more than just wealth. I do too. My larger point is anything one wishes to obtain, that is considered valuable, whether it be an education, a home or a position, an automobile, whatever, usually comes by hard work. You seem to be judgmental of wealthy people yourself, claiming to know what they "think".
Things such as you mention often come by hard work, but not always. And, hard work does not always bring those things. Hard work can, and often does, give people merely enough to survive. In some cases, not even that much as evidenced by the 1 in 7 Americans on food stamps (many of whom work).
It's the only game in town. As long as the majority want to play it you have several choices. Play along and try to get ahead, encourage the majority to change games, or move to a place where they play a different game and hope things are better there. Very little is fair about life anyhow.
could revise inheritance laws--the inheritance tax on a federally taxable estate (>3.5million) is 50% and was 0% for 2010 ala. GWBush--however, those 1 in 300 people subject to the tax hire an attorney to structure transactions and trusts around that tax--nobody pays it as a result... changing loopholes could help the government get out of debt, and mean fewer future tax increases.
There is a lot that could be done. We have to get representatives elected that are willing to actually do it though. People have come up with a lot of great ideas, it's time to get organized politically and make some of them happen.
The "life isn't fair" argument is just a cop-out. That's like saying why have laws at all since life isn't fair? Makes no sense.
Nothing wrong with setting rules or life, but there is an element of chance involved and things don't work out evenly for all. Accident, disease, natural ability can't be legislated and have to be dealt with. For myself it's easier to do once I face reality and stop complaining or feeling sorry for myself.
The unfairness comment was just a closing observation. It doesn't change the options with regard to capitalism. In answer to your question, what do we do. Stay and work in the system, work to change the system, or leave to live in a different system.
There are many complaints and appeals to have someone else make changes offered in this forum. Many ideas have been offered up. So far very little effort has been made to organize political action to get like minded people elected and get real change. It would seem that most have preferred the cop-out to actually doing anything.
You're wrong on several counts. You assume that the majority want to play the game of predatory capitalism. Guess you just don't have the facts to back that up. And why do we set "rules for life" except to create fairness. Where else do you think "rules for life" come from? Are you talking about brushing your teeth everyday? And there are all kinds of political organizations out there working for change. Some are bought and paid for by the 1% but others consist of people who want real change. It's true that many people would rather deal with their own problems or don't care enough to even understand their government, but you're always going to have that crowd.
Well the majority are comfortable with what they have and keep their complaints quietly to themselves.
Wrong! They express their complaints in the voting booth. That's why Obama is president.
I thought Obama was bad
You didn't here that from me.
No just the general movement. Is he right or wrong for the country?
He wouldn't be my first choice for President of the United States.
There are hardly any worth voting for.
He had not accomplished one good significant accomplishment for the econmy before the presidency, hasn't done since election, and I will be damned if he does anything in reelection. He single handedly is destroying our capitalistic society I love it. Who cares if unemployment is up, they will get checks from Obama. OBAMA I love you. Also voting for a black guy is pretty cool
The entire race thing was and is moronic.
The HitGirl posting above is not me.
I figured that out last night. Thanks
Your moronic go fuck yourself you jew loving capitalist.
I do love me a good masturbation session. I do not hate jews or dislike them. And yes capitalism is the best system. Maybe instead of fucking myself you could suck my penis. And am I a racist too?
A replicant HitGirl...this is the kind of ethical lapse you would expect from those who support pure capitalism and the 1%
Laws protect our personal property and our bodies and our rights. They aren't supposed to make things fair.
You are right though, capitalism is not fair. The nice thing about America is that it is easier than anywhere on earth to become a "capitalist" and profit from the system. You may not ever reach the sacred "1%" (though, by definition, 1 out of 100 will) but if your family is taking in $250K a year you will be just fine. That is entirely possible in America if you work hard and make good choices.
What about those people who simply do not want to be a capitalist. Personally i wouldn't want to be in the top 1%. I could care less about money. I just want a world where everyone can have a decent life. The whole capitalistic system simply assumes that everyone wants to be rich. As if is the ultimate goal in life.
I make no such assumption about what the majority actually wants. People are free to ignore the game of capitalism to a large extent, live within their means, do whatever job they find they can, and simply live their own life. I would assume there are people like that in any economic system. The majority may not care one way or the other.
If the majority actively didn't want the system we have it would be changed. Some change has occurred, we're not a strict capitalistic society any longer.
Laws are established for all sorts of reasons, protecting the weak or to organize things better. Laws can't guarantee equal outcomes for all people. None of this really changes things, we have several options if we don't like capitalism. It won't change at all if people don't care, or if their only response to it is protest. Protest is a good start, that alone won't do anything.
Have you heard of the 99percentdeclaration? https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
Thanks for link.
Yes I've heard of it. It remains to be seen if a national General Assembly can agree on anything and then if they can gather the political support to influence anyone in government. It may turn out to be simply a symbolic gesture by a small group. It's one thing to say you are a national movement, it's another to organize and deliver votes like the unions, civil rights groups, or AARP can.
we change the rules
Yes. The Oligarchs are trying that very thing.
did you know there are two of you running around?
I found at least one post that wasn't mine. Thanks for the warning. Should I take this as a compliment?
I guess
that's what they say
I still think he who has the best girlfriend is better off? Do you think that money can buy you the best girlfriend.
He who dies with the best girlfriend wins...you might be right ;)
I've a list of links to other forum posts and other stuff that has promise:
Sanders Proposed Constitutional Amendment:
Sanders Petition here:
Rep. Deutch's amendment discussed here:
and you can read repelican reaction here.
The Ninety-Nine Percent Declaration
second proposed petition:
Thanks. I've been looking for the full amendment PDF.
it is my pleasure
last night the petition had just crossed 100,000 signatures!
There isnt a system that is fair, sorry.
If there is, please name me one. You are forgetting the human condition in all this. Humans are achievers, and while it isnt right that some will not ever be rich, it isnt right to hold those back that can make the leap either.
Your opinion on the human condition is arguable. For tens of thousands of years societies have functioned not as personal achievers but as communal achievers. It is only more recent in our history that we have equated economic superiority as a positive human trait. The boastful rich were commonly shunned from societies in the past.
Nobody's talking about holding anyone back. And since there isn't a system that's fair why don't you go live in North Korea? Let me tell you why: because the system is more fair in the United States. It is more fair because people didn't just cop an attitude about "life isn't fair." Instead, in the US we strive to improve the system. Sorry, but that's how it is. Get on board or move out.
I don't like North Korea's game at all. As bad as it may seem, most people in the US seem to like capitalism. It certainly works better then socialism.
The United States has been a hybrid of capitalism and socialism for the majority of the past century. We might be less socialized than countries like North Korea but we are also less socialized than countries like Denmark and Norway who are among the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. Practically nobody on earth likes North Korea's game. Not even the brainwashed North Koreans for the most part.
Well, what are you proposing. There isnt a way to make sure everyone is rich.
I would start by holding parents accountable for their kids, cutting the gov in half, end the wars, and making college actually challenging.
I find it interesting and a bit disturbing that you think the primary goal of people in our society should be to become rich. Do you teach your children that money is everything?
Sorry, I dont, you are the one with the ridiculous post about how not having the money isnt fair. Are you on here just to argue?
And you clearly are someone who really thinks anyone who is rich is hte problem. The problem, what this is all about (central banking) is such a small number of people, that 1% is really giving it too much credit (3m).
The 1% is just a slogan, something that's easy to comprehend. We live in a sound-bite culture. But I disagree that the problem is simply a few investment bankers. Billionaires are trying to shove oligarchy down our throats through propaganda machines and by corrupting our political system, buying politicians and re-educating Americans to buy into their vision of unfettered capitalism that benefits who? Let's see...THEM.
Once again, this is far from unfettered capitalism...
becoming rich should be everyone's goal...perhaps not wealthy, but rich, as in abundant, diverse, bountiful, clever, wise, and sophisticated... Of course...the most important goal of a person should be to excel and transcend the previous day.....anyone can do that...
As for money, and wealth...it's a result, not a cause
I doubt hchc would agree.
If you don't want to be rich Hit, don't hold it against people that do. Just what is your jealousy and envy really about?
It really isn't about jealousy and envy. It's more like respect for the human race, the environment and the future. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic in assuming people should care about something other than their own wealth.
Many "wealthy" care about many things, I am sure. Many wealthy supply decent jobs, services, products, etc. Most people do concern themselves with their own wealth. I do. I have a mortgage, kids in college(I don't know what the hell for, but that is another story), pets and animals to care for, heat and electricity, and so on and on. I do respect the human race, and prove it with how I spend money. Millions of us are in this boat. Money isn't everything, and it cannot buy happiness. It does help ease the pain in a broken world though.
it's envy.
I've spent my adult life as a laborer. My Capitalist employers trained me, feed me, gave me health insurance, and provided me the means by which I stopped being a laborer and opened my own business. Over the years I've made as little as 8k a year, up to 220k a year, and now as a business owner I scrape for every dollar I earn. Don't have enough to pay an employee, so I do everything myself. I do this not because I have to, but because I want to, and I live in a country that gives me that freedom. But if I'm understanding you right, you think you deserve a part of my business just because you exist? What about all my work? Are you saying that if I do start to hire labor, and thus perpetuate knowledge, training and tools that will allow them to someday go out on their own, that they should be "owners" of my business? This is where the so called 99% lose me. I'm definitely not in the 1%, but you do not represent the true hard working, Free, American. You represent Socialism and I consider you a threat to our nation and our way of life. And I will fight this enemy within to my last breath.
I'm confused who is the real HitGirl. Is someone posing?
Just click on the name and see when they joined. One HitGirl is really HitGiri with the i capitalized.
You will refuse to play the game by offering a game where everyone starts with the same amount and equal knowledge of the rules and power over them.
But life is not a game. So you would refuse have your life or any one else's treated like a game lest you yourself may lose your life in that game.
So you would rather have communism or socialism?
Did I say that? People need to be aware of the realities of pure capitalism so they can guard against it. Read squarerootofzero's post. Don't present me with false choices.
Perhaps a game with too many players trying to control the outcome, will eventually collapse itself. Maybe the approach is to preserve sanctity to the game, but create a better set of rules. Given the current trajectory of Capitalism it might be deemed unsustainable, just as it was to give every man, woman, or business on the planet access to sky high limits of credit. Our system is based on consumer spending - or it was. Even so, now most of the money ends up at Banks, Energy companies (including oil), or in China for goods and India for many services. We have relied on financial magic to keep the system going. What is happening is like pushing the rest button on the game, but there are clear winners and losers of that occurrence. The game is much more complicated. The players also lobby to change the rules to gain advantage and in some cases are outright fraudulent. That is what needs to stop.
Used your post in my argument with jbob. You're right. The American economy is about 70 percent consumer driven. Pure capitalism will destroy this country.
Just be cautious if you come off as anti-capitalist or anti-business. Understand that unrestrained Capitalism, the type that puts kids working in factories, doesn't exist here in America anymore. I am pro-business, but I want to keep more capital at home and in the pockets of Americans. I help my neighbor and my neighbor helps me, sort of thing, that his been lost in the consumer culture. Think about what you need and what you "think" you need.
Don't you think there is a push by certain people who have enormous resources toward unrestrained Capitalism?
I, personally, take the position that people are changing the rules and are in many cases committing fraud. President Obama said on 60 mins, that the reason that people haven't been prosecuted is that "technically" their actions were legal. Really? I think if we start with what IS "technically" illegal and work backwards we might get somewhere. People are using as much influence as they possibly can to gain advantages. I hold individuals responsible and not Capitalism in general. Does that make sense? I'll be happy to clarify more if I need to.
Why can't it be both? Bad actors and a system that rewards them. Don't get me wrong; I think you need to have incentives to do the best you can, but rewarding bankers for skimming and fraud and calling it innovation...seriously wrong.
I see your point. But I would rather focus on individual behavior than attacking the whole system. i.e. Capitalism didn't just break into your house and steal your 401K money and take your car, did it? Capitalism didn't just lose 1.2 Billion dollars, Somebody like Jon Corzine did - even if they "find" it. The level of ignorance is really the root of the problem, in my opinion of course. I can't force anyone to believe what they don't want to.
They had the top people at MF Global in front of Congress and they all said, "I don't know what happened to the money." Where is the outrage?!? Put them in shackles and lock them up until their selective memories return. America is turning into such a clown-country it turns my stomach!
I know it is frustrating, isn't it!? My point is that if PEOPLE are held accountable for their actions then it certainly would alter their behavior wouldn't it? You can't just take a 20 million dollar bonus and claim complete ignorance to what is going on. That is always our excuse isn't it? That is taking the risk and transferring it to the INDIVIDUALS who are responsible and not applying it to abstract ideas such as Capitalism, Fannie Mae, Goldman Sachs, who are not PEOPLE. Take the big money, take the big risk or stay out of the game.
There has to be rules and penalties - even for lawmakers. We can agree on that. People don't behave responsibly. That's why we have three branches of government.
Give me the 500, I'm going to finish the game on top becuase I am going to play instead of being a cry baby OWS fool.
You can play a rigged game if you want. Instead, I think I'll show some backbone and creativity and work to get the rules changed so that the game is more fair.
wuss!
Playing the game and living is better tna curling up in a ball and crying isn't it?
Sorry about the false HitGirl. Don't know what to do about that. Regarding your post, there is a prayer that I recall..."God grant me the strength to change the things that I can."
Its just fine not your fault. There is another quote I remember, "As soon as I step on the court I just try to play tennis and don't find excuses. You know, I just lost because I lost, not because my arm was sore" (Goran Ivanisevic).
You're assuming it's a fair game. What if Goran was given a ping-pong paddle and asked to play? Is it really fair for American workers to compete with workers from a third-world country? There comes a point where fairness IS the issue.
Personally I think we need stricter border laws.
Me too.
Shut up and wait when we are in control you will rue the day.
Interesting...I did not post the above.
I'm rueing your goddamned mouth.
kings, look above you at the reply. That hitgirl that you are responding to joined today. The real HitGirl (the one that started this thread) reads like this: HitGirl I am a BIG Elizabeth Warren fan and Thom Hartmann acolyte. CSULB graduate. Currently employed. Hoping to help fight for change. Private Messages send message Information Joined Oct. 20, 2011 The fake HitGirl has a join date of Dec. 13 2011
I am or she is?
She is. the HitGirl that you replied to is fake. Click on her name in the post: [-] HitGirI 0 points 40 minutes ago Shut up and wait when we are in control you will rue the day.
That isn't the real HitGirl.
Thanks. I just discovered that post.
Your welcome. The troll has been all over the forum.
I didn't know you could have the same exact name. Or is it a hack? Maybe the pod-people are here!
BlueRose figured it out, below. I thought it was a hack. The troll used a capital i instead of a lower case L. So it looks identical but it is not.
Clever Troll. He's saying some pretty nasty stuff too. Just goes to show exactly who the deceivers are. L as a capital L. l as a lower case l. I still don't understand. they look the different???
It doesn't look different. HitGirI with a capital i at the end of your name looks just the same as if I had used a lowercase L.
I get it. Sorry for being lame. Good to know it's not the pod people.
Your not lame. You must have said the truth and that must have scared the hell out of someone. Enough for them to go through the trouble. Good job!!!:D
I notice that you capitalize the real one but the false one is not. Is the real HitGirl's name capitalized like that? Secondary question, are the names exactly the same?
The names ARE exactly the same. It threw me off.
Ok I just wanted to make sure. Do you know how she can do that? Have the same name as another user that is.
Test. I as in capitol i. l as in lower case L. Now alternate. IlIlIlIlIl
This post is absurd. That is not even close to a valid definition of capitalism.
You're free to post your own valid definition. I don't see anything wrong with mine. It's a tad frank, but that's me.
Capitalism does not have a set group getting one amount and another appropriated another. You are just taking part in the attempt to spread disinformation. The left is attacking our Country at the moment, and whether you are aware of it or not, you are indeed partaking in the smear campaign. Stop thinking in terms of injustices. There will always be inequalities in any society. It's part of the imperfections surrounding human nature. You have a better chance of overcoming injustice in America than anywhere else on the planet.
Capitalism is simply : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
Frankly, I think your definition isn't near as accurate as mine.
Or you may just watch too much Comedy Central. The possibilities are endless.
I like your title LOL
Simply single the rapacious financial capital out.
It amazes me is how close everyone is to the answer, and yet so unwilling to even discuss the only answer(s) to every problem that humanity faces….Elimination of a monetary society, the elimination of all borders and the removal of religion from societal influence. The most disturbing thing about this claim is that an overwhelming amount of people will actually agree with the idea and then follow up with “yeah it sounds nice, but it’s not possible” or even worse “ that’s just the way things have always been, things will never change”. There is always the built in assumption that while you may believe this that the rest of the world is not willing to change… The world is ready to change… The overwhelming majority of people do want to work for the good of humanity and not greed… This society will exist, if not now, in our future… The only question that remains is that are we the ones willing to take the first steps for the future of all humanity.
Did you ever think about what the real roll of religion is in society?
No religion should ever be allowed to influence society as a whole.. In the first place, there are way too many conflicting religions and somebody has to be wrong. And in the second place, it is hard to say which has killed more people in our history… Religion or Money? In addition too many people use religion as a shield to do bad things and still be ok because they believe… . In many, many cases throughout history religion has been used to justify murder, human sacrifice even wars. Instead of using it for the moral guide it is intended as guide for how to live ones life as it is intended many, I would dare to say most, people that call themselves religious use their faith as a shield against any wrong they may do. Or believe that as long as they are sorry enough that all is forgiven. I have the upmost respect for peoples personal beliefs and would never suggest repressing those beliefs in any way.. As a matter of fact in the society I envision, you would have more time to devote to a variety of life enriching activities including arts, education, research, teaching, family, personal development and absolutely religion if you so choose
There are psychological factors. Justification is certainly a problem. Blind faith, also a problem. But it does help some people with morality. Is it a net positive or a net negative? It must meet some deep need in us for so many to be so influenced. It is a strange and scary thing.
Plant a veggie garden....
I just can't call the current system capitalism, cut the subsidies for oil and corn and figure out a system where my bank deposits are not held hostage to pay off wall street's bad bets. Let wall street banks and hedge funds gamble with their own money, no loans from retail banks or the fed. Then we can have a talk about capitalism
Did you here what happened with MF Global? Once they knew they were going bust they set about handing customer money to Investment banks and trading partners. That's not just irresponsible, it is arrogant and criminal.
It's worth looking into the MF Global thing a bit more, MF might not have been breaking the law by handing Morgan that money for a margin call.
Capitalism IS for dummies
Some do quite well, but in general I agree.
The dummies are the ones who let continue a rigged game.
well, what i did about it was was got a job and now i'm working my way up the corporate ladder so i don't have to whine about how everybody owes me something. i came from no money and now i have money and i don't feel like "spreading it around" to a bunch of hippies raping each other in the park.
Are you through with your attack on OWS? If so, go collect your check. I see you are working your way up the corporate ladder one butt at a time. I'm sure they all start to taste the same after awhile. While your down there with your nose between their butt-cheeks please remember that some humans (certainly not you) have dignity and self-respect. And you can spread that around all you want.
There are two approaches for the capitalist to make more money. One ways is to look for workers who will do the same job for less money. The other way is to pay workers enough so that they can improve themselves through education and invent new and improved products and processes for the capitalist.
Dummy would be to engage you in a intelligent conversation about what this movement is about. Theres plenty of people in this movement that are very informed what all is going on so put a sock in it, go home and play monopoly.
Wow, If you weren't real I'd have to invent you.
Nothing. Let the million guy win. Isn't that what Occupy haters suggest? That we sit out and play our part in a losing game? That we keep making them richer so they can stupidly spend their money that we earn them in stupid thing like a Bugatti Veyron while we make decisions on which debt to pay? Yeah, we just do nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-3hZsXrxaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
then there the gals who sale themselves for money, now that is discouraging to guy, and really sad; but there are nice gals out there who treat others well.
You're setting your standards too high. There are plenty of girls out there. Just start asking them out. Once you have a solid you'd be surprised how many other girls start looking at you.
well if i could find a nice girlfriend at least he couldnt have her, but it does seem money buys trophy wives (something i wouldnt want)
don't set yourself up for a heart ache brother. bet your ass that Girlfriend would leave you in a minute for big money.
it's not you, it's women
Nothing is "fair". Communism and socialism are far more unfair. I think the unfair distribution of power would be far more troubling. Capitalism is the best system humans have devised to this point.
It is pure predatory Capitalism that I have a problem with, and I think the majority of people agree that it needs to be reigned in by people who are more socially responsible. I don't care for Globalism either.
This is truly the most ingorant, stereotypical, short-sighted explanation I have ever read. We use capitalism for a good reason: it is the ONLY system that allows everyone an equal chance to make something with their lives. a controlling government and economy does not allow that. and if you think that there are poor people out there that never had a chance well you are RIGHT that is LIFE. EVERYONE cannot live a perfect life. It just doesn't work that way. But I can tell you that capitalism is the best way for someone who is nothing to become something.
Did the player with $500 do something to earn it?
Nobody ever said life is fair Girly. I could give a damn if someone starts out life with a pile of gold. It does not effect me or anyone else one bit. If that person offers me a job, and it pays my bills, and puts food on the table, why would I give a shit what his bank account looks like. Several times I have quit a job to take a better paying job, and perhaps better benefits. When the employer offered me more money to stay, I told him NO! You should have been paying me better and I would not have gone looking for a different job. You Girly are jealous. You are also envious. You think everyone should have the same amount of stuff, or get the same amount of pay regardless of whether it is earned or not. Learn to be content with what you have, whether it be much or little. Capitalism is a system, not a game. If you make a pile of money and choose to give it all away, that is your decision. If you choose to bury it in your backyard and hoard, that is your decision. If I choose to run a business and act like a Scrooge, that is my decision. No one is forced to work for anyone. It is an agreement, and if one finds a better agreement, go for it. This idea of an even playing field is bullshit. We are not all equal. Some people sweep floors and that is all they will ever do. Some make businesses and make them profitable. When a business profits, usually it's workers profit too.
Life isn't fair. That's why in our dealings with each other we should strive to be as fair as possible. Capitalism is not a system, it is a philosophy or maybe not even that. You are just arguing the merits of a fairly lame philosophy. Any cheezy third-world country can have a highly-stratified society where the wealthy are treated like entitled royalty. America created a strong middle-class by taxing wealth and regulating the markets, but in the last thirty years people with mind-blowing wealth have poisoned the well of America with their propaganda machines and their paid-for politicians, but people have seen the writing on the wall and they are not going to sit this one out, even those of us who have something left to sit on. You are either not paying attention or too stupid to realize your whole argument doesn't even apply in a country where corporations hire cheap labor in China or India. Wake up. OWS is not just a fad.
Well Girly, I would agree we should be fair in our dealings with people. That is known as integrity. Who treats wealthy like royalty? America created nothing for anyone. We have a strong middle class due to hardwork and ingenuity. People have been mostly free to develop products and services at a price the market would bare. You blame wealthy job creators for economic trouble when blame should be placed on the assholes on Capitol hill that take bribes and engage in legal insider trading, like the witch Nancy Pelosi, among many others of both parties. You seem to be pretty damn stupid yourself, to not to realize that. I could give a damn how much wealth someone has. It has no bearing on anyone. If I make a dollar more, it does not take a dollar from someone else.
so wrong, people like you are whats wrong with this country
Thank you for that compelling argument. Don't hurt yourself with those mental gymnastics.
What you are describing becomes very difficult to do without fake money. Capitalism is not a problem without the issuance of fake money. Issuing fake money meant to be put into circulation is forgery, no matter who does it.
All money is fake money. What is real money??
Real money has value independent of government decree and the threat of violence behind it. Real money cannot easily be debased.
Where does one find this "real money?" I could use some.
In order for a currency to be real money, it must have commodity value (i.e. be something someone would want even if it was not currency). Precious metals are a good example. By contrast, the commodity value of a Federal Reserve Note is close to zero.
You have no clue what are you talking about I went to Harvard and I know everything there is about money.
If the real HitGirl would like to respond, I'd be glad to continue having a conversation with her.
I know of people who have started the game with less than that and won. Depends on how much effort you want to put into the game. The problem with your analogy is that in the real game, you're not always competing against the guy with the millions.
The rare exception is not of much use to the average Joe. It's not so much that I want to celebrate the average. I just don't think average should be punished. People should be provided with every opportunity to better themselves.
There is nothing wrong with being average. But anyone has the right to become more than average if they feel money is what will make them less average.
Why can't you just say "no"? Would you like to sign-up for Comcast sir?" "No." How about Sprint Cellular service? "No." A new iPhone 6? "No." Look at this lovely 30,000 car! "No." It's black friday! Buy buy buy! "No." And so on.
We the People have the power to say "no" to the capitalist. We don't need their plastic and electronic crap.
It seems to me that our whole economy is based on people buying stuff they don't need.
Pretty much.
so true. i've lived far, far below my means because i don't have the compulsive need to buy, nor to keep up with the joneses. i find the constant marketing to me, and others similarly situated, to be repulsive; particularly, when marketing preys on peoples' desire for conspicuous consumption. it gets old after a while.
Dummies, by definition, don't understand capitalism. End of story.
You're posting on their electronic crap right now. Makes you think, doesn't it?
(1) I'm an engineer. This is what I use to do my JOB and is as important a tool as a sliderule was before desktop computers were invented.
(2) It's also useful for entertainment since, as I mentioned above, I don't have cable. Instead I use hulu.com or read the news through my PC.
(3) This is almost ten years old. I don't buy a new computer just because Steve Jobs or Bill Gates asks me to. Everytime they'd tried I've said "no". That was the entire point of my first message. Don't buy a $30,000 car when a 15,000 car (or your old car) will do the job just as well. Don't buy a new computer if the old computer still works.
We the People have the power to say "no" to the capitalist. We have the power to weaken them, or even bankrupt them.
.
A man (woman?) after my own heart. I used to work part-time for a software company, and when they periodically upgraded equipment I would get an few old computers for nothing. I would then put Linux on them, load 'em up with free software, and I would have free computers (not the newest and shiniest) for my private consulting business. (Though I have to be careful about backups since the hard drives have questionable life expectancy.)
[Deleted]
I don't recall saying we should live like Amish. What I said is that we can say "no" to junk we don't need like iPhones and Kindles and CableTV and Playstations and $30,000 luxury cars. Basically we can say "no" to the toys.
My food comes from the local Amish.
Dummy.
99% of capitalists are part of the 99%, so what's wrong with enriching them? it's the oligarchs who tweak the system to their blatant favor (at the expense of the masses) with undue government influence that you should be ranting against.
Do you drive a horse and cart like the Amish? Do you shun electricity like the Amish? Do you exploit nature like the Amish? Do your razor blades come from the Amish? How about your TV? Your blender? Your clothing? Are the Amish capitalists? Oh YES!
Your argument is FALSE. You have chosen to use corporations that give you luxury and convenience yet protest against all corporations.
You are a hypocrite by thinking you can bankrupt corporations by sole acts of depriving yourself of what you can afford. You are an ant, colonizing and exploiting every resource, just like me.
No it isn't. If everyone made a conscious decision to stop buying iPhones and flat-panel TVs and Playstations and..... only bought what they NEED (like food) then capitalists like the Management of Apple and Microsoft and GM and Toyota and Sony would be driven into extinction..... or at the least, severe downsizing.
THEY only have the "power" and money that WE give them. If we stop giving the money, then they will zero (or near-zero) cash.
It will NEVER happen. Read it again. It will NEVER happen. Read it again. It will NEVER happen.
Did I happen to say that it will NEVER happen?
Jesus H. Christ, you are a complete idiot.
And you act like an ill-mannered teeny-bopper.
Don't feed the troll.
Listen, you big dumbass. You are advocating the extinction of car companies.
You want everyone to stop buying new cars. Suppose you win and all the new car companies go out of business. When the life cycle of all cars in existence expire what do we drive? Horses and carts, like the Amish.
You are incredibly stupid.
I never said that. If your car dies, obviously you need to go buy a new one so you can get to work. What I said is that you don't need to buy a new car when you laready have one that is still working perfectly. That's just a waste of natural resources (and enriches the % while making us 99% poorer).
(1) I don't have cable. I don't even use hulu. If I can't watch it on my CD player I don't watch it.
(2) The new information technology has provided the majority of people with both an expanded knowledge base and a greater ability to organize. For that I am grateful.
(3) I have no problem with buying the newest computer, or the newest car for that matter, if I they allow me more convenience or greater creativity.
[Deleted]
THE POINT IS THAT THE CAPITALISTS DON'T have power. We the consumer hold all the power because we can say "no" to their products and literally bankrupt them (see Circuit City and Montgomery Wards).
this is a rarely stated truism, since it doesn't benefit the government (taxes would decrease) or companies--they want to promote spending.
if you mean "we' as in OWS...probably not....if you mean "we" as in, the greater population..perhaps...but all those consumer goods increase our effectiveness and efficiency in some way...even if it is just to be entertained. The problem isn't in corporations, or in buying consumer goods...the problem is buying them when you cannot afford to buy them, on high interest credit....most of those in the middle three quintiles of income the center 60%...carry more consumer debt that reasonable, or necessary....and because of that enjoy a lower standard of living...when you buy a car and pay too much, then do the same every other year (as many Americans do) and carry the debt forward...then adding to that with interest on consumer novelty....is it any surprise that most Americans have no savings? They spend it all on "gotta have it now" consumer goods...to appear more successful than they actually are....
THAT is the trend we need to break, not capitalism
There is some truth to that, so as an OWSer, you choose your corporations and enrich them at the expense of others. I have no problem with that. Capitalism is indeed survival of the fittest.
You don't buy Monsanto seeds but the majority of those in agriculture overrule you. You didn't buy Circuit City products so now your buy your TVs at Best Buy or some other big box corporate store.
I don't buy TVs. I just keep using the same one I've had since the 90s (and the same computer I bought in 2002). I'm tired of giving money to the rich corporations. If we ALL did that, they would experience rampant downsizing (and thereby be weakened in their power).
I don't want to give the Jews money anymore either
That hitgirl that you are responding to joined today. The real HitGirl (the one that started this thread) reads like this: HitGirl I am a BIG Elizabeth Warren fan and Thom Hartmann acolyte. CSULB graduate. Currently employed. Hoping to help fight for change. Information Joined Oct. 20, 2011 The fake HitGirl has a join date of Dec. 13 2011
You are incredibly stupid. The only way to stop giving money to rich corporations is to build a hut in the forest and live completely off the land. But you will never do that because you are not only a hypocrite, you are also incredibly stupid.
And you are a troll. Go away.
That's the equivalent of saying "Oh Yeah?". It means nothing. You have given up.
No shit Sherlock. I wasn't talking about going cold turkey like a hermit. I was talking about cutting back to WEAKEN the power of the capitalist. Look arlound you -- half the junk you bought you probably don't need.
So don't sit here and whine "oh the evil capitailist is mean to me." YOU were the idiot that gave him your money. Like a serf voluntarily putting-on the shackles.
I don't think that capitalism is evil. I think it is a good thing.
I would never WEAKEN that which provides me the ability to earn money.
Well I disagree. I'd love to stop buying Bill Gates' products and thereby make that asshole a poorer (and less powerful) man.
"I'd love to stop buying Bill Gates' products"
Use Linux; it's free. That's what I do.
I like Linux's small footprint (~256 megabyte) but can't run my CAD tools which require Windows. So I gave-up on Linux but still use linux-related software (i.e. free/open source), rather than buy Office or other Microsoft other products. OpenOffice. Firefox. VLC. utorrent.
I understand.
If you can't beat them, join them. Incorporate OWS, amass some funds, buy them out. How do you get the funds? Well, you have 99% support, don't you? OK then, $1 per person for 1 share and 1 share only. Once you have ownership, you next strive for a place on the Board? How do you that? Go here: http://www.businessweek.com/careers/content/sep2007/ca20070913_129202.htm Once on the board, you muscle your way to chairman.
when i was younger, I enjoyed being the banker when playing monopoly. I had no self control so I'd grab a C note here and there. This fact leaves me thinking.
LOL.
really? you mean that people who earn a nice amount of money are exploiting those that have less money? Ridiculous. Nonsensical.
Place a cap on sales profits.
NO caps on profits.
[Removed]
Here's a good definition of capitalism. It even includes the governments role in it too. http://libcom.org/library/capitalism-class-class-struggle-ex-dummies
There are companies that play that game, but there are other companies that give great deals. Here's one of the bad companies:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/
Go get them!
We stand in the parks near downtown of cities with signs that say Occupy with the thought that its actually accomplishing something.
Are you being cynical or do you really wonder what is being accomplished?
What do you think? If you think a few thousand people standing in a park downtown with a sign is going to change the world as we know it than your an OWS supporter. If you think a bunch of people standing in parks with signs that say Occupy is not going to cause any changes than your not an OWS supporter.
Why should I let you define what OWS is or what an OWS supporter is? If you don't understand something just admit it. You don't have to lash out like a spoiled child.
Spoiled child? Name calling makes you such an adult. Did I just hit a nerve, pointing out the reality of OWS as a bunch of people standing in a park with a sign that says occupy is not doing anything bothers you. You define an OWS supporter, in fact why don't you tell me what OWS is protesting against anyways. Please tell me how standing in a park saying you speak for 99% of the country (even though you don't) is going to change the evils of the world. I understand OWS perfectly the Seinfeld protest a protest about nothing.
If it doesn't move on to some kind of positive political action then it is indeed a waste of time.
That really is a definition for dummies. What would you do about what you call capitalism.
And BTW, capital is not all that synonymous with money. At least not in the fiat monetary universe we inhabit.
capital - definition of capital - Cash or goods used to generate income either by investing in a business or a different income property .
That's a little better. :)
Is capitalism always "exploitation" like you said? If I go to some restaurant and buy a delicious meal, am I being exploited?
Of course not, but exploitation is certainly part of the problem when capitalism is left unregulated. I noticed you used the example of a restaurant where there is plenty of competition. Also consider that the waiter at your restaurant is not earning anywhere near as much as the owner despite all his hard work, so the exploitation is still there.
Personally, I think regulation has shown itself to be a slippery slope, and becomes the very cover that those who would exploit use to cover their dirty work.
Regulatory loopholes are bought. How do we prevent the very regulation that we think we'd like from being that? There has been a torrent of regulatory failure of late, where regulations weren't followed and regulatory agencies did nothing about it.
Do you think that the trillions and trillions of dollars that have been bled from our economy is purely the result of capitalism, or did capitalism have some help?
You're saying things didn't work because regulations weren't enforced or were circumvented? Not a strong argument against regulation.
Regulation usually only hurts the little guys. The people who write the regulation and enforce it are in bed with the industries they are supposed to be regulating.
Doesnt matter whether its builders associations, realtors associations, FDA, Dept of Energy, Dept of Ed, etc.
If you wanted to create a great school for kids that actually promoted creativity and real learning, with real challenges, it would be impossible to open.
There are plenty of private for-profit schools that offer rubber-stamp degrees, accept minimal effort from students, and provide almost no education. These schools are not only open but survive off the generous student loans they provide their students via the federal student loans program. It has even been referred to as "The Subprime Student Loan Racket."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0911.burd.html
What does that have to do with creating good schools? Why am I getting the feeling you are here to attack instead of converse?
You missed the point of the argument. Why would it be hard to create a good school when so many failures are created willy-nilly?
Thats MY point. Go ahead and try. See how they have made it damn near impossible. Its insane.
No. I'm saying that regulation hasn't seemed to matter because of those problems.
If we cannot believe that the current regulatory regime has any effectiveness, how will more regulation be the answer? We haven't even hardly been able to even successfully charge anyone with the massive frauds that occurred during the housing bubble. The shadow banking system is starting to show cracks, but we still have no idea what might hatch from all that.
We have regulations, for instance, that hypothecation of client funds residing in brokerage accounts cannot exceed 140%. So what do the big boys do? Wire that money to the City of London, where that regulation doesn't exist, or is even less capably overseen by the regulatory authorities there. Some would say that just one more layer of regulation on top of all of it will finally be the breakthrough we were always looking for. I don't buy it.
So how do you regulate that sort of thing? In the same way corporations set up massive, global presences to arbitrage all their costs, be it resources, labor, taxes, regulation, whatever. The tax code is monstrous. The current regulations are just as bad, and don't seem to be working at all.
I am just asking, because I want to understand exactly how more of the same is going to help. Maybe it could, but I have my doubts, and maybe you can help me find some faith in regulation.
I assume you're referring to MF Global. How would less regulation have helped? Right now we are living in a time where an uninformed electorate voted in politicians that allowed the wealthy to accumulate vast wealth which in turn has been used to corrupt and circumvent regulations. I'm surprised things have held up as well as they have. Regulations are Laws. This has long been a country of laws. When it stops being a country of laws we're all in big trouble.
The failure of MF Global, and the fallout is revealing further regulatory failures, yes.
Not saying "less regulation" would have made any difference. But I do think that our willingness to rely on regulations and laws to keep the most powerful in line has failed. The regulations aren't followed, and there seems to be no effective recourse for this fact.
If we can't even follow the rule of law with regards to the simplest mandates on our government, namely the Bill of Rights, how can we expect anything lesser to be followed?
The rule of law used to mean things, but I'm seeing little but further evidence that the rule of law doesn't seem to apply to certain high-caliber crooks. So yes, I would claim that more regulations won't matter until the rule of law returns, and begins to be effective for ALL of us.
We make up the laws as we go. We always have and always will. Therefore the critical thing to do is to make the power that legislates more democratic, more equitable, more just. A power that is not wielded for benefit of profit. A power that doesn't decompress in the face of monied interests.
The article I read today on MF Global implies that the transactions may well have been illegal and if so, charges will be filed. Time will tell.
the owner takes the financial risk of opening a restaurant. the worker in the restaurant does not.
That's true.
Describe a better game. Give me the rules you intend to have people play by and I will judge whether or not I think it will work superior to capitalism. The problem is, there is no better system devised that is superior to capitalism.
I call the game REGULATED CAPITALISM. I here its fun...for everyone.
right...OK, if you are going to start off as a fool, I might as well address you as such....
Where, oh ignorant Fool, does one get capital? let's begin from the beginning....does it just manifest for some? are some born with large intestines that turn their shit into gold?
You, like many other moron's have no concept of capitalism, at all....
Capital does not mean capitalism. It is a much broader concept. There are three major types of capital: economic capital, human capital, and social capital. Human capital is what is in a persons brain. Their knowledge, experience and level of skills. Social capital is their access to prominent members of society. It is the people that they know or associate with. Levels of human capital depend on access to social capital. All of these things make up how a person accumulates economic capital. This is where ideas of advantage and disadvantage take hold the strongest. An individual who has little to no opportunity to access social capital will have a much less chance at acquiring the necessary human capital that is needed to accumulate economic capital. The Matthew effect states that advantage leads to further advantage and in turn disadvantage to further disadvantage.
Why don't you try explaining what capital is. We will see how much you know. Don't bother telling us how intelligent you are, demonstrate it.
That's OK. You can lump me in with "fools" like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson anytime.
right...so you think they were anti-capitalist? hahaha...and don't post one of those internet edited or out of context quotes...I've seen most of them already....I've sourced and read the full contextual material they are edited from...
"It is not needed, nor fitting here [in discussing the Civil War] that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effect to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor, in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded thus far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
“Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights."
That would be Lincoln. I don't think you have to be a Rhodes Scholar to understand what he is saying.
yeah....that's what I was waiting for...the quotes are from his State of the Union speech in 1861, and that part of the speech he was speaking of slavery, of uncompensated labor vs capital.....and you use that as a point against capitalism, but...he goes on in the next sentences to say this:
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.
Both a resounding reverence and tribute to the capitalist system and the upward mobility of men...but also, in the last lines, an understanding and consent of the men of business and commerce to assert their political power......
Careful which edited quotes you choose to post....
The fact that Lincoln is happy that anyone can make it in America is hardly a full-throated endorsement of predatory capitalism. It doesn't come close to refuting what he says about labor being superior to capital. Worth repeating..."Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
again...you miss the context, because you find a few words linked together you like, and give them meaning which they were not given by their original speaker......
here is the full section on the subject...not that it matters, because you will, once again, clue in on any group of words you find that you feel makes a point that backs up your philosophy....which is unfortunate, and shows a lack of comprehension...
It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.