Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Capitalism

Posted 3 years ago on Sept. 30, 2011, 2:32 p.m. EST by quietlike (194)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This is part two, where it distinguishes among economic systems. Feel free to watch part one, where it distinguishes among political systems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKoPeS2HPQc

I fear that in this movement, that some are misled about capitalism, following people like michael moore. So PLEASE watch this, and rebut if you disagree. Capitalism is NOT the problem, its corporatism, and FRAUD within capitalism, the lack of upholding the law in the corporate world. Fining banks millions for fraud that generated billions in profit, is not upholding the law or capitalism. Something like taxing the rich always sounds good, but people making a million dollars are still part of the 99%. Its those making 10s and 100s of millions that are the 1%, and they lobby to make laws that stop the rest from realizing that wealth potential. Consider, a little girl will get arrested for starting a lemonade stand because she doesn't file the right papers (that meet business regulations), while giant corporations gets waivers and subsidies and have lawyers that find tax loopholes to avoid regulation and taxes.
Please watch the following for a different perspective on capitalism. ALL forms of government of capitalism, it's who controls the capital (the people or govt) that is important.

This is part two, where it distinguishes among economic systems. Feel free to watch part one, where it distinguishes among political systems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKoPeS2HPQc

218 Comments

218 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by RossWolfe (34) 2 years ago

A Marxist perspective on Occupy Wall Street and the problem of capitalism:

"Reflections on Occupy Wall Street: What it Represents, Its Prospects, and Its Deficiencies"

http://rosswolfe.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/reflections-on-occupy-wall-street-what-it-represents-its-prospects-and-its-deficiencies/#comment-1430

[-] 1 points by LaoTzu (169) 2 years ago

It just appears to me that he is preemptively undermining the strength of the PEOPLE.

[-] 0 points by AngryJoe (67) 2 years ago

Fuck Marx.

[-] 1 points by Frank (19) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Thank you for stating the obvious. Capitalism doesn't threaten anyone, it is government that opens that door.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Lots of people dont see it as so obvious, and Im trying to show them

[-] 1 points by hemajang (23) 2 years ago

As a family business owner I say, "eliminate all corporate tax breaks." We live in America, so let freedom ring. If banks want to charge higher fees, then LET them, AND, "we will take our money to a financial lending institution that won't charge such fees." If some big corporation wants to charge more for their product? Then I'll buy a competing brand. THAT is what America is all about. We vote with our feet!

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

We can only do that in a free market with sound money. Thats why we have 401ks and IRAs. If we could just stick the money under our matress, we would rather than let corrupt institutions use it to ruin the economy. The FEDs manipulation in our money forces us to keep up with their inflationary actions

[-] 1 points by pozdnychev (36) 2 years ago

That is right ! Marx predicted it all. And surely the worst place for communism to develop was Russia, a country that has only experienced totalitarism in its history. If capitalism doesn't exist, capital surely does. The problem is not capitalism, the problem is the way we think the world in a restricted way offered by economical theories that are not adapted to reality. This is not only capitalism crisis, this is occidental civilization (and way of thinking the world) crisis ! This is much deeper than you think.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

yup yup

[-] 1 points by misterioso (86) 2 years ago

the only thing that matters right now is CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, unless you get the big money out of politics, no change whatsoever will occur, this should be the focus of the protests, we need to have honest politicians that work for the public before any thing else can get done, campaign finance reform (ending corporate personhood, kicking the lobbyists out of the Washington) is the perfect starting point. It really is a no brainer that this should be the one thing we can all agree on. Because unless we do this, all those other demands that people have will never be addressed, not in a millions years.

[-] 1 points by vivalarevolution (2) 2 years ago

The other no brainer is to replace the Federal Reserve with something that is more representative of the interests of the 99%, not the 1%

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

I can totally buy that. That definitely will put us on the right track, and something every single person can agree on. But its still a long way from really getting to the systemic problems at hand.

[-] 1 points by Steuben1978 (4) 2 years ago

Hi greetings from germany! You People should checkout ordoliberalism by Walter Eucken! It helped germany to rise from the ashes of WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

Capitalism have to be controlled! Because over time to much capital is getting concentrated in very few hands! Which leads to massive distortion in the political and financial system! And the interest on this massive amount of wealth in very few hands have to be payed by the little guy! The system has to collapse! Unless the wealth that has been produced by society is redistributed by the state through taxes!

Hardcore Libertarianism does not work! And so is socialism or communism!

The first one brought us Hitler after the politics of Brüning in teh early thirties! The second one Ulbricht, Honecker and his crooks! So we germans know a thing or two about it! Germanys system is far from perfect! But imho its better then the current system in the US!

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

When you control it, it is no longer a free market. And if you dont allow politicians to have power to control it, they cant be bought off because they can't do any favors for certain groups. Debt money cant exist in a free market, its fraud and counterfeiting, or if anything, people wouldnt use it, when they can have sound money.
Im pretty sure we'd never have a completely free market, but I'd rather go in that direction than a centrally planned economy, which is much more susceptible to corruption because of the power it's given. Whereas a "small govt" has few powers, and the individuals have more. Thus directing the flow of capital, or favoring legislation is less likely when a certain industry has govt backing while others dont. The more power govt has over the individual, the less free the individual is.

[-] 1 points by Steuben1978 (4) 2 years ago

Sorry but capitalism and a free market is not the same. People tend to misunderstand this.A free market is a place were people trade on a fair and just ground. Capitalism leads always to huge concentration of wealth over time. Because people are different in charakter and skills. And smarter people will always find ways to exploit people who are not so smart. Over time they will concentrate enough Money and Power to influence legislation that suit their interests. Which makes them even more powerful. Someone has to provide a fair envirenment. Especially in the labor market.

My impression is, that people in the US especially the Tea Party people think in the 19th century when the world was on a pure gold standard with small government everything was fine. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was brutal poverty of hard working people in the world. While the wealthy and influencal People got more powerful every year. And especially the banks. They were hording the gold and could influence the money supply! Causing distortion in the market and brutal recessions. Finally they were able to force legislation so that the FED was founded in 1913. Which gave them direct control of the money supply. Same happened in Europe! Of Course this made matters even worse. So a gold standard and laissez afair capitalism is not the answer imho. Socialism didnt work because the free mind of people and especially the smart people had to be suppressed. THey were trying to make everybody the same. Now that didnt work either, because people are different! And it lead to a oligarchic system were the inept and incompetent ruled us and the smart people were suppressed or had to flee! Which lead to widespread poverty. So basically the people were all equal but all equally poor. We need something different. Unfortunatly there are no easy answers. But regardless which system comes next! People have to be on alert. Because in every form of soceity there is the danger that people come to power that suppress and exploit people. We are now at this point in history because people as a whole have been corrupted by this system. They did not revolt when there was still time. Now the economic system collapses and things will start to get rough and brutal i fear!

Sorry for my bad english!

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

No, capitalism is pretty much every economic system. Its the level of state intervention that determines market freedom. Capitalism doesn't lead to huge concentrations of wealth, the self-interest driven economy actually spreads the wealth organically because in order to benefit from wealth, you have to give up some wealth to do so. Its govt intervention (even if its with good intention) creates the market distortion because they steer investment and resources to where they want, vs where the market would. This guy explains it better than I do.
http://mises.org/media/6298/The-Tale-of-Two-Invisible-Hands

Yes, things will get worse from this corrupt system. However if we don't understand the full scope of the problem, and its systemic risks, we will be fooled by the corrupt once again out of desperation in those hard times.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

My argument is that giving govts more power (big) is why corporations buy them off. If they couldnt enact economic legislation, they would have nothing to offer. Not to mention the Federal Reserve Act in itself is unconstitutional. If we held up most legislation and regulation up to the founding document, we'd find that most don't fit. But mainly the wealth transfer is a result of credit creation and monetary policy (plus govt intervention) -the tools of our centrally planned economy (not free market)

People ran on banks because the banks were committing fraud by printing up more certificates (in loans) than they had reserves (basically their money wasnt safe there). When people found out that the money they had deposited wasnt there, they ran on the bank. This in itself (a bank run) is a market regulator on the banks from fractionally lending out peoples' deposits. Yes they did it anyway, but if they wanted to continue being in business (and shouldve gone to jail), they have to respect their customers, unless govt bails them out. . Its the creation of credit, using debt based money, that is the real transfer of wealth through inflation. Which is counterfeiting. This can't be done with sound money. If I make a loan to you, and dont have the money, how is that legal? This is what banks do when they make loans -fractional lending---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCw086369P8

How do you think the banks end up the wealthiest? All they are supposed to do is store your money, and charge you to do so. If they use your money to loan, you'll need an investment vehicle, like a CD. Where you are loaning them money, so they can loan at a higher rate to someone else, and they pocket the spread, over a period of time. but in this scenario, you dont have access to your money for x time, but with a deposit, you can demand your money at any time. Only when people are confident that the banks have their money, and all loans are paid before all money is drawn, this works fine. But this is double accounting and therefore, fractional banking is fraud. Deposits are like claim tickets, and investment vehicles are subject to risk for the lender. Deposits are available on demand, while CDs or loans are promises to pay at a determined time. This is the illusion banks use to steal wealth, because as long as there isnt a run, no one is the wiser.

And at the time w/o a FED, people could save by literally burying their money, and inflation wouldn't steal their purchasing power. They wouldn't even need banks (investement banks -IRAs, 401ks) to keep up with inflationary tactics of the FED and banks' credit creation. They can decide to save instead of being forced to invest, just to maintain their purchasing power..

Yes, there are times when money gets scarce. People want to save their money for the future, instead of spending it right away. They will continue to do so, until the market offers prices that will change the mind of the savers so they spend. And yes, the more its hoarded, the more you can buy with it. Saving actually earning purchasing power over time? That is a good thing. This reflects a surplus in goods and services available for available money. Now the market has to correct so that its appealing to those saving to go and spend on the surplus of products. Yes prices fall to reflect this, but when was the last time you thought a sale was bad?

[-] 1 points by ADemocraticRepublic (49) from Midland Township, MI 2 years ago

Marx and his Socialists further concentrate wealth and power. With his philosophy, and using OWS's jargon (misplace), this group would represent the 99.9%

[-] 1 points by LaoTzu (169) 2 years ago

Capitalism can be easily replaced with Love.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

but what about a transaction between people who hate each other

[-] 1 points by JeffBlock2012 (272) 2 years ago

Capitalism rewards efficiency and productivity and has become a victim of it's own success. What if we simply don't need everyone to work to provide ALL the goods and services our society needs? A fascinating book was the novel "Player Piano" written by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. in 1952 of a future society where ALL the work was done by machines. We're at least part way there now. Computers and machines have made us incredibly productive as a society, but we're not sharing the rewards of that productivity across our society. http://www.JeffBlock2012.com

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

sounds like the venus project... I see one problem with it, and its a biggie... It'll make people dependent on govt/machines, making them very vulnerable to changes or freak events

[-] 1 points by JeffBlock2012 (272) 2 years ago

yes, "Player Piano" has everyone dependent on govt/machines. It's not a happy society. The workers not needed to work have a good standard of living, better than when they were workers, but of course no purpose in life/society. I don't pretend to have the answer, just pointing out the inevitability of the path of capitalism.

[-] 1 points by OccupaSituation (6) from Lisbon, Lisbon 2 years ago

The problems of capitalism explained in (very well done) drawings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

Important information explained in a fun-intelligent way.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

I can agree that we have to look back to the last time this happened in the 70's. He claims that there was excessive labor for the capital available. Which is true. I would say that was the case because the federal reserve financed deficit spending to fight wars, which caused inflation in the economy. There was high unemployment from women and returning vets from Vietnam entering the labor market, ie larger supply of labor to stagnating business. We went off the gold standard in '71, because we could no longer maintain it and continue spending simultaneously.

Gold was $35/oz, gas was =$0.25/gallon for some perspective

In the 80's the inflationary policy was halted when Volker raised interest rates to like 20%, to stop the easy money flowing into the economy. yes we went into recession, but it was necessary as we were paying (struggling economy) for spending of the decade before.
The problem is capital creation (financing, and a fiat currency), govt intervention in the economy (which gets corrupted), and lack of upholding the law (Prosecuting fraud), not capitalism itself. A free market has a sound currency, minimal to no govt intervention, and follows common law (You can do anything as long as you don't harm anyone else)

It more of a monetary issue since the FED determines the money supply, and set the interest rates (easy money/availablity/cost to borrow) Wage represssion is a result of inflation, though the minimum wage has been raised many times, it still isn't keeping up with everything else. And inflation is how we pay for deficit spending, and when that spending enters the economy, it directs new capital that didnt exist into specific industries, causing the boom/bust cycle. When you introduce more money into the system, the people who use it first benfit most because it hasnt fully circulated for markets to adjust. This is devaluing the money everyone else already has (thus stealing), and is a wealth transfer. This can only happen in centrally planned economy. In a free market, capital ebbs and flows from industry to industry, because even money in a free market is an commodity in itself, not mandated by govt. (legal tender laws) and issued by a private central bank Research Austrian Economics --->mises.org

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

The best way to compensate innovators is to pay them well and to pay them a flat salary

stability in life allows the mind to wonder on other things

that would be dependable income not prospecting

a flat fee would be good for an innovator to have a clear mind unworried by profit

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

That would only work if there was no inflation. how many times has the minimum wage risen. If your wage doesnt go up with inflation, you are losing purchasing power. Thats why everyone's "savings" are in investments like 401k, IRA. They need to make a few % every year just to keep up with rising prices.
Plus if you know you will always make the same no matter how well you do your job, where is the motivation?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

everyone does have savings

[-] 1 points by Emerogork (3) 2 years ago

Capitalism yes, Corrupt Capitalism no,...

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

exactly

[-] 1 points by ProfesssorR (3) 2 years ago

Capitalism taken to excess = greed. The effective counter to greed is to impose restraints upon conduct, through the imposition of a fiduciary standard of conduct. Eliminate sales of risky junk products. All investment and financial advisors should represent their clients, not Wall Street or insurance companies. Advisors should be bound by a fiduciary standard to act in the best interests of their clients. One PRACTICAL solution for this movement is to lobby for the imposition of the fiduciary standard of conduct at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (upon broker dealers) and by the U.S. Dept. of Labor (for providers of advice to 401k and similar plans).

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Who is to say what is risky? Remember all those MBSs were AAA. I say let people risk their capital. But if someone knowingly sells you a shit product but advertises that its good, send them to jail (I also say seize their assets, punishment must fit the crime).
And you gotta have sound money. because people can refuse to "invest" and keep their purchasing power (ie save) We wouldve let the banks fail if everyones pensions, 401ks, IRAs weren't tied to them.

[-] 1 points by ProfesssorR (3) 2 years ago

President James Madison once said, "If all men were angels, government would not be necessary." Adopt the call for fiduciary standard of conduct - that Americans come first, not Wall Street's barons - to counter Wall Street's greed.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

its a step in the right direction, but doesnt address the systemic risk

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

capitalism does not exist. michael moore is right what hes says. corporate oligarchy is the system we have. A free market democracy is a great idea. democracy and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

[-] 1 points by ForTheWinnebago (143) 2 years ago

Yes, but the corporate oligarchy is enabled through government. The government is not an effective counter-weight to corporate power, they have essentially fused into a singular operating unit, so we have to erect a fire wall between them by reforming campaign finance and taking other measures to take big money (that means unions too) out of the political and legislative process.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

approximately true.

[-] 1 points by ForTheWinnebago (143) 2 years ago

A step in the right direction would be overturning FEC v Citizens United, Republicans and Democrats both disagree significantly (70-80% of them) with the way the law stands currently and it is something realistic that could be used as a demand.

[-] 1 points by pariscommune (205) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEnHD2KhhCk

look here, some guy from new york actually has a clue about capitalism. should invite him!

[-] 1 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 2 years ago

I agree! Corporatism is the real problem. We have a highly toxic form of Crony Capitalism now. Its been getting more and more ingrown these last 30 yrs. We've now arrived at a place were a tiny minority ( AKA the 1%) essentially own and run both the "means of production" and most of our natural resources, plus the Gov't that is suppose to regulate these areas. They've captured the regulators and their political bosses and turned their cannons around on the rest of us. Our problem then is how do we disentangle and separate these two from each others self serving embrace? Not going to be easy, because they have the $$ and the power now and the revolving door is spinning so fast between each others realmsas to make them almost an organic whole.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

I say strip as much power away from govt, localize it. This way politicians wont get bought off because they have no power to regulate. And local govts puts politicians more at the whim of their constituents, so localities (states), can determine whats best for them as far as regulations.

And hold every legislation up to the constitution.

[-] 1 points by writtenbyrex (30) from Michigan City, IN 2 years ago

Yes! That's why we enact Democratic Capitalism!

http://www.democratic-capitalism.com/

Support the promotion of Democratic Capitalism on Wall Street! http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/708507790/protest-to-prosperity-occupy-wall-street-pamphlet

[-] 1 points by shixx152 (1) from Inver Grove Heights, MN 2 years ago

Cannot totally agree

So far, in the wold, the most successful political system is capitalism. The "greed" that people wants money is the driven power to push the world forwad. And money is a good figure to make people "equal" to what they contribute. However, currently, the problem is the way to gain money is no longer equals to what people has contribute. And most of the giant companies are too greed to ignore their worker. They did not realize they are no longer the machine to make money. Things need to be chage, but no socialism. It could be possible to asset the government to serve us, instead of giant company.

However, a situation is that actually those giant company carries too much people such as us, ant the government has to serve them instead of us directly.

Finance is gilt, I believe.

Lets make it change

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Who finances everyone? The FED. We dont have a free market as explained, we have a centrally planned economy run by govt/FED policy. Money is manipulated because the private FED has control over the money supply, and the cost of borrowing (Interest rates)

[-] 1 points by Dewey (19) 2 years ago

Why not socialism? To have to compete and spend so much time and effort at being a cog in the wheel is a waste of human potential. Technology is at a place where we have the ability to have a much creative life than simply trying to get ahead. Once the beast is slain (global market forces) there will be a high tech barter system put in place, made up of 2/3 socialism to 1/3 capitalism, There is a plan drawn up for such a system waiting to be put in place when the time is right. Lets share the resources on the planet with all its inhabitants so that the the millions who starve can have access to the basic necessities of life. Implementation of the UN Charter of Human Rights would be a goal for all nations That would mean the the west would have to live a simpler life but without the dog eat dog mentality. Look for a leader that will come forth a speak about such a vision. In the mean time we must take to the street, the ballot box is not working (in this country).. Be hopeful. We are the 99%.

[-] 1 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

Quietlike, you hit the nail on the head. We all have the common goal of seeing fraud end, be it corporate, governmental, union, etc. I believe it is this notion of being cheated that has brought the protesters out.

Michael Moore is a propagandist who expouses a form of Marxism that is not consistent with the beliefs of this country. Sure, he can wear his Michigan State hat and look like the guy next door, buy his life's ambition is to destroy our way of life. In his simplistic view everyone takes a cut of the pie, even if they didn't help make the pie. They tried it in the Soviet Union and found that this sort of arrangement breeds hostility between those that produce and those that take. The system rotted from within.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

spread the word... Mises.org has some great stuff

[-] 1 points by distortion (196) 2 years ago

Most people on this site, and i'd be willing to bet that if you walked down the street and stopped 100 random people and asked them to define capitalism that a good percent (if any) would not be able to give a correct answer. That in itself is a huge problem, it's no wonder things have gotten to be as bad as they are, the population as a whole is too stupid to know the difference,

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

its up to us to inform them... which exactly what Im trying to do... doesnt look like im doing a good job of it though... mises.org is a good resource

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

And thus, we arrive at the real problem, the general ignorance of the populace. How exactly sitting around in a public park and marching is going to solve this is beyond me.

[-] 1 points by distortion (196) 2 years ago

you got to have number before anyone will listen, the problem with that is that the more numbers you have the harder it is to organize and get a coherent message. Now that they have the numbers and the attention they need to figure out how to do that.

[-] 2 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." -Sun Tzu

This tactic didn't work thousands of years ago, but I'm sure we're much better and smarter now, right?

[-] 1 points by distortion (196) 2 years ago

ha ha well played sir..

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

Thanks. Read "The Art of War" if you ever get the chance. It's a quick read, and you'll realize how many things we go about that are completely backwards, and why so many of them fail. An awesome book.

[-] 1 points by distortion (196) 2 years ago

I have... well i listened to it as a book on tape anyways, it's an awesome read/listen.

[-] 1 points by rockermommyjnw (1) 2 years ago

The film is set in 2805, with Earth an abandoned planet covered in trash, the result of decades of mass consumerism facilitated by the megacorporation Buy-n-Large (BnL). Giving up on restoring the ecosystem, BnL evacuated Earth's population in fully automated starliners, leaving behind an army of trash compactor robots called "WALL-E" (Waste Allocation Load Lifter, Earth Class) to clean up for an intended five-year period. By 2110, however, the air on Earth became too toxic to sustain life, forcing humanity to remain in space. At the start of the film, only one WALL-E unit remains active and has developed sentience, collecting various knickknacks from the trash in addition to his regular duties, and has befriended a cockroach. One day, WALL-E discovers a seedling plant growing among the trash and brings it home to his storage truck. Later, a spaceship lands and deploys EVE (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator), an advanced robot sent from the BnL starliner, known as the Axiom with the directive to search for signs of vegetation on Earth. WALL-E falls in love with the initially cold and hostile EVE, who gradually softens and befriends him. When WALL-E brings EVE to his truck to show her the plant, she automatically stores it, goes into standby mode and sends a retrieval signal for her ship, which returns to collect her while WALL-E clings to its hull as it returns to the Axiom. On the Axiom, the ship's human passengers have suffered from severe bone loss and become morbidly obese after centuries of living in microgravity and relying on the ship's automated systems. The ship's captain does little, leaving control of the Axiom to its robotic autopilot, Auto. WALL-E follows EVE to the bridge of the Axiom where the captain learns that by scanning EVE's plant sample with the ship's holo-detector as a sign of Earth being habitable again, the Axiom will make a hyperjump back to Earth so its passengers can recolonize. However, Auto orders the captain's robotic assistant GO-4 to steal the plant as part of a secret directive to keep humanity away from Earth as life was incorrectly deemed unsustainable. With the plant now missing, EVE is considered defective and taken to the repair ward along with WALL-E for cleanup. WALL-E mistakes EVE's inspection for torture and breaks free, and tries to save her. He accidentally releases a horde of malfunctioning robots, getting himself and EVE designated as rogue robots. Angry with WALL-E's disruptions, EVE brings him to the escape pod bay to send him home. There they witness GO-4 place the missing plant inside a pod and setting the pod to self-destruct, in order to get rid of it. WALL-E enters the pod before it launches, retrieves the plant, and escapes unharmed before the pod explodes. He then reconciles with EVE, celebrating with a dance outside the Axiom. The plant is brought to the captain, who surveys EVE's recordings of the damaged Earth and realizes that mankind must return to restore it. However, Auto reveals his no return directive and stages a mutiny, and zaps WALL-E, disabling him. EVE realizes the only parts for repairing WALL-E are in his truck on Earth, so she helps him get the plant to the holo-detector to activate the Axiom's hyperjump. The captain opens the holo-detector while fighting with Auto, but Auto crushes WALL-E by closing the holo-detector on him. The Captain discovers Auto's shut down switch and presses it, disabling Auto and releasing control of the ship. EVE places the plant in the holo-detector, freeing WALL-E, though he is now severely damaged. The Axiom then returns to Earth. EVE brings WALL-E's body back to his home where she successfully repairs and reactivates him. Unfortunately, WALL-E's memory is erased and he reverts to his original programming. Heartbroken, EVE gives WALL-E a farewell "kiss", causing an electric spark that reboots WALL-E's memory and personality. WALL-E and EVE happily reunite as the humans and robots of the Axiom begin to restore Earth's environment. Drawings during the end credits show them doing just that, as more and more plants sprout up on earth, and the humans have become thinner and healthier from working physically. [5]

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

to get serious requires a few things they don't have. like chat admins who aren't ego serving propaganda tools, a wiki, 1001 sub forums, an actual game plan, a straight up political platform... you know.. basic organizational things sane people do BEFORE protesting.. like figure out a diplomacy and logic centered metaprocess to give their chatadmins so that they don't really just drive out even more people than the trolls. Adminatrolla. trollaAdmin. Whats the difference to somebody whos got the truth facing a propaganda tool abusing admin powers to push their agenda? how can you prevent such a thing? Metaprocess. did i mention metaprocess? and science diplomacy science psychology science sociology and all those textbooks to read B4 protesting?

you can't have capitalism without a free(SLAVE) market. but you can have a free market without capitalism. And thats strangely the only way it CAN work.

Marketing 101 was fascinating. I admit thats a lot less than a bachelors but its sure more than enough to see whats really going on given the other things I know. Capitalism is not the problem since it does not exist. corporate oligarchy is the problem. capitalism has never been tried. I am a democracy guy. in order for real democracy to function a free market system is required. Thats not capitalism. thats a free market system. there is a subtle difference there which most people would miss. I will again repeat. Neither capitalism nor marxism nor communism nor socialism has ever existed. All of those governments were oligarchy pretending to be something as a con scam. Telling that simple truth gets one banned out of the Chat by either a capitalist or a socialist whos pissed you just said their pet ideology isn't real. It isn't. anybody who thinks that it is is accidentally playing for team corporate oligarchy as a tool. the ONLY system worth talking about is DEMOCRACY. how democracy HANDLES a FREE MARKET system is dynamic and interesting and NOT capitalism.

o. yes. no. yes. what? making change is not reliant on changing the money system one tenth as much as it is on changing the informational ecology. Going to a gold standard as an idea is a proof of ignorance, not a solution. Really the end game is we evolve out of money. To do that we evolve first new currencies and new economic strategies. this leads to economic singularity in about 50 years. If everyone is a millionaire how much you get depends on exactly the material valuation of that money. Which is to say that by the time money becomes obsolete everyone will live like the current millionaire. Tangible items to other tangible items? the real economy is about ideas, change the ideas and everything changes. the problem with the tangible economy is it does not change; its a static reality. you can't make a meaningful gold standard with only enough gold to represent on millionth of the economy. You can make a purely imaginal money system work; but it has to be subject to moral and ethical laws. This is about pinning down those moral and ethical laws and implementing them in new currencies; not trying to imagine a control freak impossible non solution because of the simplicity with which you go about thinking over the problem.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

well I argue that people do like material things, and will be willing to put forth their labor efforts to get it. Thats why people buy ipods. people like luxury, while others dont care for it.
yes you can have a non back honest money if you can control its quantity. But who can you really trust to not be corrupt? When you have the ability to get other people to do your work for you, viz money, that temptation will always be there, and someone corrupt will come along to take advantage. Gold restricts this because you cant just create gold out of nothing. even if you mine it, you have to find it, and have the resources to dig it up.
I would also to debate you on the no money system. If I can get everything for free, Im not gonna do shit but party. Who would do the farming? Who would do all the jobs that no one wants to. I doubt there is anyone custodian that loves to clean up shit all day. People are willing to do work, even if they dont like it, as a medium so they can buy the things they can produce. How do you get to this system of no money, and where do you get the resources? Because say I made a painting, I guarantee that if the masses liked it, and theres only one, I would be able to get someone's labor for it, and that painting itself would become money in that instance.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

i never said no money meant for free. in an evolved social system everyone works for what they get it does not come free, neither is it useful to demarcate it all with numbers. in answer to those other questions, humans and robots would do the labor. you get to a system of no money by implementing a free market system with more evolved assorted laws and rules. as far as your painting goes thats a perfect example of how barter eventually replaces money.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

a gold standard is just barter really. Money is what you get to store the labor you put in, so that you can turn around and get something in return for fair value.
Now at least recognize that when robots are introduced, the value of doing that same labor falls, and people will lose jobs and have to learn new skills. Thats all I want to say about that really. So people still will lose jobs and people will be richer and poorer than others.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

No, peoples' productivity will be higher. In other words, building an automatic machine is more productive than doing rote repetitive tasks. More product, lower cost for the buyer, higher pay for the producer. Win-win. The only one who might have a problem with it is someone who exists at the level of a human automaton.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

No, I disagree 100%. The system's productivity will be higher but not people's productivity unless there is a new system established, a resource based economy. You can't have a whole economy of middle management types, or even creative types. No huge demand for them. We need to accept the fact that our society prefers technological labor to human labor and adapt. Also, I've read Atlas Shrugged many times.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

what are you saying no to? Im saying the labor of repetitive tasks drops when you introduce machinery, because the machine is more efficient. This still creates an income gap. So I dont really know what you are addressing here

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

No to your assertion that people will lose jobs because of better technology. They've been saying that since the late 1800's. People lose jobs when their government/central bank suck the marrow out of their bones by skimming off any and all improvements in productivity through inflation and unearned debt. That's what is happening now.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

The Luddites were right, they were just a couple centuries early. The technology that we have now is way more advanced than what they had back in the late 1800s. One computer can do the work of 100s of people, and those people now can't find jobs, because the market has no reason to create them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Z8TR4ToNs

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

Ever do much programming?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Never have.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

It's very time-consuming and complicated.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

I bet. When computers are more intelligent than humans, it would be a good idea to let them do it.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

Back to your Luddite point. I was able to start a business and build it up to employ 20 high-skilled employees, because I had a computer and could do the design myself without hiring a draftsman when I was just starting out. Did a draftsman lose a job because I couldn't afford him? No. Later I hired a draftsman that learned to draw on the computer. My machine designs and efforts created jobs. Luddites were wrong.

A tool is not a bad thing.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Luddites were right! Check out the book The Lights in the Tunnel starting at page 95. He explains it better than I can.

http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/LIGHTSTUNNEL.PDF

Economists’ faith that the Luddite fallacy is, well, a fallacy—and indeed in much of generally accepted economic theory—rests on two fundamental assumptions about the relationship between workers and machines: (1) machines are tools which are used by, and increase the productivity of, workers, and (2) the vast majority of workers in our population are capable of becoming machine operators; in other words, the average worker can (with proper training) add value to the tasks performed by machines. What happens when these assumptions fail? What happens when machines become workers—when capital becomes labor?

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

The assumptions don't fail. I just gave you a real-life example that ought to be pretty convincing.

Besides, I design, build,program, and sell machines. Guess what? I make them easy to operate.

You shouldn't sell yourself so short.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

You're taking one example of you not hiring a draftsman because you couldn't afford one to later hiring one as proof and validation that the luddites were wrong? Why didn't you hire 2 draftsmen? Why not 2+? I bet the computer made it so you only needed one. Incidents like that have added up over the years and compounded.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

And for the last 100 years, we have been adding more and more jobs, while the standard of living rises. Except when predatory government mucks things up.

And like I told you. I created 20 good-paying jobs.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Our technology didn't start advancing tremendously until the last 10-15 years. I mean the advanced computer systems we have now. Email, more efficient programs, self check outs, automated inventory systems, automated warehouses, kiosks at airports, etc.

Have you laid off any employees because you no longer needed them?

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

Only when sales dropped and I had no choice.

E-mail, more efficient programs, etc., supposedly make things more efficient. More efficiency means better prices for the consumer, so more consumers can afford to buy.

Actually, it looks like the basic ideas were formed two centuries ago, with the same arguments you are making here. Wider looms didn't kill all the jobs.

Lamplighters and buggy whip makers did have to find other work, but it was available and they didn't starve.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

More efficiency means better prices for the consumer, so more consumers can afford to buy, I agree. Buuuut, if the consumers are out of work due to the better efficiency then they can't buy the goods no matter what the prices are.

For the sake of arguing, let's assume that most lower level jobs become obsolete due to automation. What sector will they find work in? Can our economy support a whole society of doctors, teachers, environmentalists?

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

Well I can't argue that assumption, because despite all predictions for two hundred years, it doesn't happen. Even if it did, we would CREATE another sector for them to work in.

I think you sell your own capabilities short, and severely overestimate the capability of machines.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

It does happen. It's happening now. I believe in numbers and all the numbers are supporting my argument.

For 1000s of years people predicted the world was flat, a few said it was round. What happened with that? Humans don't like change so much.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

What's happening now is the bust part of the boom-and-bust cycle that results from central economic planning through counterfeiting of money.

Past my bedtime, I'll continue tomorrow if you're still interested. Thanks for the dialog, good night!

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Well if we didn't have money, we wouldn't have this problem!

Nice talking to you! Goodnight!

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

well when a machine replaces a worker, isnt that a loss of a job? Yes productivity increases, and the market benefits. But at the end of the day, that guy must learn a new skill (actually A skill, because most assembly line jobs are low to no skill jobs), which I encourage anyway. I think we agree about central banks though.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

No, that isn't necessarily the loss of a job. One guy can now make more of the same thing. In the case of a business growing, nobody's job would be lost. More people would be able to buy the product for less money, and the worker's output would be more valuable, so he earns more.

Economics is not a zero sum game. It's a flow. Wealth is created and consumed. There is no 'pie' to be divided up.

Glad you agree about the central bank. It dips into that flow by counterfeiting money. Then pretty soon it dominates everything.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

You are assuming that there is almost unlimited growth potential in the demand for human labor. There isn't, as we can see in our unemployment numbers that will continue to rise until a new system is implemented. Why would an employer keep an employee on when cost-benefit analysis shows it's not worth it?

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

im saying. you have a guy who tightens screws, get a machine to do that, and he loses his job. Or several men doing that, it now requires one man to operate the machinery. Like I said tho, thats a low skill/no skill job, and that diverts employment into other fields, which I think is ok, because that expands the economy into different industries.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

A certain amount of that is inevitable. But still everyone ends up better off. The lamplighters and buggy whip makers certainly did disagree at the time. But stopping progress can't really help.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

I agree with that, but many here will disagree saying that those workers should maintain their job security. Which is a demand of many unions, even if the labor they produce becomes inefficient, or demands they want are unsustainable. Or that their wages shouldnt decline because of innovation. I think we are both aligned in view, and I dont know what we were disagreeing about.
Oh the job thing. and all i was saying that people will lose jobs, but a lot dont think that is beneficial to society. Whereas we believe that it is, and I think that loss of a job is just the market directing labor towards other industries that need it.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 2 years ago

Unions have been a problem over the years because they force companies to keep unwanted labor in a lot of cases, which has prohibited us from changing our system to a more logical one. Our reality of our economy is distorted. The more unemployed people in our society, the more people will demand a new system which to me is inevitable. The only conversations I'm hearing from both sides of the aisle are how to repair a broken, obsolete system. Don't try and repair it! Get a new one!

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

I agree. We go to a free market capitalist economy because it coinsides with freedom and liberty. We dont have one now, despite what people think because of govt intervention and FED's monopoly over our money. You cant have a free market without sound money, no or limited intervention, and common law

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 2 years ago

Thanks for your thoughts.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

a gold standard is just barter really. Money is what you get to store the labor you put in, so that you can turn around and get something in return for fair value.
Now at least recognize that when robots are introduced, the value of doing that same labor falls, and people will lose jobs and have to learn new skills. Thats all I want to say about that really. So people still will lose jobs and people will be richer and poorer than others.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

what part of >>there is not enough gold in the world to represent a millionth of the money<<< do you not understand?

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

its fungible. it can be broken down. it doesnt need to be physically used (not to mention i speak of competing moneys, meaning no one is the end all be all). All that would happen is you have smaller units. It doesnt even have to be in specie these days, as long as the certificates were redeemable. But 100% backed money is honest, value for value (ultimately barter) You may have to redeem x amount to get any reasonable amount of specie, but thats why i advocate competitive moneys (gold, silver, copper), and they can freely float among each other. We do it now, with all fiat currencies. They float vs each other, theres no reason commodity money couldnt float vs each other also. The point is that no one entity or small group of entities effect the supply of money, ie FED, ECB, IMF. The commodity its based on, and market demand determines that

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

i seriously can't believe we are spinning in this circle. Again you don't have an answer you have a non solution which you came up with because you think reality is as simple as monopoly. Your manipulating symbols and ideas and not attaching any real change to them, and your guilty of magical thinking because your idea is patently impossible to implement until we can manufacture more gold. To top it all off a gold/ silver. copper standard would destroy the market system technologies which depend on those substances for technological purposes. We don't need to make cell phones cost 10 thousand dollars each just so that fools can have a gold standard.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 2 years ago

If cell phones cost 10,000 each, that will be precisely because we don't have a gold standard. It will be because we printed the U.S. dollar into oblivion (like Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic).

If you could 'manufacture' more gold, that would be the same as printing money (only realistically it would probably be much slower, since 'printing money' involves Bernanke clicking balances onto some unworthy bank with his mouse).

Gold (and silver) have always been money, since the beginning of using metals to exchange for goods and services.

If gold is so worthless, how come Chavez and the University of Texas both moved to take physical possession of their gold. Think they don't trust the markets and the banks in London?

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

i never said gold was worthless. i said it is impossible and meaningless and proof of ignorance to argue for a gold standard. This is absolutely true. go read up and learn why from systems theory and game theory.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

If they keep printing money at this rate, a cell phone may well cost $10k from inflation, while the actual labor required may be the same or likely in tech, less. Dont think in dollar terms -its hard not to, but its a manipulated unit of account. Its all about the money supply, regardless of what the money is. Gold's SUPPLY is rare and most stable (constant) because not much is consumed or produced, and a lot of it is saved. This why it is a good store of value. If used as a unit of account (money), its supply stability (RATE of increase or decrease of supply) makes it easier to compare value of one item against another over time, where both items' supply is constantly changing at different rates. Money is a commodity itself. In the marketplace, People exchange labor (goods and services) for money, then flip that money into other peoples' labor. Therefore there is always demand for money, as long as people want to trade.
The FED is the only entity that can issue FRNs. Legal tender laws make the FRNs money. In a free market people can choose what they want, including money. I'm not even pushing a gold standard. (It's an alternative to FRNs, just as any commodity can be) I'm saying in a system where you can use gold, silver, FRNs, Euros, peanuts, anything as money to conduct transactions voluntarily, throughout history worldwide, societies have chosen gold and silver when given a choice, not mandated by govt, because of its unique characteristics. Its not so long ago, early 70s that we were on a psuedo gold standard (the only reason the US Dollar is the reserve currency, but as time passed, people started thinking in dollars, not gold. While govts couldn't keep their spending under control (wars mainly). They would get off it to socialize deficits through inflation. Ultimately this is economic planning, which is not a free market. In the case of war, they direct capital (money) into the military industry. In our latest crisis, they directed it to the banking industry and wall street. Its in many other industries too. This is why you have large imbalances of wealth.
Staying on a gold standard keeps a level playing field where everyone, including govt, can't get something for nothing. If the monetary issue is not addressed, we will not get to root of our economic problems.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

staying on a gold standard is IMPOSSIBLE because there is not enough gold in the world to represent the money in it.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

You revalue the currency to reflect what each country has on reserve

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 2 years ago

Gee then - we may be in trouble. They haven't audited Fort Knox in about 40 or 50 years, I'm pretty certain.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Exactly. Thats why you cant do it overnight. There must be a transition, and I like the ron paul competitive currencies idea... we would likely end up with a gold or silver standard...

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 2 years ago

Yes - this is an amazing story I found on Greeks using barter and alternative currency to buck the almost-defunct Euro

http://silverunderground.com/2011/10/truly-revolutionary-greek-city-starts-rebel-barter-economy-and-alternative-currency/

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

crash jp morgan! buy silver! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrNyoJ1J450

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 2 years ago

Silver is much more volatile than gold, but as long as we continue on our current course, the dollar will follow the Euro into its grave, as long as Bernanke has anything to do with it.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

which again, means that yur just playing with phantom math, in any case.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

I say that trillions of dollars is phantom math. Yet we borrow it, at interest, into existence like nothing

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

and your point is?

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

re-pegging it, and stopping the issuance of new debt money, would be correcting the imbalance that has been created since we got off the gold standard in '71. So its not phantom math, its accounting for the damage that has already been done, instead of trying to paper over it.

Only because the US was the only nation still pegged to gold after WW2, which is why it was chosen to be the world's reserve currency. After '71 it continued only because people were used to it, and oil serves as a pseudo backing for the dollar.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

re-pegging it, and stopping the issuance of new debt money, would be correcting the imbalance that has been created since we got off the gold standard in '71. So its not phantom math, its accounting for the damage that has been done, instead of trying to paper over it.

Only because the US was the only nation still pegged to gold after WW2, which is why it was chosen to be the world's reserve currency. After '71 it continued only because people were used to it, and oil serves as a pseudo backing for the dollar.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

holy fookin moonbats, you just don't frigging listen.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/273466-4-reasons-the-u-s-will-never-return-to-a-gold-or-silver-standard

http://www.bnet.com/blog/financial-business/why-were-not-returning-to-a-gold-standard/8738

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=76179&start=25

To look for a measure of value (gold or another) which is independent of government fiddling is truly tempting. In principle it is perfectly possible; in practice there are insuperable obstacles.

1...Shortage of gold. This would actually sort itself if gold were the only legal tender: the weight of gold for which a banknote was redeemable would be adjusted to conform to the availability of the metal. Over time, prices would come to be expressed in gold. However, the adjustment (even if it went as smoothly as could be imagined) would be stressful. 2...Gold is not held evenly by banks across the world. Some have more than their share, some less. To switch to gold would randomly enrich some nations and impoverish others. 3...Modern society no longer works on a cash basis. Credit and money transfer arrangements effectively create currency independently of national mints and national policy. Even the humble credit card creates negotiable currency on a scale which can seriously affect inflation. To revert to a cash economy with credit strictly controlled would be, in the short run, catastrophically deflationary. Millions would actually starve. 4...In the months before the switch when everyone knew that gold would suddenly be, effectively, the only sort of money around there would be a scramble for the stuff. Crime would peak. Wars would break out. Workers in gold mines would strike for a percentage share. Women would be mugged for their rings. Chaos.

Nice idea, but I don't think it's on.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Im not sayting that chaos wont happen. In fact regardless of whichever route we take, chaos will happen. A massive deflationary time, or massive inflationary time, is inevitable (depends on what central bankers and govts plan to do). The "wrong thing" though more "tolerable" and likely is currency wars, trade wars, and real wars (quoting celente). The right thing would be more deflationary as bad credit gets taken out of the system when people and banks default. Neither is good, but its what comes out of it.

  1. You base your money supply on the amount of gold you own. Im not saying the only legal tender, i say competing currencies. I just think gold would eventually win out. And silver really would be used in actual daily transactions. Yes the transition would be stressful, but any solution would be to correct the massive imbalance that has occured in the past several decades of money creation.
  2. True, but if you go competitive currency, other commodities could be used alongside each other, and we can actually have a trade balance instead of deficit, if we wanted more gold.
  3. Exactly, get off debt based money. Even if you dont use gold, and have govt issued notes, at least make them debt free and govt can spend it into the economy with no interest. You can have debit card style systems that could have 100% backing. A bank can hold it and record transactions like now, but they actually have to HAVE it.
  4. This is why you cant do it overnight. The race for gold has already begun. There is no save currency, all are debasing their own to compete in exporting goods.
    Im not saying itll be easy. And no matter what is ultimately done, it wont be easy. We've been trying to transition easily, and that has just exacerbated the problem.
[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

you can't do it period. any idea that you can is superflous magical thinking. it is impossible . impossible,. to go to a gold standard there is not enough gold. how can you people be so thick? Even if we could go to a gold standard that does not solve the problems of forcing money laws to be ethical, it side steps all of the true core issues and problems. its not a solution, its just garbage in and garbage out, and proof of being programmed and ignorant.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

michael moore is dead on about most things. we don't have a capitalist system we have a corporate oligarchy.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 2 years ago

He didn't mind the capitalism when he made all of the money off of people buying his movies, either. He tries to pass himself off as a man of the people, but he's from Flint, Michigan - they can't stand him there. Flint was recently ranked the most violent city in the country, and if he's such a philanthropist, why is he leaving his hometown to rot?

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

clearly hes doing what he feels he can, you judging him so harshly is not a meaningful argument against him. Its an ado hom, not substance. Whatever failures he may have, his movies are RIGHT and so is he. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmEwhakknkk

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

We dont have a capitalist system, so why would you blame or call an end to capitalism? This is not something Moore is right about. He will lead people in the wrong direction, toward more govt control and regulation. When all the govt needs to do is regulate less, and PROSECUTE more. There are laws in place, but regulators ignore them, or there are regulations in place for corporations to get around them. So dont end capitalism, restore free market capitalism.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

regulate less? we have a broken system and it was broken via deregulation. we need strong good rules to keep corporations honest and we don't have them. We can't end capitalism capitalism never started. we can't restore it it never existed. its been some kind of oligarchy- not capitalism- from day one. "Capitalism" is just a con scam, the game of poker they have you playing in a rigged corporate oligarchy casino.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Yes regulate less, but that only works in a system when you punish those who commit fraud. I argue that the competitive edge that corporations have are the result of their fraud in elections, and in forming legislation. The regulations in place were written by the very corporations you want to regulate. Their regulations on the market make it so that any new competitor has to jump through hurdles that the incumbent corporation has put in place and can either get around, or are too high a price that only an established firm can comply. This creates the market inequality.
Glass steagal shouldve never been repealed, that kept banks honest (to a degree) that they couldnt call savings investments. Those are two different things, one involves more risk than the other.
Capitalism existed in the 1800s, when there was no central bank, money was the peoples' and regulations came from the market and private property laws. What regulations do you deem necessary? economic and civil rights are one in the same, you can't infringe on another's right to conduct business, and paying off politicians for a competitive edge is an infringement on that right, you dont need regulation for laws that already exist. You can never have free market capitalism in an oligarchy. So to say that capitalism and oligarchy are the same, they are not. firstly in the sense that one is a political structure, and the other is an economic structure, but they cant work together because in a free market, the oligarchy has no right to infringe on market activity. yes even when things are bad in the economy, in a free market, govt cant intervene. They must let the malinvestment get liquidated, so the economy reaches market equilibrium.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

agreed, capitalism and oligarchy are not the same, we don;t have a free market system.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

no but that is what we should be aiming for.. nothing else. Only in a free market do we have maximum freedom. So I am reaching out to all the "End capitalism" people to inform them that what he have isnt capitalism, therefore capitalism is NOT the problem. In fact free market capitalism is the solution

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

free market is one part of the solution. Calling it capitalism is probably a marketing error. Its also not linguistically exact, because free market and capitalism are according to exact definitions mutually exclusive.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

You cant have capitalism w/o a free market. and you cant have any other -ism in a free market. Marketing isnt my strong suit, but When people say end capitalism, they clearly have no idea what they are talking about, and I want to inform them that its not capitalism thats the problem. We will end up under some form of socialism/communism/fascism (all the same really, govt owns everything) if we dont clarify this. Democracy is useless unless the people are educated

[-] 1 points by pariscommune (205) 2 years ago

market is private property is capital is commodity production is wage labour.. end capitalism is the ending of the social relations that make market which is trade. if they are unclear about that.. fine, i share that notion. but saying ending trade equals to the government owning everything is biased at best. fascism again is a term that qualifies for a lot of capitalist governments starting with the ones that made it up for themselves. socialism is indeed the capitalism run by the state. communism is the end of capitalism by definition so it cant be socialism nor fascists capitalism, it is something not yet done like equality and liberty were not done in the times of slavery.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

I would say that communism is the state telling people that they own shit and they call the shots, socialism, is the state telling them that the people have a say in what the state does with everything. . Its the first line that I agree with, and what the people who say "end capitalism" dont get. In fascism, I see as the government in cahoots with biz, in which case that is NOT free market capitalism, because that is not a free market. Maybe I need to be clear in free market capitalism, and not just capitalism.

[-] 1 points by pariscommune (205) 2 years ago

well your definition of socialism sounds quite like the one of communism except for the state lieing lol. socialist usually agree about socialism not being communism, they see it as a step in the change of society towards communism. whatever that step is they cant say but they all agree that communism is a society without state while not sharing an opinion about capital in socialism/communism, there are many branches there but none about the stateless society. thats stuff you can get from communist party members all around the earth, they dont actually see themselves living in communism, in socialism at very best. they argue that the means of production need to be developed more to overcome scarcity for a real communist society. thats all not my opinion im just telling about the conciousness of socialists.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

yes, but in that system a small group decides what is best for the rest. I say that the individual knows whats best for himself, and ultimately is responsible for his actions. Whether he succeeds or fails. No other person should be responsible for the actions of another (accept children). Are we grown ups or are we children? my aim is to have a system where peoples' decisions and actions are not impeded by govt unless they are harming others or impeding their rights. I think only a free market capitalist society provides that environment. In every other, someone is telling you that you cant do something because its not good for the state, or the well being of everyone else. Therefore telling everyone what is and isnt good for them, instead of the individual deciding what is best for himself. Do you smoke herb? Who is to say that its not good for you and you shouldnt do it? Same right to choose (as long as you dont harm anyone else), but in the economic sense.

[-] 1 points by pariscommune (205) 2 years ago

idealism is always this: claiming a deviation from the good principles that are supposedly around. in this example we have rights and you are saying the government impedes on rights when its actually the government giving you rights. that means you want better rights... same with the free market. the government says it installs free market and you say thats not free market because its made by the government and free is the contrary of government. you are telling yourself lies with always repeating the claimed ideal makes the reality look bad because that is really all that is to your kind of thinking. you may fare well with that shit in philosophy classes but in the real world it just doesnt go around.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Ahh... you see, govt doesnt give rights, they are "god given." Right to my property is what is at issue here. When you say govt gives you rights, you are saying you are a subject of the govt. Im saying that the govt gets its rights from us, we the people, via the constitution. When govt overeaches the limits of the constitution it is in violation of its role, and needs to be replaced with one that effectively serves its role. I am saying that govt intervenes in the free market (mainly for political reasons), and doesn't install it. The only way govt can install an economic system is through intervention by telling people what they can and cant do within that market. The market just exists. Which is why there is a black market. Even with no gov, market exists, people will trade with each other to survive. I am recognizing the intervention of govt, and you see it as regulation, to improve the market. This is economic planning and steering the economy, when a free market is moved only by the transactions of the participants. And anytime there is an economic planner, you are talking intervention into the free market because an economic planner will always try to fix whats wrong with the economy when it fluctuates, and make it better when it stagnates. When ultimately the free market prevails anyway. So the approach is more laizzre faire, as in, the economy does work out its fluctuations, so learn to deal with them, instead of trying to prevent or slow them down, because that leads to bigger problems down the road -which is what has been happening for the past decade.

[-] 1 points by pariscommune (205) 2 years ago

well thats ridiculous, the state is deciding on new rights every day without a regular american even knowing about it. of course you had to pull out god to make this argument..

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

im quoting the constitution? Even govt cant infringe on your rights. Well at least they can't do so lawfully. It is up to us to defend those rights against an overbearing govt. check these out on the declaration and constitution declaration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS-tshQ9sys constitution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggXSO0ETvq4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLQxigKFa5k

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

im quoting the constitution? Even govt cant infringe on your rights. Well at least they can't do so lawfully. It is up to us to defend those rights against an overbearing govt. check these out on the declaration and constitution declaration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS-tshQ9sys constitution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggXSO0ETvq4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLQxigKFa5k

[-] 1 points by pariscommune (205) 2 years ago

rights are laws. your saying the government cant break its own laws. it can just make new laws. and if stuff happens too fast there are laws already in place for doing whatever they want if they need to, its called state of emergency or something. your rights are nothing but the laws of government against you, illustrated as a tool for you when its really a tool for and from the government.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Govt CANT break its own laws, NOT in America! Corruption takes over and this happens yes, thats what we face now. But In the US it is up to the people to defend those rights, and if we don't then we have strayed from our founders principles, and we are NOT land of the free, home of the brave. We're just like any other dictatorship if we go along and let govt do what it wants.
The constitution was put the to restrict an overbearing govt, and if they break their oaths to defend that document, its up to us to revolt and replace with time people that will.
Just because govt mandates something, doesnt mean that we should abide by it. Are we not independent people? If cops beat people because the law allows it, are they still infringing on your rights? I say yes, and thats why we must stand up against those unlawful mandates. Thats wha OWS is all about right? Ridding govt corruption and collusion with biz? These are the principles that should be guiding us, not some mandate a politician wrote up.

[-] 1 points by pariscommune (205) 2 years ago

im not telling what you should do im just telling what government is doing with you, ruling you. you chose to ignore the point i made about the state of emergency that is lawfully doing everything they want. what do you think will happen when a revolt takes place?

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

I call the state of emergency and executive orders totalitarianism. When you operate outside of the checks and balances of our supposed system, you are just operating as a dictator. So I would say the state of emergency clause is tyrannical and will be used and is being used to stop any reform to the current status quo. Only changing the hearts and minds of those who follow those orders will result in actual change. That can not be done without peaceful talks and education.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

you can't have capitalism without a free(SLAVE) market. but you can have a free market without capitalism. And thats strangely the only way it CAN work.

Marketing 101 was fascinating. I admit thats a lot less than a bachelors but its sure more than enough to see whats really going on given the other things I know. Capitalism is not the problem since it does not exist. corporate oligarchy is the problem. capitalism has never been tried. I am a democracy guy. in order for real democracy to function a free market system is required. Thats not capitalism. thats a free market system. there is a subtle difference there which most people would miss. I will again repeat. Neither capitalism nor marxism nor communism nor socialism has ever existed. All of those governments were oligarchy pretending to be something as a con scam. Telling that simple truth gets one banned out of the Chat by either a capitalist or a socialist whos pissed you just said their pet ideology isn't real. It isn't. anybody who thinks that it is is accidentally playing for team corporate oligarchy as a tool. the ONLY system worth talking about is DEMOCRACY. how democracy HANDLES a FREE MARKET system is dynamic and interesting and NOT capitalism.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

I would argue that the difference between those isms is that in capitalism, the capital and ownership is by the people, whereas all other -isms the capital and ownership is owned by the state, via taxes, regulations, permits, outright, or subsidies. The laizze faire approach requires no govt intervention, which would equate to a free market, and would keep the capital and ownership in the hands of the people. Where in capitalism do you see the slavery?
I see it in all the others through all the reasons I gave for the other isms, expanding... You are coered (have to pay) to conduct business with licensing and permits, otherwise you cant cant. In a free market, you can do whatever you want, as long as you dont infringe on the rights of others (freedom). And that law of basic rights is the regulator in the free market.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

er. in all of the systems ownership is by the elites and they are using a fake system to placate the proles and make it look good on paper that the proles have a stake in society. Agreed, a free market does mean no fees, no taxes, no interference... but it does not mean no regulations- its free because laws make it civil and moral and ethical and in service to the people.... the hard part is crafting meaningful and short laws to do that.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

how can you say all ownership is by the elites? I have a gun, if theres no licensing or registration, how do the elites own it? They would have to coerce me into giving it to them, which violates common law. The hard part, as you say, has been done already.. its called the declaration of independence and constitution

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

right, watch the elites declare martial law and seize your gun. they have done this already in assorted places.. new orleans..

in fact people drowned because they pigs would not release them after merely and only otherwise having their guns confiscated. So. ownership is in vast majority by the elites and the system is rigged to prevent others from owning anything much and allows them to take anything back they want. You think you own some land somewhere ? wait until exxon discovers oil underneath it. You don't own the mineral rights. you own the surface of the lot. you don't own the water rights. etc. You think you own your car? see how long that works is you don't pay the assorted registration fees. they take it.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

We agree that we dont live in a free market, but I'm saying in a free market capitalist society, we would have ownership. I agree with you on those points, but to say that it would happen in a free market isnt true, because then it wouldnt be a free market. I know I sound ideological, but while we may never see a truely free market, it is what we should strive for. It doesnt tell anyone what to do, or how to do it, it allows for people to succeed and fail. it doesnt manage the economy at all, it just allows the economy to function. And by doing so, it solves many problems

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

free market system and capitalism are mutually exclusive. capitalism is always an inequality or thus slave market system.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Just because there is inequality does not mean slavery. A person who busts his ass and provides a great product is not equal with someone who doesnt and produces shit. Its the opportunity to do so, which must be equal. Not how much someone can acheive or fail on their own merits. If someone can do something better than another, its counter productive to lower the standard of the better so that the worse one can compete. If they have the same opportunity to succeed and fail, its up to the individual to follow through. Where do you see the inequality stem from in our current system? Whats the root cause, dont say capitalism, tell me where or what or why capitalism leads to a slave system. I dont follow

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Systemic inequalities are not the same as talent or work inequalities. Systemic inequalities will always create systemic entropy and result in oligarchy. I'm not talking about lowering any standards so that worse ones can compete. I'm talking about raising the standards so that evil ones can't be evil. its not about succeed or fail. its about holding corporations to the same kinds of moral and ethical rules and laws we otherwise hold people to; fundamentally what is right or wrong. WE have lived in a double standard where corporations can get away with murder because they are and are not people. Its time for CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE to end and FREE ENTERPRISE to start. If you Value the ideal of free enterprise you should thus be with us in putting an end to criminal enterprise.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Thats what free market capitalism is! I argue that its not capitalism, its the fraud, govt intervention that cause the inequalites through regulations and monetary policy. Im trying to explain how fraud exists, where govt intervention distorts the market, and how central bank policy create an unequal marketplace.
I say that corruption within capitalism destroys the free market. And when that happens you no longer have FREE MARKET capitalism, you have one of the other forms of -isms, which are all capitalism.

Tell me how capitalism is the CAUSE of these things. Regulations and subsidies are how you lower the standard of all so one can compete. By directing capital through a subsidy, you are giving that industry artificial demand, thus raising price without increasing the quality. In fact, knowing that you will receive capital from a subsidy, you will be less likely to innovate because you will not need to create a better product to survive or make the same amount w/o the subsidy. You would profit from the subsidy demand, not from innovating the industry and creating a better product or raising investor demand.
Thats how govt intvention through a subsidy causes a lowering in standards in an industry. Now explain to me how capitalism is the cause of systemic inequalities, when following the law -because yes crime must be punished.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

again, there has never been capitalism, so it can't get corrupted. i never said capitalism was the cause of those things, i said capitalism does not exist. Subsidies are again a dynamic market inequality which is again part of the problem. Capitalism means the essential worship of money and greed. It always creates inequalities because it over values money and under values people.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Get back on a gold standard, and really, a silver standard

[-] 1 points by servicesRendered (37) 2 years ago

Frankly, it is not the type of standard that matters, but rather the commitment not to circulate more currency that there is value being produced.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

truth... 100% reserve requirements. I like ron pauls competitive currencies.. This way, no one mandates it, the people who use it do. I just think gold and silver win everytime

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

truth... 100% reserve requirements. I like ron pauls competitive currencies.. This way, no one mandates it, the people who use it do. I just think gold and silver win everytime

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

not enough gold or silver in the world to do that.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

gold and silver are fungible. Especially with computers, they can be stored at a bank (and audited), and you can spend a 1/100000000000000 of an oz if you wanted. As long as you can withdraw for physical specie at any time. Before 1913, we were on a gold and silver standard around the world. So to say there isnt enough, is a fallacy, its fungiblity is one of the reasons it qualifies for money

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

why is the world full of stupid people who think they can manipulate stupid nonsensical things as solutions to complicated problems?

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

are you asking me or insulting me? You dont need more money supply, you just need to be able to make change. We all have been living in inflationary times and think that nominal gains make us wealthy. If everyone was a millionaire, how much do you think a million bux would get you. You need to step back and compare tangible items to other tangible items, and you can see where im coming from. Dont think nominally, think rationally

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

are you asking me or insulting me? You dont need more money supply, you just need to be able to make change. We all have been living in inflationary times and think that nominal gains make us wealthy. If everyone was a millionaire, how much do you think a million bux would get you. You need to step back and compare tangible items to other tangible items, and you can see where im coming from. Dont think nominally, think rationally

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

no. yes. no. yes. what? making change is not reliant on changing the money system one tenth as much as it is on changing the informational ecology. Going to a gold standard as an idea is a proof of ignorance, not a solution. Really the end game is we evolve out of money. To do that we evolve first new currencies and new economic strategies. this leads to economic singularity in about 50 years. If everyone is a millionaire how much you get depends on exactly the material valuation of that money. Which is to say that by the time money becomes obsolete everyone will live like the current millionaire. Tangible items to other tangible items? the real economy is about ideas, change the ideas and everything changes. the problem with the tangible economy is it does not change; its a static reality. you can't make a meaningful gold standard with only enough gold to represent on millionth of the economy. You can make a purely imaginal money system work; but it has to be subject to moral and ethical laws. This is about pinning down those moral and ethical laws and implementing them in new currencies; not trying to imagine a control freak impossible non solution because of the simplicity with which you go about thinking over the problem.

[-] 0 points by Steve15 (385) 2 years ago

John Birch Propaganda film. I remember when I fell for these half truths. Our freedoms comes from the bill of rights not capitalism Socialism is an economic structure not a physical control system. You could have your economic freedom in the hands of corrupt private banker and greedy corporations of a corrupt government or both. Neither works well now does it?

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

this is not a free market. its a centrally planned economy under govt/Fed control.