Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: If Not Capitalism, What?

Posted 8 years ago on Dec. 8, 2011, 6:39 a.m. EST by toonces (-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I see much of the OWS movement claiming capitalism does not work.

What is the answer?

What would you replace capitalism with?

What economic machine would be a better form of societal organization?

I can lay out a plan that has worked and has made the United States the greatest engine for freedom and prosperity the world has ever known. The framers of the Constitution put together a sstem that assured the greatest prosperity for the greatest amount of people. There has been no example of a better economic system or government system that has done a better job of lifting more people from oppression.

Convince me that OWS have a better idea for the way we should engage in economic and political life.

163 Comments

163 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 8 years ago

Capitalism was working just fine when we were taxing excessive profits at 90% like under Eisenhower and when we had tariffs like we have had since the American Revolution.

Not all that long ago, Corporations were taxed, and companies had incentive for making products in the US and hiring Americans. We had tariffs for a reason.

FTAA protesters tried to stop the outsourcing of jobs with the free trade agreements, but they too were brutally assaulted in their efforts to raise awareness. Turns out those protesters were right too, as well as Ross Perot who discussed 'the Giant Sucking Sound' that would be a result of jobs leaving the country.

We had a free press and laws to protect us from the corrupt and greedy....it is just that the corrupt and greedy took over the press and conveniently forgot about all of our laws. If we pursued the laws we currently have, Congress would be in jail for illegal insider trading and they would no longer be writing legislation attempting to justify their violations of the constitution such as attempting to make illegal wiretapping legal retroactively....which of course is not possible without an amendment to the Constitution, so again...Congress is breaking the law by allowing spying.

Does Occupy have any lawyers willing to fight for our rights here?

We need to file some lawsuits, and then go to the media and demand they cover it!

We need to Occupy the TV stations!

Blaming 'capitalism' is oh so..Michael Moore....but it is not really helpful, and only serves to divide.

We have to take responsibility for our Democracy now, take back the media, take back our voting systems. Since JFK, Americans have been in denial, apathetic, selfish...we are actually at fault here because a Democracy cannot work without the participation of US. Too many people have been watching like it were a bad movie.

[-] 5 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

I'm with F.U.CorporateMedia on this: we don't need to discard capitalism so much as we need to move back to a more mixed and regulated economy in which the free market is harnessed for the good of the people rather than the other way around.

[-] 5 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 8 years ago

Well said! I for one never saw the sense of NAFTA. To me, it was the beginning of the end.

[-] 2 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 8 years ago

Your on to something with trade I've studied this for a while. Free Markets need protectionism. Planned Markets need Free trade. The only time Free Markets have created growth were in America during the gilded age , when Lincoln and the Republicans pushed tariffs to an average of 35%. and Korea after their unfinished civil War, they pushed heavy protectionism based on Friedrich List and created a REAL industrial economy.

Sweden, Norway, and Finland are the only successful industrialized economies with Free Trade...

that is because the external demand combined with lack of dominant production drives up cost of living ie inflation So in free trade societies to get the things people MUST have cheaply it can only be done collectivally. Thats why Scandanvia is so successful. if they started being proctectionist in the right way they could lower taxes and still buy all of those social programs. Catch my drift?

Think of it in terms of Currency. The dollar is given value based on WHAT it can buy. By sending our factories (note how I don't say jobs) over sea's. yes production cost less but then we give dollars purchasing power away.

[-] 2 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 8 years ago

Very indepth. I dont know enough about Scandanvian economies to agree or disagree.

I do think NAFTA was the begininng of the end for the Americian worker. We built a system pre-NAFTA that wages increased for the worker and selling price for goods rose accordingly. Then we pulled to rug out from underneath it all. Simply put, why pay $10 per hour when you can incur a one time cost of moving your factory and pay $2 per hour....in a few working months the company paid for the move and from that point on, is making hugh profits. Where is benefit for the US? We get goods cheaper? We cant buy them without a job! There was a hand in hand rise of labor/sales price already in place. The only benefactors of NAFTA are countries such as Mexico (cheap labor) and factories that moved there (huge profits). Proof that both parties are controlled by the almighty dollar.

[-] 1 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 8 years ago

I don't know how slaving 18 hours a day 7 days a weeking making products for spoiled Americans benefit mexicans.

Free Trade was just Adam Smiths dumbed down sugar coated version of colonialism.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

people have been working hard since the beginning of time. the pioneers worked hard too. why dont you try it instead of occupying & wasting your life.

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 8 years ago

Just as here, it benefits the elite rulers of Mexico

[-] 1 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 8 years ago

Mexico does have a lot NAFTA copies signed with the a lot of other nations

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 8 years ago

There's no way Americans can fix the economy the way it is set up.

It is a banking based economy not a people based economy. So naturally the banks never care for people. They don't even care for their customers. They all have one goal: to fit into a too big too fail category. Once they achieve that goal they're home free and even if they fail it's not like they really failed because they bail out (tax payer's money).

This is the Dilemma. People are just a bunch of bar codes and ids.

What Americans need to do is to create people value. It should NOT be like social security or 401k or anything else that is in the hands of banks and government, or even unions.

It should be in the hands of professionals themselves, people that can work together using the legal system in a simple manner, and who know what they're doing and it has to be user controlled in a homogenous, democratic, free of complicated legalities and institutionalized banking and legal procedures.

That means eliminating pyramid type systems where there's an authority on top or even like a system where there's a ghost of it always present for instance in facebook or twitter (this is just an example of social networking side of it) and government as an escape goat.

Everyone thinks that social networking sites are simply innovations in the way people communicate and take it for what it is.

Absolutely not.

These are prototypes for future ruling class to use and develop and bring the next generations into living their lives like zombies without realizing what they are doing.

The Traditional Media played that role in the previous generations and now is a complementary force to Social Media like facebook.

Just go on any TV channel every idiotic program from Live News to Gossip magazines you name it they all got facebook and twitter and constantly refer the viewer to catch the latest on it.

In truth, they are programming next generation viewers to be networked traditionally the way they want them to always be networked.

This is going to be the bankers' dream. They no longer need TV. They no longer need surveys. They no longer need extra staff to do their research. And most importantly it is 24/7 active media.

It's all in facebook and twitter and user driven-software monitored. Other social media sites are eventually either absorbed into traditional media like Yahoo (ABC) or to internet media like youtube (Google).

You first need to block banks from controlling social networking/media and then the government from making it easy for them to spy using the national security as an excuse and then you might have a chance to bring in those zombies to be real people again.

You can see how everything is arranged to look free and normal but it is neither.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

there are studies that show protectionism increases trade - all developed countries did so through protecting their industry until it could compete - i still think the whole system is done - production for use and not for profit is one thing that makes sense to me - i posted it above but here is max neef again---AMY GOODMAN: And if you’re teaching young economists, the principles you would teach them, what they’d be?

MANFRED MAX-NEEF: The principles, you know, of an economics which should be are based in five postulates and one fundamental value principle.

One, the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy.

Two, development is about people and not about objects.

Three, growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth.

Four, no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.

Five, the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.

And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above the reverence of life.

[-] 1 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 8 years ago

Okay what are you trying to say?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

i thought i just said it - very developed economy achieved development through protectionism - look at early united states history - tariffs on british textiles until ours became competitive. what questions do you have?

[-] 1 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 8 years ago

Ya, read my other stuff higher up

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

i was responding to this point of yours - Okay what are you trying to say? - i looked briefly at what you wrote - seems mostly correct but this line is not - Sweden, Norway, and Finland are the only successful industrialized economies with Free Trade..big time protection for nokia i believe (for 15 yrs of development) - not sure if we disagree here - we may be saying the same thing buit no time to do more tonight.

[-] 1 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 8 years ago

Today they are able to mantain lots of free trade agreements and are the only successful nations to do so.

Hong Kong and Singapore have FT but are both dominantly service based.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

i assume you are correct but they all used protectionism to develop their successful industry

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

Oh yeah... Scandinavia has been leading the free world in innovation... NOT!

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

what do you think of resource depletion and global warming in relation to capitalism - seems to me the profit motive is not a sustainable system - here is what max neef says about the economic system........AMY GOODMAN: And if you’re teaching young economists, the principles you would teach them, what they’d be?

MANFRED MAX-NEEF: The principles, you know, of an economics which should be are based in five postulates and one fundamental value principle.

One, the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy.

Two, development is about people and not about objects.

Three, growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth.

Four, no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.

Five, the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.

And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above the reverence of life.

[-] 1 points by nkp (33) 8 years ago

it was working well when peak income tax was 7% too

[-] 1 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 8 years ago

You must of forgot about run away inflation of the the 1970s

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

Another uneducated right-winger with a feeble grasp of the language. It's been a treat watching you idiots expose your stupidity over and over in these forums. "You must of forgot." Classic.

[-] 0 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 8 years ago

Well top rates where 70%. So your kind of shooting yourself in the idea that high taxes create prosperity. Taxes are actually for the the most part irrelevant. Just a policy. any tax cut would create short economic growth but nothing really long term. you should look into the demands I posted

But any legit response to run away inflation? nope? okay please go home

[-] 0 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

"your kind of"--one more right-winger ignorant of basic grammar

[-] 2 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 8 years ago

Still no legit response?

[-] 3 points by AngryPancho (17) 8 years ago

There are so many conservatives looking for free therapy on these forums! The founders had a very good chance to put either the words 'capitalism' or 'free enterprise' in the constitution and didn't. I'd love to hear your theory why. My own economic views are pretty radical and strictly on a need to know basis, but I will say this, I wouldn't coddle the greedy and, no, I don't think the overly self-centered illustrate a necessary part of human nature.

[-] 2 points by kingscrossection (1203) 8 years ago

How's this. Don't coddle anyone. Help people who need it, when they need it, and only for as long as they need it.

[-] 1 points by AngryPancho (17) 8 years ago

Nothing to argue about there.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 8 years ago

I actually meant as long as they need it.

[-] 2 points by rbe (687) 8 years ago
[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

Not now, not ever

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 8 years ago

Our government is heading towards it anyway. It would be best if the people controlled it.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 8 years ago

Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

I read your statement about the framers of the Constitution and a system that ASSURES the greatest prosperity for the greatest amount of people. And I have to ask:

why are we experiencing such severe class warfare? why are we in a great recession? why are 1 in 3 Americans near or below the poverty level? why does it seem like half the country needs food stamps? why is there such enormous income inequality? why do we have people feel so disillusioned by the current state of affairs they need to take to the streets and protest capitalism?

where is this greatest prosperity ASSURANCE today?

Yes, I agree capitalism is a great system that provides incentives for people to take risks and work hard. But capitalism does not ASSURE anything and it is fallible.

The answer, or at least the first step, to getting back to providing the greatest prosperity for the greatest amount of people is a separation of special interests from the government and having publicly funded campaigns. IMO.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. The Framers and the Constitution does not "ASSURE" anything but individual freedom and protect personal property rights. It is up to you to work towards prosperity.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 8 years ago

Fair enough. but consider this expanded definition.

"Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and the role of the state is to regulate and protect."

The last two sentences are where I have problems with the way Capitalism is working nowadays. Your thoughts?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

I would agree with what you have written. The way capitalism is working these days is not that it isn't being regulated, the way I see it, our government is orchestrating it. When the government is is manipulating the market and the way the market must move and act, the government is destroying the free market.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 8 years ago

"Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state and business activities."

We have no such separation. Our elected officials, from Obama to anyone else you want to name, receive unbelievable campaign contributions from big businesses and special interest groups. and don't even get me started on lobbying by those groups.

Do you agree?

[-] 1 points by Algee (182) 8 years ago

We should not just change the system but also the way people think. Reading through most of these comments the word "prosperity" comes many times. If we must change system, it would also make sense that we start talking less about prosperity in terms of money and more of prosperity in terms of people, culture, society, politics and values. The very mind set that has been destroying the world in recent years has been this very notion of prosperity above all else. Some might say that to run a society or economy you need money, but wait a minute. To make money you need people first of all, you need people, you need workers. If you want to prosper in every way possible you need people. Money does not grow on trees. Money is artificial, it has no feelings, it feels not stress or happiness. It does not enjoy your company, money is an "it" and I would gladly spend time with anyone here than with money! In the new society "Money" will not come over people, that's what got us in this mess in the first place.

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 8 years ago

The Revolution has a new theme song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L-GOHa5-YQ

http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-the-name-of-allah/

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 1 points by KVNLGN (154) 8 years ago

don't confuse capitalism with crony-capitalism or the pre-facism that exists now.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

I say we just try capitalism. No more gov subsidies for big oil or corn. Get wall street out of our banking system so that the American people are no longer on the hook for wall street's bad bets. Overturn citizens united so that our corporations can't buy government favor and the government can go back to the people. I think capitalism just might work in America we just need to try it.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

bravo! good call homie.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

Tired of people calling the current system "capitalism"

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

indeed. more of a strange mix of socialism and fascism.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

Welfare for billionaires.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

does that mean we get to drug test them :)

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

Only if you include leverage derivatives and cheap fed loans as drugs

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

Touché

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

In the film The Wild One Marlon Brando is asked by Mary Murphy, "What are you rebelling against, Johnny?" To which Brando replies, "Whatta ya got?"

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

The framers of the constitution owned slaves and believed women should not be allowed to vote. Capitalism is a morally bankrupt system. If you believe in gluttony and greed, you love capitalism. If you believe in a safe, healthy, happy, thriving populace, you have to believe in something else, call it capitalism if you will, but with RULES and BOUNDARIES. The corporations will kill us all to make a profit. They will kill you, slowly but surely, they will poison you and bleed you dry, to get your money, and you will hand it over, willingly.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

What is "something else"? I believe I should be able to keep the fruit of my labor. I have far less problem with corporations making money because I and other choose to buy a product from them than I do with government taking property at the point of a gun from its citizens.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

You are greedy and selfish and un-American, you don't think you have to contribute anything to the nation that affords you prosperity, you think you be should able to take and take and give nothing back, you do not believe in contributing anything to the collective, the country, thus you are against the country, you do not believe in America, you believe in yourself and only yourself, you do not want to be a part of the whole, you hate America.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

The fact I work and earn and keep my money so my country does not have to support me is contributing to my country.

I do not consider myself greedy and selfish for wanting to be able to use the money I earn and the property I have purchased in the manner I choose. The United States is not about a "collective", the United States Constitution guarantees the rights of the individual. The Constitution of the United States protects the individual from the oppression of the "collective".

Just out of curiosity, what have you done to "contribute to the collective?"

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

So you don't benefit at all from living in this country? Fucking hypocritical, greedy idiot.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

What do you contribute to the country? Do you work? Why do you say I am a hypocritical greedy idiot? Why do you believe I should not be able to use the proceeds of my labor in the manner I choose?

I understand your frustration over being asked questions that cannot be answered in a manner that projects a favorable light on the repercussions of engaging in economics that you would prefer. Perhaps some here have been swayed and impressed with your name calling, but think about it, is that the best you can do? Is your position so weak that you cannot defend it without resorting to calling me names?

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

You think you should be able to live in this country for free. You should be able to drive on a free road, polluting the air for free, and go to a store to buy goods that will not harm or kill you, because if no one is stopping the greedy corporations from selling you goods that will harm or kill you your buddies will sell you goods that will harm or kill you, then you should be able to drive home on a free road, you should be able to do all of this free of harm from criminals or invading forces from another country for free, let the poor people foot the bill for your lame, number-crunching ass. I work for a living, my guess is your job is a fucking joke, and I'd love to have a look at your DVD collection. Do you even have a bookshelf, let alone a book, in your house? What was the last rock concert you attended, or was it Sugarland? I bet your lame life is good for a full day of belly laughs. I bet you wear a tie to your bullshit job and think you're special. You hate America, if you felt any loyalty to the country you'd want to contribute to it to make it better and strong, instead you fucking whine because yes, you are a greedy hypocritical fuck.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

Fair enough. You contribute nothing. Looks like you are the greedy one wanting to take what I have earned.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

You clearly have no defense for your selfishness and greed, you think it's an acceptable way to "live" your "life," I don't want anything from you except what you should feel obligated to contribute to the country that affords you opportunity and prosperity. I would love to hear how you "earned" your money. I am sure you "work hard." Your life is a complete bullshit facade. Keep whining.

[-] 1 points by Matthias (1055) 8 years ago

Please do not forget that the founders of the USA were deliberately keeping slavery. So it has never been a system working for all people. It worked for them but not for the slaves. And I disagree with your assessment. Israel under King Salomo was a better nation. And besides I come from Europe. I lived in the USA for over 5 years. There are many things more righteous in Germany. Do not forget that the borrower is servant to the lender. There are so many people indebted in the USA. When I came over to the USA I met someone at LOEWEs. He had to work two full time jobs to make ends meet. I figured that a prisoner in Switzerland might have a better life than he does.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

Those people chose to be indebted. Perhaps being a prisoner in Switzerland would be preferable to you, I prefer to use debt as a way of improving my life. To each their own, I guess.

[-] 1 points by 99time (92) 8 years ago

Do you know the difference between capitalism and 'free markets'? http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-is-a-free-market

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 8 years ago

describe to me something better. use your imagination. because, obviously, capitalism hasn't worked. so, YOU tell me something better.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Now repeat after me,

PEOPLE over MONEY

No more greed, and get the greed out of our government, period.

[-] 1 points by randart (498) 8 years ago

That is where we all are right now in these discussions, at least those who are honestly serious about finding solutions. We have to define the root causes and then devise what will work for the future.

Capitalism has become a cancerous sort of institution on our society and needs to be replaced with something else that is more appropriate for the global needs of today. If people were not greedy by nature and learned how to know when enough is enough for their own needs then capitalism would work fairly well. Unrestrained capitalism is like a social addiction that needs intervention. Maybe we could have a system where a person that earns a large amount of money has a choice of paying high tax rates or actually creating new jobs. If you want to be greedy and keep your money then you get taxed heavily but if you have a fortune at your disposal and don't want to pay taxes then you must provide employment to people at fair, living wages. It could be that you begin a new business in the process but you must hire people in this country.

Living in this country and hiding your wealth in off-shore accounts while claiming to be a patriot has got to end.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 8 years ago

that worked so well in russia, millions starved to death.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

Works out well, less people to feed.

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 8 years ago

A rousing success in population control.

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 8 years ago

No, its not anyone's job to convince you. If you lack the imagination, the intelligence and the desire to imagine a world where something better replaces capitalism, that is your problem. You are mentally lazy. This isn't a commercial or a TV show to entertain you or a video game on your cell phone. What a really dumb and revealing thing to say. You've revealed a lot about your mental ethics. LAZY.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

I do not lack imagination of a better world. I can't tell you how many times I fantasized about all the free loafing troublemakers camped out in public parks calling themselves OWS freaks being shpped off to some foreign shore (preferably Antarctica) and letting those who are inclined to work use their money to support themselves and their family rather than a bunch of leeches who would rather sap the system than to actually do the work required to earn a paycheck to support themselves.

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 8 years ago

what does that have to do with imaging a better world for someone other than yourself? add selfishness and childishness to laziness to your list of qualities.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

So, your answer is "no", I have no idea why I am protesting or what I am protesting for. I have no idea of any improvement, I just want to tear down the system of government and economic system that has elevated more people to freedom and lifted the standard of living of more people than any form of government. It does not take any imagination when the facts are right in front of you.

Imagine in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 8 years ago

click on the "news" link at the top of the page. and look at what's happening on the streets of Moscow today. your argument is lame.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 8 years ago

All societies must responsibly regulate the predators out of the economy and society. the alternative is chaos.

This is the basis of a well regulated democracy.

When predators are allowed to accumulate and concentrate too much wealth, by hook or by crook, they are empowered to subvert the democracy to their corrupt ends and against the greater interests of free enterprise and social justice.

This is were America finds itself today. Our democracy subverted by Wall Street's over-concentration of wealth resulting in the corruption of our economy, society and democracy.

We don't need an alternative to democracy. we need to restore and take back our democracy from those on Wall Street who have subverted it.

[-] 1 points by capitalismimplosion (33) 8 years ago

We are putting together an effort to form our own employee owned companies. Our aim is to secure the resources needed to out compete big corporations. One of the major ways to do this is to first go dark, meaning that all TVs get turned off, cable TV cancelled and only internet used to get information and news.

If anyone pays attention they will very easily begin to understand that our entire reality and our daily thoughts revolve around lies and BS pumped out by all major networks, not just FOX. This it the control mechanism of the wealthy over the poor, it is the case in just about every nation.

Disconnect from the matrix. Free yourselves.

send us a message for more information @ echopeace@wesower.org

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

Capitalism is what we need and not corporatism. We already had an aristocracy. We need capitalism and democracy, not 14 th century feudalism., or I would like to see a meritocracy.

[-] 1 points by capitalismimplosion (33) 8 years ago

Go watch star trek..................

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 8 years ago

The alternative to unregulated capitalism is a socioeconomic system based upon four fundamental principles: reason, fairness, freedom and opportunity.

In terms of economics, the people would own all natural resources and government would compete with (highly regulated) private enterprise in all areas of basic necessity: food, housing, clothing, education, employment, medical care, energy, communication, banking, etc. This would combine the efficiencies of capitalism with fairness and equality ensured by government, resulting in all items of basic necessity being available at the lowest possible cost, no unemployment or homelessness, and dramatic reductions in crime. People could still get rich but no one would be forced to starve or become homeless.

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 8 years ago

Capitalism is not the problem. The constitution is the greatest document ever written. Government for the people, by the people. Its the lobbiests, lack of a real (grass roots) third party, deregulation and term limits needed to stop the career bought and sold politician.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 8 years ago

Silly wabbit!

Capitalism is not the issue. A well regulated free market economy is how America thrives. Regulation is the democratic common ground between those who want to trust in a free economy and those who would prey on the people who want to trust in a free economy.

Unregulated predatory economic fascism is the problem. A system where the few can over-concentrate economic power to themselves in a way that deprives the majority of economic opportunity and subverts the political system with economic corruption. This system undermines the free flow of supply demand economics and hurts the majority.

[-] 3 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 8 years ago

Unregulated predatory economic fascism is the problem!

nice, needed to be repeated....

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 8 years ago

"What would you replace capitalism with?"

There are several options really. But are you really interested in hearing about alternatives. Or do you have your mind set on defending capitalism?

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 8 years ago

And is it capitalism that he is getting at or predatory absolutist free market anarchy and fascism?

Socialized capitalism where opportunity and basic human needs are socialized allowing competition to thrive and grow the economic opportunity for all seems to work well in Canada and other nations.

While under-regulated free market capitalism/anarchy like in America for the past twenty-five years has been an unmitigated disaster.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 8 years ago

Regulated seems better then unregulated for sure. Personally i think we have to dare think of other alternatives if we want a sustainable society though.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 8 years ago

The markets of the past twenty-five years are a lot like the totally non-regulated markets of the alcohol prohibition and the Drug War. total non-regulation is a license for predatory anarchy. A subsidy program for crime.

When America ended the alcohol prohibition most of the criminal enterprise that was funded by illegal alcohol sales declined. It was the expansion of the modern Drug War, starting in 1937 with making marijuana illegal and federalized by Richard Nixon and the Dixie-crats in 1971 that led to an explosion of criminal and political extremist enterprise thanks to the countless billions in tax free narco dollars flooding into the hands of criminals and extremist groups.

Well regulated markets allow free enterprise without the predatory criminal enterprise that is empowered by the anarchic vacuum of regulation that prohibition against regulation enables.

Free enterprise, that is enabling to the most people, is stifled by the over concentration of wealth that criminal anarchy empowers. Anti regulation free marketeering is no different from prohibition economies. Both represent a vacuum of responsible regulation. Both have the same disastrous results for the majority.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

I don't hear too many people calling for anything other than capitalism. There needs to be regulations in place to keep them from running over people.

At some point this is silly.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

There has been no example of a better economic system or government system that has done a better job of lifting more people from oppression.
AND DUMPING THEM BACK IN THE SEWER
Its not the capitalism I object to - it is what Washington has let it do to us since Ronnie fired patco some of us think dumping capitalism is a better idea - but with its proven track record from TR to LBJ why abandon what worked?
Now THAT is the question - is capitalism FIXABLE?

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

Well if you were to replace the best alternatives would be.

1.Anarchism

or

2.Resource based economy

As for the military I'd make lieutenant colonel the highest officer ranking to ensure the military does not conspire against civilians.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

So you suggest changing the monikers of the military as a remedy? Perhaps calling a "cat" a "dog" from here on out would solve the whole poverty problem... Maybe if we changed the description of the poor to be wealthy, we could send all the OWS demonstrators back to their mansions.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

The thing is that neither of those systems rely on a government. The military would probably try to fill the void and put in place a dictatorship if they could. But if we didn't have a military we would be invaded. So I figure removing the top of the pyramid from the military structure would be a good compromise between efficiency and centralized power.

I figure that from observing what's happening in Egypt.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

So you believe that a government run within religious parameters is preferable to the societal structure we enjoy now? Are you also saying that you would prefer Sharia law as the system of law we all must abide by or do you prefer a law structured more on the lines of Christianity?

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 8 years ago

Are we not a resource based economy? Is any economy not resource based no matter the theory it follows?

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 8 years ago

Probably, because they use the GNP as an indicator. The most insidious measure of an econmy, the 1% swine whip the 99% to produce, consume,if dont have enough money we will lend it to at crazy interest rates and work you into the ground. How about Demorcracy, if everyone voted for and elected a Nazi communist, totalitarian government its still democracy.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 8 years ago

Very true, but what ronimacarroni is referring to is no doubt an economy where resources are allocated directly without the use of money.

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 8 years ago

Money is just a rationing device. Getting rid of it will only cause there to be another rationing device. At least money is fair and honest because it's relatively constant in value and non-subjective. I don't want to have getting an apartment based on my looks. Although, I would be successful if that happened I must say.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 8 years ago

I agree there will still be a need for a rationing device. But money is not a good or objective measure of resources. In order to have a more objective measurement (and one that is not subject to speculation or manipulation) you both need to calculate the relation between all types of quantifiable resources and their rate of renewal.within a sustainable system (if you want sustainability that is).

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 8 years ago

Depends on the resource. With oil, we can't consume faster than the replacement rate because it's not renewable. Solar energy is different.

The type of system you propose is inefficient. Free markets already do it with currency through price signals. It's a built in feature that you don't have to reinvent. It's also simpler because everyone understands dollars and cents.

My bit about money being objective was that it doesn't judge the holder of it like other rationing devices might.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 8 years ago

Prices only reflect how the economical agents as a totality value the resources. So the price of a resource might reach a level where a resource might become to expensive, but the cost this refers to in the eyes of the market is only a fraction of its real cost, to the long term stability to the environment, to social stability etc, which red line already might have been passed.

A rationing system could be arrived at mathematically by scientifically studying how much our ecosystem can take without risking depletions and suffering. This would require owning resources and production facilities collectively, having most repetitive labour being automated and computerised and splitting its sustainably output equally (or semi-equally) among the people. (people who contribute to society might get symbolically bigger budgets) .

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 8 years ago

But we don't really know how much more our planet can take. We don't know how much oil is truly left. And we don't completely know exactly how we affect the environment. We have ideas about it that are by all means accurate. But the whole truth isn't there yet. Not to mention, your pan takes time and energy where we have none. A market could have fixed some of these problems by the time technology comes around for your experiments.

A depleting resource becomes increasingly expensive over time. A better solution to what you're talking about is to instead use those resources for R&D funding for alternative energy and carbon sequestration.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 8 years ago

"how much our planet can take" is too fuzzy. As far as I know, we have a pretty good understanding of how much pollution and exploitation of a particular kind a biotope or biological systems can withstand before starting to collapse or become poisoned.

Of course our understanding can get better, it will be and it must get better if anything I and others with similar ideas propose can be taken as a serious alternative.

But such project must be built and financed to happen. There are plenty of resources to make things happen, what currently is lacking is the will for it to happen. There is no grand project endorsed by knowledgeable and respected experts that people can be inspired by.

But waiting too long to make an effort in that direction just because we "don't know the whole picture yet" is unwise at best and truly disastrous at worst . We know enough of the state of our global environment to understand that we have f-ed it up pretty bad.

"Green growth" could solve part of the problem, but has as far as I am aware never been achieved in sufficient amount in our current system and there is currently no indications I am aware of that it will be able to do so either.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

Actually the market is stalling the technology that could free us from fossil fuels.

For instance wind mills and solar panels are not as profitable as coal power plants.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 8 years ago

That means that they require more resources per unit of produced power then the coal plants. But yes, these types of increased costs could possibly be spread out/carried by us collectively and/or decreased with an appropriate focus and coordination of a new type of sustainably economy.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

No, the current economic model does not encourage efficient use of resources.

It encourages wastefulness by making cheap low quality products that you'll throw away and replace with a newer one.

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 8 years ago

facepalm

How do we encourage inefficient uses of resources? The only thing I can think of is subsidies and other related government expenditure/regulations. Inefficient firms go out of business unless they are a 100% monopoly that always run a profit, which doesn't exist in real life.

Consumers throwing out products they have already bought may be wasteful to a household but not to the company that sold it.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 8 years ago

Coordination of production, infrastructure and informed knowledge that corresponds to the informed demand of people. The inefficiency of today does not seem to be so much about the efficacy of a singly business but the culminative effect of all the small inefficiencies and undisclosed/unavailable information in the system as a totality as well as the mentality it produces.

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 8 years ago

"The informed demand of people" is mainly affected with prices.

Unless you can point out specific inefficiencies in markets, I don't thin kyou have much.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 8 years ago

There are a vast number of inefficiencies. Such as commercial secrets, duplicated efforts, alienated labour, having to guard oneself against competition, fraud etc and so on and so forth. Its systematic problems.

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 8 years ago

Guarding against competition makes markets inefficient. Competition drives efficiency.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 8 years ago

Of course, but mostly in an competitive economy. And even here, emphasizing too strongly on it blocks out other efficiency driving phenomenons such as cooperation and well.being by introducing stress and anxiety .

Competing with ideas is excellent even if everyone is cooperating and on the "same team". Different cells/groups/individuals within this larger team tries to find out new better ideas, the ideas are tested against each others, different development directions are tested. I You have a "market" of ideas and solutions. The best ideas (verifiable and most popular) win and are used by people or institutions spending their personal or communal budget on them

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 8 years ago

The most efficient models win. The best ideas win if they are efficient. Even in super competitive markets, there is still cooperation. A famous example of this cooperation is in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and he uses the example of tattered woolen coat.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 8 years ago

Efficiency is relative to the system and its associated behaviour and values it refers to. Of course capitalism is better at capitalism then any other system.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

By resources I mean the material that is used to make the product.

For instance look at plastic water bottles. It'd been said there's so many of them in the ocean that together they're the size of Texas.

[-] 0 points by fuzzyp (302) 8 years ago

Ok, we're on the same page there. But efficiently using resources is conditional to the company and the good. As long as you're turning at least normal profit, it's safe to say you're using resources efficiently.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 8 years ago

Capitalism is a labor based economy, read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations."

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Doc4the99 (591) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2011/12/2011121074125944352.html

Jeff Sachs makes some good point. I don't think it has anything to do with ending capitalism per say, but rather tweaking the system of zero regulation.

There's probably a better link than aljazeera for Jeff Sachs, but Jeff has a good understanding of the economic mess we are in, which has allot to do with what OWS protests about.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 8 years ago

^^^ I wholeheartedly agree. There is not really an economic system that is "good", Capitalism happens to be the lesser of the evils and works the best. If not for our free market, capitalist economy America would not be the wealthiest nation on the planet. Capitalism is the breeding ground for innovation.

[-] 0 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

I personally believe that capitalism is the only system humans can accept and that everything else is off the table. When ever it is replaced, the people overthrow the current system and bring back market based ideas, like communism in Europe. China is a better example: it started out communist but had to adopt some form of free enterprise because their old ways were failing. So whether it is sustainable or not or whether you like it or not, it's not going away.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

first of all it is not capitalism that made this country rich but fossil fuels - 1 barrel of oil will do the work of 12 men working for 1 year - as the world runs out of oil you will see your beloved capitalism fade back to 1905. how about production for use not for profit - take a peak at max neef - AMY GOODMAN: And if you’re teaching young economists, the principles you would teach them, what they’d be?

MANFRED MAX-NEEF: The principles, you know, of an economics which should be are based in five postulates and one fundamental value principle.

One, the economy is to serve the people and not the people to serve the economy.

Two, development is about people and not about objects.

Three, growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth.

Four, no economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.

Five, the economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.

And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above the reverence of life.

AMY GOODMAN: Go back to three: growth and development. Explain that further.

MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Growth is a quantitative accumulation. Development is the liberation of creative possibilities. Every living system in nature grows up to a certain point and stops growing. You are not growing anymore, nor he nor me. But we continue developing ourselves. Otherwise we wouldn’t be dialoguing here now. So development has no limits. Growth has limits. And that is a very big thing, you know, that economists and politicians don’t understand. They are obsessed with the fetish of economic growth.

And I am working, several decades. Many studies have been done. I’m the author of a famous hypothesis, the threshold hypothesis, which says that in every society there is a period in which economic growth, conventionally understood or no, brings about an improvement of the quality of life. But only up to a point, the threshold point, beyond which, if there is more growth, quality of life begins to decline. And that is the situation in which we are now.

I mean, your country is the most dramatic example that you can find. I have gone as far as saying — and this is a chapter of a book of mine that is published next month in England, the title of which is Economics Unmasked. There is a chapter called "The United States, an Underdeveloping Nation," which is a new category. We have developed, underdeveloped and developing. Now you have underdeveloping. And your country is an example, in which the one percent of the Americans, you know, are doing better and better and better, and the 99 percent is going down, in all sorts of manifestations. People living in their cars now and sleeping in their cars, you know, parked in front of the house that used to be their house — thousands of people. Millions of people, you know, have lost everything. But the speculators that brought about the whole mess, oh, they are fantastically well off. No problem. No problem.

AMY GOODMAN: So how would you turn that around?

MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Well, I don’t know how to turn it around. I mean, it will turn around itself, you know, in catastrophic manners. I mean, I don’t understand how there isn’t — millions of people can all of a sudden go out in the streets in the United States and begin destroying things, I don’t know. That may perfectly happen. You know, the situation is absolutely dramatic. Absolutely dramatic. And it is supposed to be the most powerful country in the world, you know, and so on. And even in those conditions, they continue with those stupid wars, you know, and spend more, more, more millions and trillions. Thirteen trillion dollars for the speculators; not one cent for the people who lost their homes! I mean, what kind of logic is that?

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 8 years ago

Amy Goodman? LOL. Amy Goodman is a complete moonbat and left-wing extremist. If you want to hear how the real loon-left thinks, check out the Democracy Now program. The only thing I've ever heard like it is Radio Havana.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

you must be pretty stupid - you have no comment on what is said - only some childish noise about the interviewer - she doesn't even say anything - she justs asks questions - you agree with big bill clinton here - he thinks she was mean to him in an interview - you and big bill - you belong together. but maybe you are smart after all - since you cannot respond to the obvious truth of max neef you have to try another tact - the only thing about you with any truth is the moniker - you should be censored

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 8 years ago

If Amy Goodman is within 1,000 miles of something, it's a bad idea. The interviewee is discredited simply by being interviewed by her. She's that big of a loon.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

so you follow a childish and stupid comment with and explanation which is more stupid - don't you know others read your shit - and your evidence of her looniness? or do we take your word for it since you are so cool and right wing - your name is correct - stifle yourself - and just as a by the way - what is wrong with radio havana?

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 8 years ago

"What's wrong with Radio Havana"? Nothing, if you're talking about the music. LOL. As to the politics, prescriptions for how to run an economy, and personal freedom outside an onerous entitlement state, yeah, there's a lot wrong with it.

Amy Goodman is a moonbat. Her show "Democracy Now" makes NPR look like fascists. Sure, I get it that a tiny fringe of Americans see it her way, but at least get it that you live on the far end of branch.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

as usual you give not evidence for your opinions so they are just that opinions. give it a shot boy, tell me where amy is off base - don't worry - you have time since i know you will have to get someone to help you! i guess you know nothing of opinion polls (pew etc) that say i am in the majority - 70% want single payer - 65% want less $ spent on the military and more on schools - 70% who want to tax the rich - 85% who say the economic system is inherently unfair (and said that 30 yrs ago - probably more today)!! moonbat my ass - you are the one out of touch - check out how those poor people live in havana and then how they live in honduras - those great capitalists in guatemala would run to havana if they could - oh, maybe not the rich white ones - your friends - you are not a moonbat - you are a quilsing - since i am sure you are not rich - too uninformed - look up quisling - i know you don't know what that means

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 8 years ago

"single payer", liberal-speak for "someone else but me" payer.

I understand that a lot of people want more things paid for by someone else. It really isn't shocking. You might as well poll on "who wants free ice cream".

Wow, there's an economic downturn. Unhappiness with the "system" is higher too. Gosh, another shocker.

Amy believes in state forced collectivism. She's an anti-American demagogue. I've listened to plenty of her show, Democracy Now! It's so screwy, it's interesting.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

dumb and dumber - can you top this in the next one? yes - the rest of the developed world has health ins that makes a bit of sense but not us - i imagine you like the system - you and about 3 others. "someone else but me" - you dolt - like the fire dept and police and schools - taxpayer funded - like your beloved military. now, anti american is an interesting phrase don't you think. kind of like anti soviet - those are the only two places that would use something like that - try going to italy and saying that someone is anti italian - they would laugh at you - well they would laugh at you anyway - they have some understanding of how the world works. now to this stupid point - Wow, there's an economic downturn. Unhappiness with the "system" is higher too. i wrote - 85% who say the economic system is inherently unfair (and said that 30 yrs ago - probably more today)!! those poll numbers were the same long before the downturn (yes - the one engineered by your pals at goldman) your response is overall just sad. there are so many like you on this site - i wonder why - anyone paying you or you have nothing better to do? no friends - no real work to do - can't you play a sport - no i wouldn't think so - too bad. go listen to your little buddy glen - go listen to anyone but just go

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 8 years ago

Get a job, buy your own things. Maybe next time major in something an employer might give a shit about and it won't be such a problem.

Anti-American is interesting, and it's very description of people like Amy Moonbat.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

again another well thought out counter argument - jesus where did you come from? is that english - i recognize the words but they make no sense the way they are put together - not a surprise. - what are you doing here - go away - no one wants to hear from you - play with your dopey friends somewhere else

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 8 years ago

Yes, I'm aware. OWS is about pretending everyone agrees.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

are you ok? this seems to be a good note to end on - i will look for another silly comment from you and we can start again

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

how & why did fossil fuels get discovered?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

well we have been building fires for a few years now - at least my side of the human family has - has yours discovered fire. my guys burned peat after they cut down all the trees - then started digging in the ground for coal - what did you have in mind?

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

so discovering & drilling for fossil fuel had nothing to do with profit motive?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

every thing at the moment - just like logging today - not sure where you are going with this. my point is that fossil fuels are largely responsible for our wealth today - not capitalism - the truth will be told very soon - we are running out of oil and everything else that makes us go - in another few years we will still have capitalism but not oil - let's see how rich we will be then

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

capitalism enabled fossil fuels to exist!

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

retard - who invented fire and what did they burn -and how long ago was that - and what about coal and peat - retard - nutley - i know someone from nutley - they were dopes - probably still are - you give nutley a bad name

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

real mature. Now I know why you are part of this movement. Thanks for clearing that up.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

well i am childish but i will grow up - you are stupid and next year will still be stupid -capitalism enabled fossil fuels to exist! - what a dumb comment - i can see why you are not part of this movement - thanks for being on the other side - have fun voting for newt!

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

no - I am too busy making money at my bank job so I cannot be part of the movement. let me clarify - capitalism enabled us to harness the value of fossil fuels. why do you think the Chevy Volt is such a flop. even with taxpayer subsidies no one is buying them because they stink.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

by the way - a banker living in nutley?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

ah a banker - no wonder you are so busy - wrecking capitalism! you are right - capitalism has developed fossil fuels to the point of no return - google peak oil - in a few years you will be praying to find a volt but won't be able to plug it in anywhere - better make lots of money so you can live somewhere away from the masses - it will be ugly

[-] 0 points by Censored (138) 8 years ago

Ding Ding Ding... exactly.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

I see nothing in your system that protects individual freedom and property.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

well it is not a very detailed explanation of what he thinks so you can look for yourself if you like. property is part of the problem we face today - read graeber on roman law (the basis for our property law) and private property - it is all centered on slavery. seems to me that the means of life and production (the land, water, air and resources - factories also) should not be held in private hands. if one person owns the water and decides that china will give him a better price - that might not be good - right? take a look at bolivia and bechtel. here is what a good old indian (chief seattle) had to say on the subject - "The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? - if you want the whole thing go to google - they understood private property

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

If you cannot buy the land, what keeps someone else from killing you and taking the spot you chose sit on? Why should you have that chair to sit on that spot of earth?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

until recently (that is maybe 3000 yrs) all land was held in common - human history is how old? not written history but humans on the planet - for most of that time they would not understand what you just said

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

For most of that time they would have had no idea what an airplane was. I prefer things the way they are.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

that is fine but don't pretend that private property is a law made by god! these are rules made by men to keep themselves rich and in power - when they want your land they will take it - just ask the people in long branch nj

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

Looks to me like there is plenty of land for sale in Long Branch, NJ...

https://www.google.com/search?q=long%20branch%20nj%20land&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

If you are worried about people "taking" your land, it is not private enterprises that will "take" it. It will be the government you have to worry about. The government can "take" your property without compensation.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

are you slow or just plain stupid - land for sale - did anyone say there was no land for sale? and let me see - if they compensate you they did not really take it - they bought it? sure - makes sense. as usual i see you do not try to counter my main point - i know - it's hard when there is no good counter argument. rules made by men is the point in question in case you forgot - does the golden rule come to mind (not the one you learned yesterday when you were in sunday school) - the real world golden rule - those with the gold make the rules! let's see - you could say no- these rules are in my bible - pastor craphound told me so! or maybe that the smart men are making these rules for the benefit of all of us. do you choose a or b?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

Oddly, when there is no good counter argument, the person with whom you are speaking will generally call you stupid or slow. No, I am not slow or stupid. You said that people in Long Brnch having their land taken from them. If it was, those who took it sure didn't want to keep it because there is a ton of it for sale. I guess you have no counter argument to discuss your thoughts.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

you dope - they took homes on the ocean in nj to build luxury condo's - the case went to the supreme court - what's the problem sonny - we will take your ocean front house that has been in your family for 3 generations and you can go buy a house next to the projects. not much on the ocean for sale - not at the prices that were paid by the gov't - your turn

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

You dope. That was the government that took that land. Private enterprise has not the power to take land legally without the help of government. Of course, a family that can't differentiate between an over extension of government and greedy, corrupt politicians and a business decision to take advantage of those politicians, and is part of a group that wants to give government MORE POWER, deserves to lose their home.

Capitalism and business is not the problem, excessive government power is the problem. Restore the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

i guess you didn't pay attention in 2007 and beyond - help us - please help us - - give us trillions - read about long branch - gov't took it to give it to private developers to make private profit - that was the case for the court. now i am sure that gov't begged the private ent to help them since they wanted to take the land just to screw with these people. no way would private ent go to gov't and twist arms or throw money around. you're right capitalism rules - keep an eye out - it is about to enter the final melt down - better get out of the market

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

Why should we give you trillions?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 8 years ago

you make more sense all the time- there must be somewhere you can get help don't you think - oh, i forgot - you can't really think - sorry

[-] 1 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

So, your idea of a system of government and economics would be video based?

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 8 years ago

That is not really an correct description. Although I consider TVP utopian (in the sense that they come across as not having left a stage of 1900-century hyper-modernity) some of their basic ideas remain valid. Our current economy is not ecologically or socially sustainable. Money does not provide a accurate measurement of resources and their value and that is because the market mechanism is incapable of make such an evaluation given how it conditions people and their behaviour.

If we manages to automate large sections of production, declare most natural resources and production facilities as commonly owned and accurately measure resources directly, we could theoretically have a new economy where everyone receives a sustainably base amount of resources and energy per a given period (because they all own equal part of them and thus share an equal right to its output). On top of that, people might get a bit more "play" or access rights" if they work with tasks that are important to society and can not be done by machinery.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 8 years ago

When you say, "we manages to automate large sections of production", have you invented a way to manage large sections of production, or are you claiming stake to the proceeds of the labor and inventiveness of someone else?

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 8 years ago

Not really any of the above. I have personally not invented any system that has been tested. I have hoverer, like so many others, contributed with ideas that in turn might result (indirectly or directly) in a realisation of such a system. Much of these solutions already exists, (ranging from open source solutions to patented) but I am not advocating that they would be forced to share machinery or build them for us for free.