Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What are the Flaws of Capitalism ?

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 2, 2012, 6:56 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverA (610)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Not everyone in a capitalist system is successful. in fact the line is drawn between employee and employer. Or perhaps the line is also drawn between consumer and retailer.

Capitalism , after all, is about making profit on capital, which directly compares to buy and sell of capital.

The manufacture of goods hires employees to produce the goods and the soul owner of the business owns the goods produced . Which than is usually distributed to wholesaler and retailer eventually to the final destination of consumer.

Everyone is a consumer. But not everyone is a capitalist.

The exchange of money earned by labor and eventually passed on to retailer is meant to circulate creating jobs and maintaining livlihoods. There are times when consumers will actually borrow money from banks with the promise to repay the loans through future earnings.

The problem comes in when retailers mark up there prices so high that sales actually fall . This causing layoff at manufacturing ..and job loss. Now with job loss those owing to banks can no longer make their payments. Usually loans on items of automobiles and homes, resulting in foreclosing and loss of property.

So why does the retailer not keep his markups low ? surely this would help sales and stimulate economy?

The idea that a retailer can affect so many lives over his decision as to what price he sets is a major flaw in capitalism.

Government intervention and regulation is needed to control retailer mark up and thus maintain a healthy capitalist society.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23782) 12 years ago

One major flaw is that the folks who have the capital have the upper hand, and, will always have the upper hand. That is what is behind the quote "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Once a capitalist has capital he begins to make profits and increase those profits in a snowball effect. It is difficult for a new capitalist coming in with less capital to catch up.

This works at the micro level (among individuals and family economies) and at the macro level (among nations). Those who had capital (money) first tend to increase it. It is very difficult for developing nations to catch up.

When the slaves were freed and they were not given the 40 acres and a mule that was originally promised, this was a huge setback for African Americans. It would take a long time for them to overcome this loss of capital. I believe it is still affecting them today. Had they started out with that capital who knows how different our society would be today.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

very good beautifulworld, very good ..

the rich do have the upper hand and are in control .. the sad part is how we sell our souls for a piece of what they offer

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

The elite received the upper hand by conning most of the governments of tthe world into granting them the unimaginable privilege of "creating money out of thin air." This is known as fractional reserve lending.

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694, then a privately owned bank.

“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.” John Kenneth Galbraith (1908- ), former professor of economics at Harvard, writing in ‘Money: Whence it came, where it went’ (1975).


[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23782) 12 years ago

Who's we? I don't sell my soul for anything. This is a central flaw of capitalism and the crux of why we need to find another economic system. Capitalism does not work. It does not promote the general welfare, and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

Crony capitalism does not promote the general welfare, and is therefore unconstitutional. But crony capitalism derives its power from our monetary policy.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” – Thomas Jefferson

… The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating. -Thomas Jefferson


[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (23782) 12 years ago

Wish we had a Thomas Jefferson type today. And, don't tell me RP is it, because he's not.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

We willl have to be our own Thomas Jefferson to the best of our abilities.

good reference sites:




I was a huge RP supporter last cycle but not so sure anymore. . . He endorses competeing currencies for the U.S. . . Where is that in the Constitution?

I wasn't amused when RP quoted Trotsky in his e-mail notification as he withdrew from the last primary. He stated "To quote Trotsky of all people the revolution continues." There are quite a few other issues as well.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23782) 12 years ago

Phew. I'm glad you're not going there. And, I agree, Thomas Jefferson is a pretty good place to start, although he owned lots of slaves and didn't (couldn't) free them upon his death. Too bad. That always makes me think less of him.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

We must educate ouselves as much as possible. One person will not likely be able to turn things around. It will take all of us.

JFK took on TPTB.

[-] 1 points by valfather (286) 12 years ago

Crony capitalism does not promote the general welfare,

I stopped reading at at point because I know you are correct.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

but the rest of the comment addresses the solution . . . and we MUST find a solution . . .

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

I take the we back ..

I certainly have sold my soul every time I accept the ways of capitalism.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23782) 12 years ago

Nah. You are forced to live in this system, therefore your soul isn't to blame.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

thank you , I find that very kind of you to say ..

[-] 2 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

The Just World myth is central to the narrative of capitalism . The purveyors of Our Way of Life promulgate this odious lie, because if Debbie Middle Class truly understood that failure isn’t always earned, then then she just might figure out that success isn’t always earned either. And if success isn’t always earned, well… , maybe those richer-than-thous aren’t holier-than-thous after all.

Herecy! “Send ‘em off to that Gulag they call Europe”, I can hear them shouting. And unfortunately, most of that heckling won’t come from the orchestra seats, but from the peanut gallery. Because it is the working/middle classes, the ones who have toiled in the trenches of status anxiety and felt the fear of failure sting like a jockey’s whip, it is they who are most invested in this poisonous meme.

Nor could they suffer lightly the indignity of accepting that their economic inferiors might be their moral equals. No, no, no. Too many dangerous questions would follow. The hierarchy must be maintained at all costs, otherwise, they might have to reconsider WTF they’ve been doing with their precious time on this planet. Remember, this is their America, and in their America the one with the most toys at the end wins. So suck it up, walk it off, be a man, do your job, and take it to your grave.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

We need to get over the idea of wealth being somehow superior .. and poor the inferior.. because when we shine the light on them we see the truth.. Equality where all can hold their head high and never again be expected to bow.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

this statement tells me you are a loser. No one cares if you are not successful except you. and instead of striving for success you want to hide behind equality.

[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

That meme goes back to feudalism. It is firmly engrained in our culture.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

I think its about to lose its final grip.

[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

I think a lot of cultural quirks are about to. Economic collapse will do that - which we are on the precipice of

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

a silver lining..

[-] 2 points by mirko2 (23) 12 years ago

capitalism is a lie. there is only corrupted government.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Capitalism is an economic system. Government corruption is a separate issue related to the form of government, not capitalism.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

I understand the seperation , but at some point they do blend. the government makes the rules for capitalism .. they provided minimum wage for example .. the government and the economy really go hand in hand . which is why I am always disappointed when I hear the president say he is " not an economist" . surely if anyone should know economics it should be the leader of the country .

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

I see your point. But to say the government makes the rules is not entirely accurately, the people have a little something to do with it.

My point, capitalism does not beget a corrupted government necessarily. Which is what I thought mirko2 was alluding to. Any form of government can become corrupted under various economic systems.

[-] 1 points by mirko2 (23) 12 years ago

look at Scandinavia. you have "capitalism" - free enterprise is possible, but you have laws accustomed to the people, not to plutocracy. why? it is a question of political process and its corruption.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

well government is truly a word with many meanings .. government can be anything from democracy to dictatorship.. and what else .. monarchy ?

we have a government that is apparently indirect democracy .. kinda keeps the people buffered from the top , but we do have a voice , a vote at least in who gets to the top .. which also means we can keep out the ones that shouldn't be there .. right ? I could not imagine how awful life must be in north korea .. with that sick cruel dictator who just finally died ..and now his sicko son is going to take his place .. it's hard to imagine such a world even exists in this day and age ... I sure hope to see the day when all that changes ..

but getting back to your comment .. yes the people have a little to do with what the government rules .. of course .. we the people and all that .. it's a good thing ..

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

We can do even more when we end the corruption of government. We'll have more a voice. We can use it to put some restraints on capitalism run amok. : )

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

if there truly is coruption in government .. how will you end it? will you have guards posted by every congressmans window and monitor all their phone calls ..and check every brown envelope that comes their way ? and how about the media during election time , how will you prevent the corupted politicians from becoming elected when the wealthy own the media , and with the power of the media they could make or break any candidate ! ..

I would not want your job of rooting out or ending coruption in politics .. if in fact there is any ..

[-] 1 points by mirko2 (23) 12 years ago

it is time to bypass establishment. internet is the way.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Why is it time to bypass the establishment? You mean the government? Wouldn't this make the government obsolete? To be replaced by..... the internet????! wow. You're joking right. Too funny.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Getting the money out of the politcal process will be a good start. And put an end to the majority of it. Media has always played a role. That will have to be kept in check as well. We'll have to keep working at it. We're not going to monitor phone calls. Whatever backroom deals are going on, that is relatively minor stuff compared to the millions of dollars sloshing around and is being used to buy representation. How to check every brown paper bag, I do not know. All I know is - we can't continue on this path of corruption.

It only got this way because we became a little lazy and apathetic. Thinking that everything was running along oh so well. When in fact there were major problems brewing beneath the surface. And now, here we are, with anarchy in the streets.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

well, a little coruption in politics helps reinforce the " American Dream" so perhaps it is not a design flaw, but rather intentional..?

Unless we want to change the American Dream ..to something using the words "equality and fairness" ?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Are you saying corruption is part of the American Dream? How does corruption reinforce the American Dream?

I think the intent of the democratic principles of our Representative Republic is that all people have a fair and equal voice in government. I think the flaw is that we allowed money to become too big a part of the political process and it is damaging our democracy.

[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago


[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Predatory libertarian anarchy

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Unrestrained greed is the only real flaw in capitalism.

Libertarians fight for the liberty to prey on others unrestrained by regulation or government oversight. In other words, predatory libertarian anarchy.

[-] 2 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I'm sad that you would conflate anarchists with market libertarians. We dislike them as much as you.

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 12 years ago

I suppose you can rightfully tack "Anarchy" onto the end of any descriptive label, since...

Anarchy is all there ever is.

btw: props on your recent "bug" fixes. Your fairness is much appreciated.

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Just trying to help

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

I can appreciate that. Anarchists are unrestrained freethinkers. Libertarians are unrestrained like a pit full of snakes. Or a street full of multi national bankers with a Congress in their back pocket.

No offense was intended to freethinkers.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

"unrestrained freethinkers"

This is a pleonasm.

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Wouldn't that be a tautology?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago


A pleonasm is when one uses one or more unnecessary words to describe another word as in our example, unrestrained freethinker. Unrestrained is used to describe freethinker, but it is superfluous because it is implicit in freethinker.

There are two different types of tautology: a rhetorical tautology, and a logical tautology. The one that resembles a pleonasm is a rhetorical tautology. This is when one represents the same idea with different words. For example, a tiny little cat. Tiny and little are synonyms and represent the same idea.

The key difference is that tiny and little are synonyms, while unrestrained and freethinker are not. In addition, tiny and little both describe another word (cat), while unrestrained describes freethinker.

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I stand corrected. I can't help but ask, but is English your native tongue? Because if it isn't, you probably know my own language better than I do :P

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I'm Acadian. My native tongue is French. I never went to school in English, but I watched Sesame Street, learned my conjunctions with Basic, then moved on to reading Poe.

We also use a creole in the city that I'm from. It's structured with the French language, but uses a lot of English words. For example, we use many English verbs, but we conjugate them in French, i.e. J'ai walké au store.

Pleonasms and tautologies are not language specific. I learned about these things while studying the French language.

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 12 years ago

Not necessarily; I can imagine restrained freethinkers, or unrestrained thinkers, or for that matter restrained unthinkers or even unrestrained unthinkers (the worst kind).

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Is unthinker a neologism or your own design? What is your intended meaning? Someone who undoes thinking, or someone who doesn't think before acting?

Restrained freethinker is an oxymoron.

[-] -2 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

explain ?

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

the real capital comes from fraudulent property rights from stolen land. the freehold coming from the queen, head of corporate america. so that money was NOT worked for! so capitalism comes from collateral the real estate: from land. so the big landowners are the ENEMY. our revolution begins with property rights. THIS LAND IS OUR LAND.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

Capitalism is not flawed, it has simply outlived its usefulness as a system that can contribute more to humanity than it detracts.

[-] 1 points by ciaoant1 (16) 12 years ago

Here's Albert Einstein's take on it:

Albert Einstein: "Why Socialism?" http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

[-] 1 points by 1sustainer2 (1) 12 years ago

Your all missing the point say one Marko2 Lets take a dollar bill, it is neither good nor bad, its what you do with it that makes the difference. Capitalism, communism and many other ism again are neither good nor bad. Communism appealed to many , but because of the abuse and the inherent problem with the human phychie it went arye. Our forefathers conceived of a system that to their minds dealt with the short comings they were living under. With the smarts of a patriot's they devise a system that met their needs. They didn't live with Facebook , Google and the internet. They weren't privy to the vast leverage of 300 million people and the problems they would create. They were in fact very wise , but not wise enough to out smart the likes of wall streeter's Lobbyist and the corporate thieves. I contend rather than beating your gums over the past why not think about the future and the solution we need. I have a favorite saying " Problems I have , Solution I need." As we put the boots to those fat cats where ever they are , remember they have a lot to loose and they will fight like dogs to preserve their way of life. We have the power because we have the numbers which means we have the leverage.
Let me remind you of what I believe Archimedes said about leverage. Give me a long enough stick and I can move the world.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 12 years ago

The answer is much more simple.

Psychopathy: an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.

No matter what form of government, organization, or agency that's in place some individuals lack the capability to understand compassion. (In otherwords, they don't empathize with other individuals suffering)

This means that some individuals in fact derive twisted pleasure from causing others to suffer as seen by the trolls on this forum. But the more subtle psychopaths look to co-opt organizations to cause chaos and obtain power. (divide and conquer or problem-reaction-solution)

People cannot be ethical without understanding compassion. And businesses, banking institutions, other monetary related industries disregard this trait BECAUSE they have been co-opted and are or have been controlled by psychopaths. Regulatory agencies have become weak themselves as our society and culture has adopted psychopathic behaviors and mindsets.

Corporations are People, Money is sacred, unethical practices = the "it's just business" attitude, ecosystems must be destroyed to continuously produce crappy products, highly advanced technologies must be suppressed for national security, and 'rights' continue to be stripped away from citizens.

So capitalism, communism, socialism, etc don't matter if they can all turn into a Pathocracy.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

we have become accustomed to a lot of unethicalness.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Speak for yourself.

[-] 1 points by TheEvilFuckaire (208) 12 years ago

The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact. George Orwell English essayist, novelist, & satirist (1903 - 1950)

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Poverty is a dungeon with the doors welded shut.

[-] 1 points by TheEvilFuckaire (208) 12 years ago

The word CAPITAL means money so it is a worship of money. That is what is wrong with it.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

so true..

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

The current recession/depression began as banks stopped making loans. ALL of our money originates as a bank loan, including our dollars. Only our coins are created by our government and coins comprise less than one thousandth of a percent of our money supply.

Without money . . . goods and services cannot be exchanged.

As always . . . follow the money.


[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

well thats a piece of the truth .. but when you consider all the money that had been infused into the economy .. where did it go ? why hasn't it maintained circulation enough for jobs and families to survive ? the economy should not need to rely on borrowed money to keep it functioning at peak performance.. in fact that is false/ artificially created boom. the real economy relys on the circulation of existing currency. which is piled up laying stagnant at the top ..and thats where circulation ends. and the trickle down effect begins .. the recession is caused by the wealthy hoarding all that money that should have beeen circulating. we don't need more banks borrowing money we just need to circulate what we already have.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

What is wrong with the current scheme is that it discriminates against Main Street in favor of Wall Street . . . Banks can borrow very cheaply, while individuals, corporations and governments pay “whatever the market will bear.” The banker middlemen take their cut in a scheme in which money is actually manufactured in the process of lending it. The profits are siphoned off to the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

To fix the system, the profits need to be returned to the 99%. How that could be done was suggested by Thom Hartmann in a recent editorial:


Have the central bank owned by the US government and run by the Treasury Department, so all the profits . . . go directly into the Treasury and you and I pay less in taxes . . . .

For a model on the local level, he pointed to the Bank of North Dakota:

The good people of North Dakota . . . established something very much like this—the Bank of North Dakota—and it’s kept the state in the black, and kept its farmers, manufacturers and students protected from the predations of New York banksters for nearly a century. It’s time for every state to charter their own state bank, just like North Dakota did, and for the Treasury Department to either buy the Fed from the for-profit banks that own it, or simply nationalize it.

We have been distracted here and in Europe by a sudden panic over our “sovereign debt” crises, when the real crisis is that our debt is NOT sovereign. We are indentured to a Wall Street money machine that creates our money and lends it back to us at interest, money our sovereign government could be creating itself, with full democratic oversight and accountability to the people. We have forgotten our roots, when the American colonists thrived on a system of money created by the people themselves, debt-free and interest-free. The continued dominance of the Wall Street money machine depends on that collective amnesia. The fact that this memory is surfacing again may be the machine’s greatest threat—and our greatest hope as a nation.

Ellen Brown is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute, http://PublicBankingInstitute.org. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how a private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are http://WebofDebt.com and http://EllenBrown.com.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

well .. I believe I have a better offer .. instead of the profits going to the government .. lets just put a cap on the profit limits and allow the 99% to keep what the would have paid in obscene profits .. and a cap would be system wide on all profits between the points of buy and sell .. including banks , investors , wholesale and retail , but not manufacturer.. or restaurants. as for the banking and money creation/ sovereignity of a nations debt .. things have gotten way out of hand ..

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

The problem with that . . . is that the financial sector is making nearly all of the profits. Otherwise we would not be in crisis.

It's time for every state to charter their own state bank, just like North Dakota did, and for the Treasury Department to either buy the Fed from the for-profit banks that own it, or simply nationalize it.

Only when we get control of our money out of the hands of sociopathic banksters will our democracy begin to function for the people instead of just for the banksters.


[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

I certainly agree .. and it sounds like you know a whole lot more about it than I do .. the banking system .. from what I understand makes a whole lot of money doing very little actual work .. they produce nothing .. and really there is nothing complicated about borrowing money and charging interest .. its insane what they make .. example a 25 year mortgage will end up paying 150% in interest after all said and done .. its outrageous .. and I wish we could stop such theft.. I hope you and your partners bring about some serious change and regulation on the banks .. they put us all in the poor house

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

IMHO - only WE THE PEOPLE are capable of making the changes which are necessary to secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

The attention of people like you and me, by reading and conversing with each other, have the potential to change things. . .

Thank you, for your interest and for hosting this thread.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Thank you.

Is there something else you would like to say / discuss ?

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

Capitalism places monetary value before human social value.

Socialism places human social value before monetary value.

I am a human, living in society.

I know where to stand.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

looking at it that way , I know where I would also like to stand . Where I am valued . great point . capitalists do not value their employees , they value the money their employees create.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

It surprises me that more people don't see this clearly. Capitalism destroys human beings like it destroys the environment. It squeezes every ounce of productivity it can out of them, and when they have nothing left to give it casts them onto the shitheap of society, and moves on to the next one. Look around us, look at the strip mining. Wage labor goes the same thing to the human race that strip mining does to the landscape. It's insidious, evil, and inhuman.

Socialism on the other recognizes our inherent value as human beings. It protects us from being strip mined, so to speak.

Workers of the World, Unite!!!!!

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

I have been advocating an idea of placing a cap on sales profit .. and this having many positive affects , but one of them would be for the worker .. his dollar would go a little further , hopefully allowing him to relax a little and enjoy life , instead of working so aggressively trying to catch up .. everytime I try a little to save up for an item I want to purchase , by the time I save the money the price of the item goes up .. its just as you say "squeeze every ounce of productivity out of us .. with nothing left at the end of the day. thank you

[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

The world is governed by a philosophy that selling more and more goods and services i.e. turning things into money, increases social well being and health as well as "progress". Around this belief system we have created a man made 'science', which really is not a science at all. It is a series of concepts, all of which are man-made and 100% manipulated.

Now, economics is an artifact of human imagination and all human conceptualization, and the agreement among certain humans who "play the games" together -- thereby it is a social technology. There is no underlying physical reality other than what is identified by the players to be components. Nevertheless, the economic properties are determined by and limited only by the beliefs of the "players." To build economic models one must assume certain features, and the models become part of the generators of the results. Since they are not inherently tied to the physical and biological realities(no physical referent), they will fail arbitrarily as the physical and biological world view of humans change -- or as people believe the physical and biological world exists. Economics in large part reflects human belief systems.

Our economic system has many foundational false assumptions. And these assumptions cannot be reconciled within the economic model itself because acknowledging them would destroy it. They also represent a fundamental part of our (collective) world view.

Under this concept we have conceived of a governing institution that is supposed to hold together, propagate and referee this 'economic' system - we call this "the state", which is considered a "liberal democracy".

Over the past century, we have exported this model around the world and all nations accept some, if not all, of its precepts.

Lets back up a bit:

Philosophical underpinnings


Explaining liberalism to people is a thankless and possibly futile task, but it is one that must be attempted for clarity's sake.

Liberalism is a theory of political economy that arose in Great Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries. Its principal inspirations were Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704). It emphasizes individualism, human avarice, the "virtue" of competition and the "justice" of the marketplace. It opposed feudalism and mercantilism. It sought to replace the traditional landowners with the rising commercial and manufacturing classes.

It sought to liberate capital, not people (and especially not women, slaves and propertyless males).

The institutionalization of the market system and scientization of monetary interactions:

The French physician François Quesnay (1694-1774) was the leader of a sect of Enlightenment thinkers known as the Physiocrats (or économistes) who founded Libertarian economics. The term “Physiocracy” means rule of nature and was coined in 1767 by Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours to describe the doctrine of the first modern school of economics. Quesnay transformed economics into its modern role as the science of money. In so doing he disengaged economic process from its role as servant of the sociopolitical order, and established its claim to be the direct manifestation of the natural order. In other words, he argued that economic process itself embodied natural law and should thus dictate the sociopolitical order.

It just so happens, at the time, Europe was plagued with increasing peasant revolts and the educated class thought if they get them to act "economic" it would quell their "irrational passions". Hence the institutionalization of the market system. Making everything a "market" and coercing all to partake in one i.e making everything for sale, including people.

Libertarian economics were imported to America by Pierre Samuel DuPont, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison thereby establishing America as the first Libertarian state.

The principal functions of America’s new Libertarian government were two:

1. To protect private property.

2. To force men to act economically(which was theorized to be "natural").

Here's what classical liberal economist Adam Smith (1723-1790) said:

Whenever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the rich supposes the indigence of the many, who are often driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. ... Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.

Liberal utilitarian Jeremy Benthan (1748-1832) added this:

In the highest state of social prosperity, the great mass of citizens will have no resource except their daily industry; and consequently will always be near indigence ... uman beings are the most powerful instruments of production, and therefore everyone becomes anxious to employ the services of his fellows in multiplying his own comforts. Hence the intense and universal thirst for power; the equally prevalent hatred of subjugation. ... When security and conflict are in conflict, it will not do to hesitate a moment. Equality must yield.

This means that, in modern liberal societies, the rich are pitted against the poor, gaining their wealth by appropriating the work of others; and it means that government is in "business" to protect the ruling class. And market dynamics, which are held together with man-made concepts, are the manifestation of "natural law"(maybe somebody should let physicists know)

It also means, essentially, that the government is set up as referee, propagator and scapegoat for the market system - which could not exist without its ever-present interventions. With economists as university trained excuse makers and occasional scapegoats that use post hoc reasoning for all 'economic' phenomena

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 12 years ago

Wait, I'm confused. Didn't Adam Smith write that in his attack on mercantilism? Didn't he say that in a mercantilistic society the government is there only to protect the ruling banking class, not a capitalist one? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

well, at the end of the day , we need to develop an economic system that will allow for everyone to earn a share of the pie.

If there is one point I will point out in this message .. it is that the system is man made and has been adjusted in the past when deemed necessary .. and will be adjusted in the future as conceptualization evolves.

[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

Here is a serious systemic critique for anybody that is interested.

http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/ A close reading of the text of Karl Marx’s Capital Volume I in 13 video lectures by Professor David Harvey. Links to the complete course:

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

I am interested in viewing this .. thanks

[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

There is no such thing as a healthy capitalist society. It, inherently, encourages and rewards patterns of unhealthy behavior

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

rewards unhealthy behaviour ? working long hard hours is rewarded .. but not considered unhealthy .. smoking dope and falling to the bottom is unhealthy and is not rewarded ..

there is hope for capitalism with a small cap on profits that will level the distribution of wealth and creat opportunity for hopefully everyone.. certainly a cap would refloat the ship..

[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

rewards 'Patterns of unhealthy" behavior. I guess you could add "socially" bad behavior.

For example - stress and mental related illness has gone parabolic over the past 40 years. If Americans were healthy the medical industrial complex would collapse

Another example: the "terrorist" security industry has gone parabolic since 9/11. If terrorism went away it would be horrible for the industry.

So, in conclusion, sick and angry people are good for business. Not much incentive to get to root causes of anything, is there

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

an interesting point, and I would consider this a flaw .

Also no one has pointed out; when the markets become flooded with product it is said to be a bad thing .. but in reality is it not better to have too much than not enough ..

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 12 years ago

There's nothing wrong in the idea of the free market, but in America it got a gross subsidy of land that had prior occupation by native people. So most of the land went to the one's who were willing to be the most violent to acquire and/or hold onto it. This is the fatal flaw with capitalism in America: it has as its basis land adversely acquired through genocide, theft, and manipulation. So it has vastly favored those who are LEAST able to provide real value.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

I don't understand your last sentence?

So it has vastly favored those who are LEAST able to provide real value.

But I will comment.. all through history land has been gained and conquered through wars and strength of ones army ... as for the free market being nothing wrong , here is where we disagree.

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 12 years ago

"favored those who are LEAST able to provide .. value": A man with the biggest badass weapon could theoretically secure a whole continent. But what happens after that land is acquired? Is the man who was willing to decimate a whole cultural system really capable of then "MaGicAlLy" creating a system that is aligned with human values...??? HOW the f**k does that work?

Secondly, the land gained by brother fighting brother (like in Europe) is a VERY different matter than man fighting a completely different people with different origins and cosmological history -- because they will NEVER be able to integrate into your "new" system -- it is akin to asking FISH to interbreed with MONKEYS. This may not be an easy point to understand, yet I know it to be true. If you really want to understand this particular point, you'll have to get in personal contact with me.

And as for the free market, apart from a Messiah or the like, there is no power wise enough to create a non-free system that could create a market that doesn't twist the human soul in some way which will eventually bite it.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

okay I understand your sentence .. and how it fits into the rest of what you wrote .. thank you .. it is cruelty that rises to the top .. and really in a same parallel with capitalism it is those ruthless enough to achieve the wealth they have and now have control over the population as wealth equals power .. so your sentence fits very well with present day conditions .. how will those at the top possible going to make the world a better place when they destroyed the world to get to the top .. excellent perspective .. again thank you .

we can not wait for a messiah , but we don't have to aime for perfection .. just improvement .. one step at a time..

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 12 years ago

Cool, you got it. Cheers.

Now if you want to know how to fix the situation, see the pangaia project at the Santa Fe Complex.

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

That's a really sweeping statement. Pure capitalism is certainly not the way I would like to see things go. But a more restrained form of capitalism, with proper rules and regulations that restrains greed, yet allows and encourages the individual pursuit of prosperity.

[-] 2 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

There can be no individual pursuit of prosperity without bending a knee to the rich, if the rich control all the property. We can't even have half a measly block in manhattan to do our own thing without the bloody nypd raining down on us like fire and brimstone to defend brookfield's "property rights" to a public park.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

It's not perfect. There is no perfect. But I would rather have a system that encourages the individual pursuit of prosperity, which I think is the most beneficial to society as a whole, than not.

All in all, I think Brookfield was rather lenient in a difficult situation. I think we're all trying to do our best in a difficult situation. NYPD included. Mistakes will be made. We'll work through it. Demonizing anyone or any group is not really helpful. Something I'm guilty of as well. Early today I said that Wall Street was cannibals. : )

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Please help me better understand what you mean by 'individual pursuit of prosperity'? Do you mean the ability to pursue luxuries or the ability to pursue your passions?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Hopefully both. Money is a neccessity. But prosperity is a healthy balance of money, friends, family, religion, outside interests, hobbies, community activities, volunteerism - anything that makes you happy. When people are pursuing money and excessive wealth, beyond reasonable norms, at the expense of all or other more important things, that's an illness. I feel sorry for those people. That's not healthy. Greed is a personal failure of morality. Prosperity incorporates other things, money is not the only goal or the central goal. But yet, it's healthy to be able to maximize your potential and further yourself monetarily and otherwise.

I think our society got messed up somewhere with the greed is good mentality. I have no idea how that happened. Maybe some sociologist has studied this. I think it would be interesting to know.

[-] 3 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

prosperity is a healthy balance of money, friends, family, religion, outside interests, hobbies, community activities, volunteerism - anything that makes you happy.

These things aren't exclusive to capitalism. I'd say it actually acts as a hindrance to the pursuits you listed. For instance I noticed working a job wasn't on that list. After all a job generally is the most time consuming necessity in this society if you want to be able to see a doctor when you're sick and not live on the streets. Let's say for example I got a job in Manhattan tomorrow where they force me to do some grueling repetitive task in a bland environment that affords little opportunity for self-expression and creativity because finding jobs about which one may feel passionate is a privilege afforded to few. In terms of time consumption (since I live in Brooklyn) that'd be 8 hours a day working, two hours commuting, and an hour getting ready which ends up being two thirds of my waking hours. That doesn't leave much time for all the other wonderful things you mentioned (although I disagree on money and religion). It's flat out slavery and this is all assuming I actually had the privilege of being a slave because most of us can't even find jobs if we want them :(

But still this is all assuming I didn't have first-rate tech skills. Unlike the starving artist, the passions I was granted in life happen to be economically viable. Not to mention the fact that these are all first world problems. Oh my heavens I cannot even begin to imagine how bad it must be for those in the middle east whose families have died, or the ones have lived interror under the iron fist of American imperialist terrorism seeking to prop up a dying unsustainable system with control of energy resources... or prosperity that the IMF and World Bank have robbed from entire nations in one fell swoop through brutal austerity measures to prevent default on wealthy foreign investors, or the people in China who work under deplorable condition to manufacture our cheap worthless disposable products, or the nine billion animals who're slaughtered each year for food for Americans alone! How can anyone support this system? Why aren't people taking up arms? Why do people allow the American regime to continue to exist? How can we sleep at night knowing that we are the ones responsible for allowing this barbaric curse on humanity to continue to exist? I'm happy that I've helped people in America take fighting back and creating alternatives more seriously than holding up signs at rallies, but this knowledge is also bittersweet because I realize it's only because the blowback of our collective cruelty has started to burn the western white middle class so bad that revolution has started to become a means of survival.

It's also worth noting that money is only a required within the context of this current society, it's necessity is entirely a social construct. Money also wasn't invented by capitalism. Capitalism, in its strictest academic definition, is a system that grants a privileged class absolute control over the necessities of survival like land, machinery, food production, etc. If you really wanted, you could create a non-capitalist free market society that uses currency as a means of exchange like mutualism) (although I'm more a fan of anarchist communism myself). One of the greatest tricks the Right ever played in the 20th century was redefining the words capitalism and socialism to mean their complete opposites. All I really want is to live in a society where compassion and the freedom to pursue our passions is more important than allowing a small privileged class to control everything with an iron fist.


When people are pursuing money and excessive wealth, beyond reasonable norms, at the expense of all or other more important things, that's an illness. I feel sorry for those people. That's not healthy. Greed is a personal failure of morality.

The way I read this is that you're OK with the super wealthy continuing to be super wealthy, they just need a better sense of noblesse oblige. Do you feel like that's a fair assessment? To be honest I don't think our collective prosperity should be contingent upon the benevolence of the rich and powerful.

I think our society got messed up somewhere with the greed is good mentality. I have no idea how that happened. Maybe some sociologist has studied this. I think it would be interesting to know.

One of the guys in our posse is a doctor of sociology. I'll pass your question along :)

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23782) 12 years ago

I think we are still living with an economic system that has its roots in the Protestant Reformation. We are in a new age and we need to reform the entire economic system, how we view labor, capital, the modes of production, everything.

I like your sentence about living in a society where compassion and freedom to pursue our passions is more important than worshiping rich people who control everything.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

You have alot of good points. When I said money is a necessity, I meant a job.

I think most people have jobs that are satisfying and provides for prosperity. That's not to say we can't do better. The wealth inequality that has taken place over the past 30 some odd years is putting alot of strain on the lower and middle classes to realize that prosperity. In some cases, even to provide for the basic necessities. I'm attaching a lecture by Elizabeth Warren which bears this out and kind of explains how did we get here. It's about an hour long.

We both want something better, we just differ in the "what" is better. I think the main difference between capitalism and anarcho-commun or even socialist princples (admittedly, I'm no expert on alternative economic systems. But from what I do know - ) is that a capitalist more readily accepts that there will be winners and losers. The best situation is that there will be alot of in-between. A thriving middle class. I think competition is healthy. Prosperity and a healthy balanced life is not exclusive to capitalism, but I think it has the best chance in capitalism. I think restrained capitalism (with some modicum of socialism thrown in) provides to maximize the "in-between". Capitalism (or probably any economic system) requires constant adjustment to changing circumstances and many variables. I think of it as a pendulum. Currently the pendulum has swung to far to the "right", towards unrestrained capitalism. Because of politics, policies that favor the flow of capital towards large corporations at the expense of small businesses (limiting competition), trade policies, perhaps we have to strengthen anti-trust laws to encourage more competition, big corps have gotten too big, reducing the market share and competitiveness of small business who can't effectively compete. Of course the corp tax code is a total mess of loopholes that favor big business as well. Many things can and should be done in order to move the pendulum back towards a more restrained capitalism to maximize opportunity for prosperity of the majority of people.

A person is not forced (in most instances) to do a grueling repetitive task. This is not exclusive to capitalism either. Would there not be grueling repetitive tasks that are necssary in any economic system? This is difficult to say nicely, but the truth is, some people are smarter than others. I don't know all the science behind it. But there are many factors, nature and nurture. Of course everyone should be afforded the opportunity for education and to maximize their abilities. I think there will always be people that, grueling repetitive tasks, will be the best they can do. In some cases, these situations affords peoples opportunities they would not otherwise have. Truth is, most grueling repetitive tasks are now automated. In this country anyway. Which makes it all the more important to invest more in education.

Our country does lots of bad things, but it does lots of good things too. Our form of government and economic system, for all it's imperfections, has gotten us this far and has provided us, on balance, over time, the best standard of living in the world. Someone told me this was pathological Americaness for saying something to this effect. : ) As if I'm just a hopeless American romantic. Maybe there's something to that, but it's not something I'm going to apologize for. I'm certainly not blind to our problems. I just think many of our problems can start to be solved by making some common sense adjustments. Campaign finance reform being number one, financial regulation, probably a total overhaul of the tax code which has become an abomination of itself. I don't think we need to take drastic measures of changing our form of government or economic system. At least try these things first. See how it works out.

For any economic or political system to replace it, will have to prove itself out. I am not aware of any alternative that has proven itself successful, over time, on a large scale.

It is interesting what you say here - "All I really want is to live in a society where compassion and the freedom is more important than allowing a small privileged class to control everything with an iron fist". The small privileged class does not control everything really. There is still an enormous middle class in this country that is living relatively well. We still live in a Democratic Republic and have a very good chance of making the changes that are necessary to make things better. "Iron fist" is a little drastic. Unless you mean Wall Street. They're just cannibals. : )

I think compassion and freedom can be improved upon by addressing the wealth inequality. It's a little difficult for people to find their underlying compassion and altruism when they are stressed out from providing the basic necessities for their well being (demonstrated by the Elizabeth Warren lecture).

You talk about alot of serious problems around the world. I agree. But we can't fix everything. Getting our own house in order first will be an enormous challenge.

I agree with you about the "right" distorting the meaning of capitalism and socialism. That has been part of the reason why the pendulum has swung too far.

I thing the "greed is good' mentality has been encouraged by low tax rates and deregulation. But I'm sure there is a deeper sociology behind it.

And yes, I'm ok with wealthy people being wealthy. I accept the fact that there will be winners and losers. So long as the majority are afforded the best opportunities for prosperity possible and thriving. If that means some wealth redistribution, I'm ok with that. It's probably necessary. I'm not ok with the wealthy using their money to buy their representation in government, having an unfair advantage of access to political power, at the expense of the rest.


[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

capitalist more readily accepts that there will be winners and losers.

I think what you mean to say is that some people will be more successful in their endeavors than others. There are many different models for building a society, each defining success in different ways. Capitalist societies generally define success as having more privilege and power relative to others and therefore success can only be earned through exploitation. Therefore one must either become exploited or earn the privilege of benefiting from the exploitation of others. Capitalism is also uniquely cruel in the fact that it raises the stakes of success to your very survival.

Existence shouldn't be a game. We have the technology and resources to provide an excellent standard of living for all people, so why don't we? If we took care of each other by embracing mutual aid rather than exploitation, then our only differences would become the significance of our accomplishments. The winners end up being the people who look back upon a purposeful existance, having earned the respect and admiration of others. As social animals we are motivated by such satisfactions.

The best situation is that there will be alot of in-between. A thriving middle class.

Some of my friends have expressed this same viewpoint and I think it comes from a belief in class mobility and a refusal to recognize their class privilege. They accept the fact that poor will be exploited and the more compassionate liberal types generally come to the conclusion that the solution is to recruit more poor people into the middle class---to live like them. This is problematic for many reasons. The biggest reason I feel is because the middle class lifestyle is unsustainable. What it means to be middle class isn't simply having more dollars, but rather living a lifestyle where one emulates the luxuries of the wealthy. Stuff like lawns, having your own house/car, waiters serving on you at restaurants, the same fashion as your favorite pop star, etc.

By emulating the rich, you emulate the lifestyle of (as I mentioned earlier) having privilege and power in relation to those below you. Naturally this leads to unsustainability because as the collective prosperity of our society increases through advances in technology, the higher classes must continually strive to differentiate themselves from lower classes by always wanting more, thriving on the consumption of natural resources and cheap foreign labor.

To be honest, I don't shed a tear for the evaporating middle class lifestyle. The problem was never wealth inequality, it's exploitation of lower classes, vanity and unsustainability. I say let the middle class die so people might finally be motivated to rebuild a society without social castes.

I did however like the fact that your statement appealed to the notion of balance. This is after all how nature operates. However I believe it's a mistake to apply this rule to systems that have have no basis in material reality (nature) like capitalism and class. And please note that when I say "class", I don't simply mean alpha/beta type social pecking orders. Class is a grand-scale and systemic form of privilege/inequality for which no evidence can be found in nature.

Would there not be grueling repetitive tasks that are necssary in any economic system?

Yes absolutely, but at least there'd be fewer of them. For instance, no one would volunteer to sit on assembly lines and manufacture cheap disposable goods if capitalism wasn't forcing them to so there'd be a greater strive towards labour efficiency to extend leasure. As for the work that sucks, yet prudence demands like cleaning sewers, non-capitalist models of production allow for more creative solutions. Rather than finding one poor sap desperate to find a job to do it 40 hours a week, members of a community could collectively decide to share the burden between a group of people who each do it 4 hours a month.

I think there will always be people that, grueling repetitive tasks, will be the best they can do.

If you can get a system like the collective sewer cleaning thing organized (lol), you can also facilitate ways for people to cherry pick a variety of unskilled jobs. This helps add variety to keep things interesting, and most importantly, giving people control over their lives. Having control over your work is even more important to one's happiness than how interesting the work is.

This is difficult to say nicely, but the truth is, some people are smarter than others.

Of course. I also believe those who're privileged with ability have a responsibility to use their abilities to serve others.

Our country does lots of bad things, but it does lots of good things too. Our form of government and economic system, for all it's imperfections, has gotten us this far [...]

Stop right there. Workers, scientists, engineers, etc. are the ones you can thank for getting us this far. After all, do you attribute the enlightenment to feudalism? Then it's a mistake to attribute what we have now to capitalism.

For any economic or political system to replace it, will have to prove itself out. I am not aware of any alternative that has proven itself successful, over time, on a large scale.

You consider our current system successful?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Good post.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Thank you! I try. I don't think jart will agree, but it's nice she got the chance to fraternize with the locals on her website a little bit!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

Boo-ya, only thing I'd add is there are other ways to rage against the machine then to take up arms. But your critique, I believe, is a gem to be pondered. Think of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, but innovate his method to a new, economic level. When you work, you are culpable. And when you are the major tax payer, "you have a lot of explainin' to do."

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean by taking Ghandi to an economic level. Like non-participation as a revolutionary tactic?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

jart ..I like when you get this way ;-]

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

The occasional rant is therapeutic.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I disagree with many of your points, but I did move to Bali after getting a masters in music since it permits me to live a very easy and happy life without having to work much at all. One month of coding pays for one year of living here. This means I can still compose music everyday and not have to worry about money. I can no longer imagine what it must be like to pay for an apartment in a big city or take a bus for a few hours everyday. That's something I choose to avoid.

Personally, I always did exactly what I wanted in life. No compromise. Life's too short to do stuff you don't like. It's true that many people are in dire situations they have no control over, but it's also true many people sow the seeds to their own problems.

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Props on living below your means and pursuing your passions.

I can no longer imagine what it must be like to pay for an apartment in a big city or take a bus for a few hours everyday.

I can't either. NYC is incredibly expensive and we've been getting by dumpstering food and cramming an absurd number of people in a tiny apartment in one of the cheapest Brooklyn neighborhoods. It's better than working for MoveOn.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

you're right jart, even if we do balance capitalism and it's wealth, the people in control will be the ones with the money and we will have to bend a knee. this is where I have claimed capitalism to be a form of tyranny. where there is no democracy at any employment in a capitalist society .. everyone is at the mercy of the owner .. it's pure tyranny .. although the employee has a right to leave and work somewhere else .. back in the days of monarchy the peasants had the same right to leave .. but honestly where would it be any different. and sure the peasants could attempt to establish their own kingdom .. but they were up against a powerful force that would eventually run them over.. literally..

But as April mentions , we could apply some rules and regulations to restrain the greed . This would at least give the worker a little more value for his earned dollar , and perhaps a little more leisure time for the worker .. because as you have mentioned , working two thirds of ones waking hours is quite a burden .

This conversation does open my eyes to how everyone has their personal view on what they would like to see .. so how do we please everyone when there are so many different views. we do not all have the same passions , but we mostly all have the same basic needs ie. food water shelter. so, money should be really distributed evenly because money only fulfills our material needs. and how we choose to live our lives and the careers we choose will fulfill ..other needs.

I have been advocating equal pay , with an hour-coin system that would provide an unlimited resource of credit for all those willing to work. never again having to worry about unemployment , and having the ability to pursue your dreams to the best of your abilities.. yes it sounds like utopia and it nearly is.. It would certainly be a beautiful world where everyone has opportunity . the question that I dream of , " what will we create with such opportunity?" my answer is somewhere in the unleashing of all creative minds and artistic talent in everyone ..

more later..

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

we do not all have the same passions, but we mostly all have the same basic needs ie. food water shelter. so, money should be really distributed evenly because money only fulfills our material needs. and how we choose to live our lives and the careers we choose will fulfill ..other needs.

That's a excellent way of putting it.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Really ! I was unaware you felt this way ... ?

Hi jart, love your website .

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I'm an anarchist, and the website loves you too ^_^

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

an anarchist , well that explains the freedom you have given us on this website ..

I am really hoping we will churn out something we can all be proud of .

thanks again

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

The flaws of capitalism are the same as socialism, or any other form of economic or governing platform. The flaw is us, human beings. If you want a solution, you must first identify the problem.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

I don't agree. Human beings are flawed, but a proper government system can curb those flaws and keep their effect to a minimum. It's all about the form, not the content. Content flows from form. Some government system are better than others at keeping the effects of human error and human greed at bay.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

It's all about the form, not the content

You are indeed the right personality for a career in sales.

Content flows from form

That means I'll go buy a box and it will fill itself? Or is it that I have content and need a form to sort and store said stuff?

Regulate the banks in Cuba, see if that fixes their situation. Oh wait, they don't have banks do they? Your fixation on a system to blame tells me you have lead a fairly sheltered life. One wonders if the Indonesa IP is just a proxy server.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

If the system is not to blame, then there is no use to having a system at all. Might as well do without any form of government.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

Well that is the most nothing of a statement I have seen from you yet.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

It's the only logical conclusion that stems from your idea that systems of governance all have the same flaws and that these flaws are human flaws. This implies that it doesn't matter what system of governance is used since the flaws will always remain the same.

I don't agree with this. I believe societies should choose very wisely what system of governance they use and what laws are behind that system. Once again, content flows from form. A particular system of governance shapes the particular results we get from it. Each system will provide different results because the form is different. Change the form and the content will change. This is philosophy 101. The particulars of a country have much to do with its economic and political system. If you applied North Korea's system of governance in America, everything would change drastically.

Humans have flaws. This will never change. What can change are the systems being used. A proper system can safeguard against human flaws. There are countless examples of this.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

This implies that it doesn't matter what system of governance is used since the flaws will always remain the same.

Exactly right.

I don't agree with this.

Check your history books.

Each system will provide different results because the form is different.

The problems of inequity are governance independent.

This is philosophy 101

Philosophy is far less understood than recited, usually in error.

Humans have flaws. This will never change.

That was my point

What can change are the systems being used.

Every type of system has the problems of inequity due to the aforementioned shortcomings of human nature.

There are countless examples of this.

Name one and I'll show you the inequity in their society.

It isn't a matter of overcoming the fact of being human. It's about social evolution. Baby steps.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

well .. technically we designed the system we use to function as a society so yes we can not blame the system but the designers .. but I wasn't looking to blame , but simply spot the errors/ flaws of the system and offer solutions / proposals for repair.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

That is exactly what I was saying. That is what must change, us, We The People have to do the changing. The first task is to break down all barriers starting with party line bickering. Then cultural barriers. What is the economic gap but yet another social barrier? We need to break down all social barriers until the economic one is the only one left. By that time we should have plenty of practice of how to go about it.

[-] 1 points by turak (-812) 12 years ago

Capitalism is based upon the unsustainable system of MUTUAL ROBBERY called doing something 'for a profit'. Capitalism is an unsustainable ponzii scheme, a pyramid scheme a swindle which cannot last long.

By the 'legalization' of mutual robbery, mutual cheating, mutual swindling, mutual lying etc ad nausea... with the bottom line being the lowest most disgusting profit motive of infantile selfishness called greed. Capitalism like all pyramid schemes concentrates as much wealth stolen, robbed, swindled, cheated, taken from the masses into the fewest possible hands.

This level of blind greed, this insane level of corruption is now GLOBAL. All the richest corrupt most powerful people in the world share the exact same amoral unethical evil culture of personal selfishness, and fuck the rest of humanity.

Because the rest of humanity has been brainwashed and programmed into believing in and practicing the most evil corrupt unethical amoral value system of the top 1% richest assholes in the world: they are morally, ethically and spiritually no better than the top! who own everything and have most of the money.

Because the lower 99% are not intelligent enough to get RID of this imported culture of commercial consumerism and greed and selfishness which the mass media propaganda outlets SELL: they are whining about who has more money than the next man or woman because they ENVY people who have more money than they do and WANT that money for themselves. The 99% are just a greedy and selfish as the top1%. The only difference between the top 1% and the lower 99% of all the people on earth... is how much money they have. That's all. All of them are corrupt. None of them are any better than any of the others.

Until people opt OUT of the entire corrupt system and create their own community groups which do not use money and are based upon egalitarian cooperation: they will continue to be part of the ponzi scheme system of civilized greed and corruption whether they like it or not.

The Occupy movement has been doing this... slowly, blindly... haphazardly... inexorably organizing themselves into a counter-culture and a counter-system which has as little to do with the ENTIRE corrupt society they were born into and had no choice about how they were brainwashed and corrupted by capitalist consumer society.

If any people who are not the usual computer freak-geek yammering imbeciles who infest and populate all the pointless blog sites and internet forums read this. The answer to the worldwide corruption of almost 7 billion greedy brainwashed idiots is simple: Create your own community and become 100% SELF-SUFFICIENT.

In other words... do the OPPOSITE of what you're doing now. Be AGAINST commercials, against buying and selling, against computers and gadgets, against sitting on your as as a spectator, against internet forums and their yammering hordes of imbeciles... each one believing that they are de wise one! An everybuddy should listen to dere wisdom and everybuddy else in da whole wide worl' is wrong, an' DEY are da only person on earth who is right.

By doing the opposite: shutting off your antisocial toy and never using it again and only making contact with other people in person., by becoming and ANTI-consumer, by consuming NOTHING, by not using money, by creating social egalitarian groups; based upon cooperation and fun, and sharing: instead of misery and selfishness and hoarding: You will no longer have any more problems to solve. The rest of the world, the rest of capitalist pig consumers can stuff their faces until they die and good riddance to them.

That is how you solve your problems. You solve them by NOT trying to solve the problems of 7 billion other idiots because that is none of your fucking business and you have no right to tell them how to live, just as they have no right to tell you how to live. And also; on a practical note...unless you've managed to solve your OWN problems first... you CAN'T solve the problems of 7 billion, you can't even begin to help anyone else solve their problems

IF you can solve your own problems.. then you can go to other people and tell them: "Hey... I found a way to solve all my problems: are any of you interested in how I did it?" And if nobody is interested in how you solved your own problems: then stop trying to shove your solutions down the throats of others who don't even want to listen to you.

Quit with the fucking babble about how to save the world. Save yourself. Do it practically.

[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

Everyone has heard of pyramid, or Ponzi, schemes. In their simplest form they are short-lived deliberate frauds where a small number of existing members are paid from the buy-in of a larger number of newer members until the supply of newer members is exhausted, whereupon they collapse. Typically, the founders, and perhaps a few others who got in early and out before it was too late, end up making a lot of money at the expense of later entrants, who end up holding the empty bag. There are always many more losers than winners. What most do not realize, however, is that Ponzi dynamics are far more pervasive than people think. There are many human systems that ultimately rest on the buy-in of new entrants, and every one of them will ultimately meet the same fate, although it can take far longer for complex constructions than for simple pyramid frauds.

What allows a more complex pyramid to last for longer than a simple one is a supplementary source of funds to pay members, besides merely the buy-in of newer members. The more such sources there are, legitimate and otherwise, the more complex the pyramid can become and the longer it will last, as the apparent on-going success of early entrants will attract many more new ones. There's nothing like seeing one's friends and neighbours seemingly making a lot of easy money for a long time to eventually overcome the mental defenses of even the most skeptical.

Following the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, there was a spate of such schemes - notably MMM in Russia, Caritas in Romania, Jugoskandic and Dafiment Bank in Serbia, TAT in Macedonia, and VEFA Holdings, Xhafferi, Populli, Gjallica and several others in Albania. They were the topic of my academic research at the time. All of these lasted for quite a long time, and some paid out spectacular returns for much of that time. For instance, the Albanian funds , or quasi-banks, began by paying out 3-5% per month over a 6 month term and were eventually paying out 10% per month (and briefly much more as an interest rate war ensued very late in the game).

They were able to do this temporarily because the income from the buy-in of new entrants was supplemented by revenue from drug smuggling, oil sanctions busting, money laundering, gun running, human trafficking and a thriving trade in car theft from across Europe. There was some revenue from legitimate business interests, but not much in a country that survived mainly on a combination of remittances and politically supported criminal activity. Ironically, Albania was the darling of the IMF at the time.

Over time, approximately 80% of the Albanian population was drawn into the pyramids, often selling their only real property in order to invest and then depending on the pyramids for all their income. When the inevitable happened, the vast majority of the population was completely dispossessed. Although many had realized that there was something too-good-to-be-true about their 'investments' they had succumbed to greed "in the belief that they were in the hands of properly structured criminality", as The Guardian newspaper put it in February 1997. The population believed, erroneously, that there was an implicit guarantee from the government, which was conspicuously and intimately entwined with the activities of the various funds.

In the developed world, there are many examples of pyramid dynamics where there is no intent to defraud at all - where even the founders really don't understand the underlying logic of their business model taken to its logical conclusion. Direct marketing, for instance, is essentially pyramid-based - depending on an ever-increasing network of sales people, each of whom receives a percentage of their income from those they can attract into the business. If these businesses can no longer grow by attracting new salespeople, then they are ultimately finished, but as they cannot grow perpetually (or eventually everyone in the country would end up making a living selling these products to each other), they are inherently self-limiting. They can last for many years thanks to legitimate business revenues, but not forever. Early entrants will always do very well, at the expense of later ones, and the last tiers will certainly lose their stake.

Large economic bubbles, typically formed in dominant economies during periods of manic optimism (see McKay's Extraordinary Public Delusions and the Madness of Crowds), have the same underlying dynamic. Without continual buy-in from new money - new investors or more money from existing investors - they cannot grow, and when they can no longer grow, they will collapse. Although grounded initially in legitimate business activity, they morph into structures where one has to question the motives and understanding of key individuals. In some cases there may be intent to defraud, but what is far more common is a characteristic recklessness as to the risks those in control are prepared to take with other people's money.

In their latter stages, such structures hollow out, feeding on their own internal substance as they lose the ability to attract new investment. In the terminal phase, there is the appearance of great wealth, but it is virtual, and therefore extremely ephemeral. The next step is implosion, as the virtual wealth disappears - where the claims to wealth generated through leverage that exceed the amount of underlying real wealth are extinguished en masse. Enron was a prime example, and on a much larger scale, so is the derivatives market. Bubbles, like all Ponzi structures, are inherently self-limiting and will always collapse in the end.

At the largest scale, empires are also grounded in pyramid dynamics, which is why they too have a limited lifespan. They grow by assuming control, either politically or economically, of new territories, positioning themselves to cream off surpluses from an ever-expanding geographical area in a form of involuntary buy-in. In the past political control through invasion or physical colonization was more common, but latterly globalization has enabled the development of a sophisticated system of economic control based on international debt slavery, supplemented with economic colonization for the purpose of resource extraction. Both resources and financial surpluses, in the form of perpetual interest payments, could be efficiently extracted from the periphery and accumulated at the centre, where they led to the development of an unprecedented level of socioeconomic complexity.

Such wealth conveyors in favour of the economic centre, at the expense of the hinterland, are the very heart of empire, but without continual expansion to feed rapidly developing central complexity, they eventually fail, leaving the centre unable to sustain its existing complexity level. As with economic bubbles, empires hollow out in the latter stages, consuming their own substance in a catabolic manner in order to compensate for the inability to strengthen wealth conveyors sufficiently quickly to keep pace with the expanding requirements of the centre.

As the hinterland is increasingly stripped of wealth and resources, and burdened with the increasing environmental impact of its own exploitation, an increasing fraction of it is left too impoverished to sustain a minimum level of internal order. In modern times we speak of failed states without realizing why many of these states are failing, or the impact that an increasing number of failed states will ultimately have on our own standard of living.

Wealth conveyors are breaking down, and no amount of financially squeezing the population in the central economies can compensate for the loss of that ability to accumulate wealth from virtually the whole world. The vast majority of the central population will be brutally squeezed as the elites try to hang on to their own privileged position, but this can only sustain a very small, and rapidly shrinking, fraction of the population, and at great cost.

We are living through the collapse of the final - and all-consuming - economic bubble at the end of the American empire.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

Good one Anachronism! Hey Capitalism is an infinite growth system...So unless our planet starts to grow..We may have an issue...

Capitalism works well in someone's head, especially when they have all the capital...But in reality it can only work for just a while...

[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

The principle of economics which should be are based in five postulates .

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.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

OK this is very good..and hopefully we'll be able to use it before our "leaders" totally destroy the planet..Which might I add, will be a very profitable undertaking...For them.

Capitalist dream sequence: We'll all be dead, but Hell there's money to be made here..Segue to a scene of Rush Limbaugh smoking a larger than donkey dick cigar.. Oh actually that's reality: http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/story.jpg

Synchronized vomiting noted on a world wide basis.

[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

That reminds me of a cartoon I saw. It was some business men in a board room with a caption that says something to the effect of "The end of the world is coming, its going to be horrid, filled with death, destruction and misery BUT the run up to the end of the world will be very profitable"

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

Ha ha..It's all insane!

[-] 1 points by Algee (182) 12 years ago

Another should be added: The economy is dependant on the people to function.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

The ponzi scheme is certainly a lot like what happened with the huge borrowing that went on until all borrowing was exhausted and it all began to collapse like a house of cards.

certainly interesting how countries do not invade physically anymore, instead they simply extract the wealth through other devious means. By buying up the businesses in another country we can extract the profits.. until as you say it becomes a failed state.. until there is no more profits to extract .. There is just something there that we are not seeing in all this ..? something .. in the final outcome.. ? What are the wealthy going to do with all their wealth .. once they have broken the system? it just leads to final destruction .. this path we are on..we seriously need to change course.

I have suggested a cap on sales profit.

But I also suggested an hour-coin system. Which would place the welfare of the world in the hands of a collective as opposed to in the hands a few few wealthy powerful individuals. The hour-coin provides a system of unlimited credit for all labor to be delegated by committee. We do have reality to deal with, so it will be necessary to prioritize what needs to be done .. to be successful at survival of the human race. currently this budget system has our hands tied.. and prevents the work force from performing at its maximum potential. which is really silly because money is an infinite number .. but yet we put a limit on it ? while resources such as labor and material are limited ..but we do not fully obtain use of their limits. The current system is reversed logic. An hour-coin will completely change the dynamics of civilization . And will provide opportunity for everyone.


[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

Flaws in Capitalism - Where to start?

You should always start with Marx's "Capital" for foundational logical fallacies and internal contradictions.

Here is a good overview of flaws in market systems.


These curious developments explain why the mathematical theories used by mainstream economists are predicated on the following unscientific assumptions:

The market system is a closed circular flow between production and consumption, with no inlets or outlets. Natural resources exist in a domain that is separate and distinct from a closed market system, and the economic value of these resources can be determined only by the dynamics that operate within this system. The costs of damage to the external natural environment by economic activities must be treated as costs that lie outside the closed market system or as costs that cannot be included in the pricing mechanisms that operate within the system. The external resources of nature are largely inexhaustible, and those that are not can be replaced by other resources or by technologies that minimize the use of the exhaustible resources or that rely on other resources. There are no biophysical limits to the growth of market systems.

The 7 unscientific aspects of capitalism http://dieoff.org/#economic_theory_for_scientists_and_engineers Economics is the intellectual “Trojan Horse” of our time with political propaganda hidden by known-false assumptions. The conclusions follow logically from the deception, so if you accept the known-false assumptions, then you accept the deception:

“Economists enamored of pure markets begin with the theory, and hang models on assumptions that cannot themselves be challenged. The characteristic grammatical usage is an unusual subjunctive — the verb form ‘must be.’ For example, if wages for manual workers are declining, it must be that their economic value is declining. If a corporate raider walks away from a deal with half a billion dollars, it must be that he added that much value to the economy. If Japan can produce better autos than Detroit, there must be some inherent locational logic, else the market would not dictate that result. If commercial advertising leads consumers to buy shoddy or harmful products, they must be ‘maximizing their utility’ — because we know by assumption that consumers always maximize their utility. How do we know that? Because to do anything else would be irrational. And how do we know that individuals always behave rationally? Because that is the premise from which we begin. The truly interesting institutional questions — the disjunctures between what free-market assumptions would predict and the actual outcomes — are dismissed by the tautological and deductive form of reasoning. The fact that the real world is already far from a perfect market is ignored for the sake of theoretic convenience. The dissenter cannot challenge the theory; he can only describe the real world.” — Robert Kuttner, EVERYTHING FOR SALE

In short, science debunks capitalism FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/2/252 IJE Advance Access originally published online on November 22, 2005 International Journal of Epidemiology 2006 35(2):252-258; doi:10.1093/ije/dyi235 Is modern Western culture a health hazard? Richard Eckersley National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia. [...snip...] "The cultures of societies are underestimated determinants of their population health and well-being. This is as true of modern Western culture, including its defining qualities of materialism and individualism, as it is of other cultures. This paper draws on evidence from a range of disciplines to argue that materialism and individualism are detrimental to health and well-being through their impacts on psychosocial factors such as personal control and social support." [...snip...] "Marmot and Wilkinson,7 in noting the relationship between income inequality and social affiliation, suggest there is a 'culture of inequality' that is more aggressive, less connected, more violent and less trusting." [...snip...] "The psychological and sociological literatures suggest powerful effects of culture on psychological well-being. Take materialism, by which I mean attaching importance or priority to money and possessions (and so broadly equate here with consumerism), and which underpins consumption-based economies. Many psychological studies have shown that materialism is associated, not with happiness, but with dissatisfaction, depression, anxiety, anger, isolation, and alienation.13,20 Human needs for security and safety, competence and self-worth, connectedness to others, and autonomy and authenticity are relatively unsatisfied when materialistic values predominate." [...snip...] "Modern Western culture undermines, even reverses, universal values and time-tested wisdom.12,13 The result is not so much a collapse of personal morality, but a loss of moral clarity: a heightened moral ambivalence and ambiguity, a tension or dissonance between our professed values and lifestyles, and a deepening cynicism about social institutions. Without appropriate cultural reinforcement, we find it harder to do what we believe to be 'good'; it takes more effort. And, conversely, it becomes easier to justify or rationalize bad behaviour. There are positive (reinforcing) feedbacks in the process: anti-social values weaken personal and social ties, which, in turn, reduce the 'hold' of a moral code on individuals because these ties give the code its 'leverage'; they are a source of 'moral fibre'."

http://www.chartist.org.uk/articles/econsoc/sept02lee.html The Mass Psychology of Capitalism [...snip...] "[T]he indicators of disintegration and social pathology are everywhere. Rates of clinical depression have increased considerably since 1950. In America a survey of over 18,000 adults found that a person born between 1945 and 1955 was between three and ten times more likely to suffer a major depression before the age of 34 than a person born between 1905 and 1914. Another American study involving 19,000 people found that 20% of the total US population suffer from a mental illness (as defined by the psychiatric bible The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) during any given 12 months and that 32% will suffer at some point during their lifetime. Rates of suicide have increased since 1950 - they have trebled in the UK since 1970. Crimes against the person have risen in the UK from 6,000 in 1950, to 239,000 in 1996. Alcohol and substance misuse have increased exponentially."

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

protip: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/basics

This forum uses markdown. Now your comments exposing the atrocity that is capitalism can also look fabulous!

P.S. I edited your comment to fix the formatting.

[-] 1 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago


[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

You should create a short "How to use this forum" section and post a guide to the Markdown syntax that works on this site. The link you posted is good, but might confuse readers as MarkDown image syntax is not parsed. You could also provide some newbie examples so that none technical users can really understand it well. I think this would help the forum a lot.

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I agree 100%

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Take a vacation first. : )

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

No demand = no one to supply

When too few accumulate too much it no longer works. Capitalism requires a vibrant consumer base. An over-accumulation by too few people deprives the broader consumer base of the capital needed to participate.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Yes, and a cap would leave money in the hands of the consumer where it will be contributing to demand, while also preventing accumulation at the hands of the few.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

I don't think that caps are the solution.

A concerted attack on the failed ethics of greed and the failed economics of greed at the MBA level and on Wall Street is what is needed. If the tycoons were to come to understand that their fortunes were dependent on a vibrant consumer class society they would think twice before hoarding capital for the sake of hoarding capital.

I don't mind people getting really rich. I have a real problem with their thinking that sequestering that capital from the economy does anyone, including themselves, any good.

The values of greed are an off again on again value structure that, when it hits excessive levels for too long in a society, always cause breakdown in economies. Then the society spends a few decades getting prosperous again only to have these greedy few fuck the whole thing up again as capital becomes easy and they greedy and socially dysfunctional types, i.e. racists, feel that too many people are sharing in the prosperity.

I would love to see a massive OWS action at the business schools of America protesting the ethics of greed. If the schools had to fear that they were getting a bad reputation by association with their greedy graduates they would stop teaching the Milton Friedman greed is good psychotic libertarian bullshit.

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 12 years ago

The only solution is revolution silly

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Revolutionary thinking to end revolting thinkers. (;^>)

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

If not a cap, than what would you suggest?

It's not just about the "big dream " of getting rich , it's about all those at the bottom with barely enough to survive on.. take for example the wealthy have accumulated somewhere near 1.5 trillion dollars .. well that leaves ten million people with out homes .. for a few people to be wealthy .. currently there is no cap.. whatsoever .. and looking at this logically a cap would balance the wealth of a nation .. when capitalism was designed .. it was designed to achieve great wealth.. without ever considering the great poor that it also creates in its wake .. there needs to be a correction in the regulations of capitalism. thank you for your response.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

If you would read what I wrote you would see.

Let me clarify.

The big problem is the over-accumulation of wealth in the hands of too few who greedily hoard that capital. Getting those few greedy people to stop the over-accumulation is the solution because it puts more capital into the economy making it available for more people to achieve more with.

Ending the culture of greed on Wall Street then is the long term and short term solution.

In the short term profits rise when there are more consumers with cash in their pockets. In the long term businesses have a steadier source of cash flow to plan hiring more people for longer periods of time.

Protests against the teaching that greed is good at the business schools is the solution along with continuing the Occupation of Wall Street. Don't allow Wall Street to return to what they consider to be normal life. Not until they change their corrupt greedy ways.

Wall Street pushes American industry to think short term profits rather than long term growth. When we get Wall Street to think long term growth there will be job growth and wage growth too. Refusing to give Wall Street a chance to live a normal life until they give the rest of us a normal life again should be the goal of the continuing occupation.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

but how do you stop greed .. if not with a regulated cap on profits ..

we both agree on the problem .. it's the solution we need to see eye to eye on .. and just hanging around pestering wall street doesn't sound like a viable solution .. we need to start supporting the idea of CAP on sales profits .. because what your suggesting is to simply leave your front door unlocked and have the thieves promise they wont take everything.. its not gonna happen .. the temptation is too great .. and haven't you heard their argument? what have they done illegal? all their wealth has been accumulated through legal means .. but with a cap it would no longer be legal .. see where I am going with this .. ? It's like having a speed limit on the hoghway , or should we just ask everyone to drive safe" which system do you think would get the best results?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

I do a lot of reading and my favorite writer is Upton Sinclair. In his book, OIL, he describes the dynamic that I see happening with this conversation and why I fear this system we have will probably out last each and every one of us. He describes how the Socialist can't agree with the communist and neither one of them can stand the union man. Each sees the problem but they are all so consumed by their pet solution that the fight and bicker over semantics and philosophies, until they get so perturbed with one another that they go their own way. This is what i see transpiring with you two's conversation. Also, Hoghway, that is a freudian type there. I like it, though I assume you did it on accident.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

so how do we settle this ? we both feel strongly in our convictions .. and I did open up to what we have in common .. as to the problem of extreme wealth and greed..

thanks for stepping in .. I am slightly familiar with sinclair .. he wrote .. at some point .. " do you really believe they will wield the sword of your salvation?" meaning , will the oppressors help those they oppress.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

I like the cap Idea. It would actually put some meat to the old adage: the tides of capitalism rises all boats. But, sadly, I believe that there just ain't enough people mad as hell so we are just sitting in our homes typing away and life is going on its merrily way.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

well thank you Jesse. I believe in time the discussion will evolve and mature as I see improvements begining to emerge .. It would be nice to see something encouraging come out of all this ..

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Greed is is a learned value. It needs to be debunked and denounced as OWS is doing. Not as clearly as it could be but that too takes time.

Harvard Business School held a seminar on business ethics this past semester, instigated by the OWS protests. The greed that is causing America and the world so much trouble today was taught to the MBA's by the business schools in the 1980's.

Two things are needed. One of them is happening. OWS confronting Wall Street on an ongoing basis and not stopping is one thing.

Confronting the business schools about the lack of responsible corporate ethics is the other thing. If the assholes on Wall Street start hearing from their former professors that their ethics are crap they will change. Ego trumps greed.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Ego trumps greed.

Well my friend your intentions are honorable .. I am afraid the people you are dealing with are not.

Capitalism has been unfettered for over 200 years .. and greed has never stopped.. protest all you want .. protest for 200 years .. don't give up ..

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Obviously you are not a very critical student of economic history.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

I know that there has always been unfettered greed .. and extreme poverty.. what else?

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 12 years ago

Too simplistic. There is so much more to reality. I don't have the time or inclination to give you a lesson in the history of cyclical economics.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

well you pointed this out ... ?

Rome is a well used example of history .. and the fall of rome in particular .. with its comparison to USA in a republic.. the fall of rome I believe was a direct result of a system built on unfairness.. something which is disturbinly similiar to capitalism .. with its unfair distribution of wealth .. the mass of people eventually will not support the system . this is why I offer the idea of a cap on sales profit .. it will equalize the fairness of distribution of wealth .. otherwise the USA real has a lot going for it .. with many other wonderful human rights.


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

doesn't provide for an excess amount of labor

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 12 years ago

What are the flaws in Capitalism? I would start with SteveKJR, Diogenes Truth, and headlesscross. Get rid of all the wacky libertarians, that would be a good start, indeed.

[-] 1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 12 years ago

What nonsense is this?

Answer a few questions first:

  1. What 'retailer' are you talking about? What kind of retailer? Multi brand or single brand? Regional, national or international?
  2. Do you think that the retailer is the only entity in the entire value chain and supply chain of a product?
  3. Is this 'retailer' a single guy? Is Walmart a single person? If the 'retailer' kept margins low, all of it's employees would be making less money? The employees would then have lower standard of living, they would default on their loans. Is that desirable?
  4. Incidentally, do you the profit margin of Walmart? It is already pretty thin.
  5. What is a 'low' markup? In software a 30% markup may be low. But in FMCG a 30% markup would be very high.
  6. What makes you think lowering prices will help sales? If a burger that earlier cost $3 now costs 1 cent would you have 300 times as many burgers? Simply lowering prices will not make people consume more. Companies are smart and they usually set prices at an optimal level that maximizes revenue (Price * Quantity).

Seriously man. Use your brain once in a while.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 12 years ago

Actually, there are two kinds of capitalism: financial and industrial capitalism. As you would imagine, the financiers make most of the money in financial capitalism, while the workers make more of the money in industrial capitalism.

Financial capitalism makes money off capital, as you say, but industrial capitalism makes money off industry, that is by improvements in human productivity.

In industrial capitalism the owner invests substantially in labor by paying a fair wage, by which the worker can sustain himself and his family, but more importantly, improve himself and his family.

Such investment in improvement pays off, when the capitalist's workers become educated and capable of solving technical problems at a higher level. This provides the capitalist with a never ending stream of new products and improved processes.

To solve today's economic crisis, we'd probably be better off returning to industrial capitalism.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Capitalism had nearly 235 years.. and is failing globally. The unfettered profits is a flaw we can correct .

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 12 years ago

Capitalism is not failing globally. In fact it's going strong in China right now. The thing with Capitalism , which for some reason people don't understand this, is that the economy will go up and down, usually after a great boom there is a recession. If you look back at the recessions all were predated by a period of great wealth and prosperity. Except for the downturn in the beginning of the 80's, which wasn't all that bad and Reagan quickly got us out of that and into another Boom. The problem is not Capitalism excpescialy in Europe where the governments provide to many services they could not afford and are now pushing the world towards economic collapse. So the problem is not capitalism. It's the government. The government has failed to do it's most basic functions and tries do to thing for people that it should not be doing and then fails at said tasks. So blame the government not Capitalism. Capitalism rewards hard work and Intelligence.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

ahh but you must look a little deeper.. why is there a recession after every boom?

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 12 years ago

Because after a period of great growth we must pay the consequences for that fast, unpredictable growth. Now if the economy grows slowly over time then we should not have recessions. (This is all theory as it has never been proven)

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

well I would say this last boom was directly attributed to lower interest rates which created a huge influx of borrowed money into the economy... and with such a huge influx created what the markets call high demand .. thus market prices went through the roof.. and high high profits were recorded .. and all those profits did not recirculate fast enough to keep the economy flowing at a constant pace .. plus the borrowing subsided.. creating an even lee=sser in flux of currency into the economic system.. also during the boom government seen record breaking tax revenues ..and so they increased their spending budget with all the surplus .. but now with the drop in revenue they need to cut back on their spending to match their income.. the trouble is where the profits have piled up and are trikling back into society at a very slow pace .. a pace not fast enough to maintain enough jobs for everyone.. thus the flaw would be the amount of profits taken out of the system have caused damaged to the functioning of the economy. to fix this flaw would require a simple percentage cap allowable on profits .. this would limit the amount of money leaving the system and piling up in excess of what is reasonable.. It's really quite simple solution standing back and looking at where all the money went .. the government is deep in debt .. and most of the public have debt .. but those at the top have a pile of cash .. and are not being hurt by this recession ..nor would a great depression affect them ..

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 12 years ago

Well said, you seem to have a better understanding of this than I do. Now I have been trying to figure a way to bet us out of this mess. Now everything I came up with seem to have to many flaws and I don't see them working out. I have spent many hours thinking about this and I don't have nothing to show for it. So I impose a question upon you: What is your solution to this problem.

Look forward to hearing from you.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 12 years ago

Very true I liked this. You seem to understand this a little better than I do, and I have been trying to figure out how we fix this massive mess without leading to more long term problems. I have thought of many ways but they all seem to have too many negatives and I don't see them working. So what do you suggest we do.

I look forward to hearing from you.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Well I too have pondered over the situation we find ourselves in.

I have come up with two choices :

A: we could try to repair the system we have ,

B. we could throw the whole system away and build from the ground up with new components using all the knowledge and experience we have to build a new system.

I would suggest we fix the current system .. [as best we can] for now and than move on to plan B.

As I mentioned , we place a CAP on sales profit. This is to be a percentage of markup between points of buy and sell .. because realistically anyone with great wealth achieved it through profit and not through skilled labor. So this cap placed on profits will keep the flow of currency within the economy. as we now see many of the profits gained during the boom are piled up at the top and not circulating.. so again a cap would have prevented that currency from piling up and becoming stagnant.
here is a quick guide:

Salesprofit Cap = lower prices = increased sales = increased demand = increased jobs = increased tax revenue = problem solved

A couple big problems with the system we have is the tax collection budget system. it is a failure in the sense it restricts the amount of money the government can spend , which results in unemployment when the budget runs low . this is something plan B deals with by removing the need for tax collecting altogether .. the plan B has a component that allows for unlimited budget.. which provides opportunity for everyone indefinitely. its an awesome plan ! but it hinges on fairness and equality .. being that of equal pay regardless of ones profession .. many disagree with this concept of equal .. but it is the trade off for an unlimited budget ..and no longer tax collecting .. it has great potential .. which pays for all training equally and students will choose their career based on skill and interest .. while being paid for all training ..

well just a brief .. couple of ideas ..for now

what we really need to focus on is placing a cap on sales profit .. that will turn the world economy around overnight.. and prevent economic collapse.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

please list 5 areas of exorbitant profit and where you would place this cap.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

No it is the system. Thank you for the summary.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

and what is your point? it's not perfect -it's better than any alternative. that's if you are willing to work ...

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

well the point is to make improvements to the world we live within. a simple sales cap would correct one flaw in capitalism. making a huge improvement.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

is that the point - to make improvements in the world? Are you the authority on how people should live & what values they have? You are the Moral authority? Sales Cap? Please elaborate. I dont know what that is supposed to mean

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Capitalism does harness greed .. as a motivator , and everyone seems to agree it has provided many people with the best lives on the planet... unfortunately the unfettered greed leaves the economy unbalanced.. causing extreme wealth and large scale poverty .. for example the top 1% have equal wealth to the bottom 150 million people .. so this is a bit of a flaw .. so to correct this a simple percentage cap on sales markup would solve the problem .. preventing the huge unscaled difference in wealth .. balancing the standard of living somewhat , but still allowing greed to be the driving force.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

Some might argue the occupiers are greedy. you want something you havent worked for. Stop worrying about what someone else has or doesnt have. There will always be inequalities always has alway will be. So if the top 1% are 50 times as wealthy as the average instead of 100 times - you will be complaining about the 50. it has no bearing on what you make of your life - so get over it.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

is that the best response you have .. the poor are greedy ? hahahaa

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

the occupiers are poor? They all look like college aged burnouts to me. Please - you are not going to hide behind "the poor" in the movement. You are on a computer - go get a job & stop whining. what - you cant wait tables? is that beneath you?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

The rich are certainly not protesting ? are they ?

we have solutions , we can turn this economic crisis around in one move ! would you and all your rich buddies agree to that ?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

I encourage you to keep occupying. That leave more job opportunities for me. Keep it up - thanks!

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

I know right, hording all that poverty for themselves.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

must make the rich envious .. not?

seriously, I have always wondered why the rich do not worry about the poor .. and the hungry , and all those who lost their jobs and homes .. and worse in other parts of the world .. the rich just doesnt seem bothered at all . and to reinforce this I use statements like you just made .. but what is the underlying factor .. how does someone without morals become so wealthy and powerful ?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

I don't really buy into the rich people are bad scenario. There are shit heads on every economic level. I seriously think we are expecting to much by thinking that just because they have money that they know how to fix a problem so much bigger than any one of us can absorb. How do you do it without calling it a handout? That is the stumbling point for many reasons. Fear of socialism, teach a man to fish vs giving him a fish, ect...

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

richard I mistook you for aries when I commented on what he said .. its all a bit fuddled .. my mistake..

but I understand your last comment although .. I do believe their is a certain character flaw in the wealthy that leaves them feeling no guilt.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

I have some friends that are Extremely well off while I spend the winter having a hard time affording my cigs. They hate it just as much. You think they don't have less fortunate family members they have to support thrue this economic sludge factory? Of course they do. Their houses, including their rental properties are filled up with less than fortunate family and friends. It isn't pretty for the well off either.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

It doesn't have to be like this .. the rules of the game can be regulated in such a way that we all can have opportunity and afford a healthy lifestyle without worrying about job security and what tomorrow may bring.. we just need to sit down with this and figure it out.. peacefully with authority to make change .. through democracy as our forefathers gave us.. democracy is the most peaceful way of making decision..lets decide on better ways of doing things .. evenly equally and fairly .. for all to prosper ..

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

Locks keep honest people honest. Nothing more, nothing less. I agree with regulating. I believe manufacturers should be required to carry insurance on their products rather than society paying the court system to sort out the results of shitty products. You can also drive a nail with a screwdriver. The right tool for the right job. Inequity is something caused by human nature and that nature exists everywhere man does. You cannot say the same about regulating banks because inequity shows up in places without a bank for hundreds of miles.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

we talk about nature .. and it does play a very important roll in economics , especially fairness where we feel it in our heart. But greed may also be a part of nature that we are finding has a negative consequence on the overall well being of society .. greed needs to be checked .. with a simple profit cap for now .. as I mentioned in other posts .. we have speed limits , and we need greed limits ..

thanks for your correspondence

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 12 years ago

So why does the retailer not keep his markups low ?

Prices are set to cover three things:

  • Cost of sales
  • Overhead
  • Profit

Profit is closed into retained earnings and accumulated to enable the company to grow. Without accumulated retained earnings, a company cannot grow since competition and inflation, for example, will cause its demise.

A company must over cover the three above or they will cease to exist. In you need a good example, check out Sears below. Note that Sears not only has a net loss but also an operating loss, the latter meaning that Sears is selling their product below what they paid for it. Not good. Luckily for Sears, they have a surplus of accumulated retained earnings which allows them to subsist beyond a few losses.

Prices are determined by consumers and competition.

Mods have blocked markdown tags.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

mark up should be capped by governemnt regulation. this would balance the wealth of a nation.

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 12 years ago

Mark up is only going to work if consumers continue to buy it at that price. If no one is buying the store or company has no choice but to drop the price if they want profit.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

or create a demand

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

that is shallow thinking.

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 12 years ago

not really. It's about being competative. If 5 retailers are selling a product at the same marked up price, and it isn't selling, one is going to drop the price to compete and sell. Usually, the others will follow suit to also sell there product, thus a price war that usually works out better for the consumer.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

thats like telling all the unemployed looking for work , but the only jobs available are minimum wage , so you tell them don't work there if they won't pay .. and sooner or later they will have to raise their wages if they want to hire anyone .. pretty shallow

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 12 years ago

You bring up a good point. A company can't grow if it is not making a profit. If they advertise jobs at minimum wage and no one takes them, i'm pretty sure they would re-advertise atleast some of them at a larger wage at some point if they truely want to expand based on increased production due to larger sales.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

yes but the reality works the opposite when there is no demand for increased production .. during a recession .. and there are many unemployed people needing to feed their families .. so it is pretty hard for a man needing a job to turn down a low wage .. as it is hard for a consumer to refuse shopping .. really .. we can not stop consuming certain items .. we have to eat and licve .. buy gas for our vehicle .. go to work .. and also to refuse shopping altogether we would only be shooting ourself in the foot .. because if no one shops than manufactures shut down ..and people lose there jobs .. we must continually work and shop and the retailer knows this .. and once they have the upper hand they can hold their prices high longer than we can wait them to drop ..

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 12 years ago

Of course it does. There is no reason to hire new employees if your not expanding your buisness. Companies can't just create jobs because people are out of work. The biggest problem right now is the current governments policies that are hindering small buisness from expanding at all and also causing larger corporations to move overseas. That is what the focus should be on.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

again I say this is shallow because we are really only looking at symptons .. not cause . nor principles ,

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 12 years ago

and again I say, the cause is the restrictions on buisnesses (mostly small buisness) by our government. When it costs more to stay in the country than it does to outsource the jobs somewhere else, you have created an atmosphere that promotes buisness to leave, thus the jobs leave.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

the cap would go on sales profits .. and markets will not leave .. they will always be around making whatever profit they can .. just fyi the sales cap does not go on the manufacturer .. because that would make him outsource.

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 12 years ago

Not the case. Buisness owners all over the country continue to outsource there products because of the restrictions. Obamacare mandates and alike are driving them to China, Japan, Mexico. We have lost 3 mills in my county over the last 2 years and the reason has been the same in all cases, they can't afford to make there products here.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

yes but look at it this way .. the retailer decides what he wants to sell .. and if he buys from china a wooden table at the cost of $100, and there is a ten percent cap on markup, he may consider buying domestic at $200 and selling the table at $20 profit as opposed to the $10 he would have made from the foreign product .. understand? how the dynamics of the industry would change ? and markets will always be around if there are consumers ..that is no worry .. even if we cap them ..

[-] 1 points by JimBeam (152) 12 years ago

hmmm. Do you think that capping goes against the fundamental rights of an American? Our country was built on the premis that you can succeed if you work hard. Who is the government to dictate what level of success you can and can't achieve?

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

you dont understand retailing at all.i can see why you are frustrated. the world confounds and confuses you. how would he pay his employees, his utilities, his rent, his taxes, His shipping costs, his insurance, his sales people if he only marked up an item 10%? where then would be his profit?

answer this: why did Sears lose a billion dollars last year? the mark up on food is only 1-2%. you would cap that? you are quite hopeless. hahaha

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 12 years ago

What happens if your markups will not cover your cost of sales and your inventory is purchased from another sovereignty, like China, who refuses to lower prices?

Incidentally, with your approach of government regulation, enforcement expenses will skyrocket.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

well, without the cap we have huge concentration of wealth accumulated through profits. A cap would level the distribution of wealth.

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 12 years ago

At least you could give me one 'like' for effort. Heck, I only have 223, whereas you have 744. Perhaps, you are attempting to concentrate 'likes', like the capitalist are trying to do with wealth.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

I was unaware of the numbers ..and quite frankly have no concern of them..

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

No flaws, assuming you live in Sweden :)

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

what happens in sweden?

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Something closer to democratic capitalism ... and overall, a non-narcissistic society of people who actually care about each other (go figure).

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

there has to be more ?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

The rest of Scandinavia :)

And overall, western Europe is a very humane place.


[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

What would you suggest as an alternative?

[-] 1 points by thecarrotcake (1) 12 years ago

any thing is better then capitalism!! lets take it down and then let the people decide. -- all of the people- not just the corrupt greedy rich

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

So you really have no idea what you would replace it with?

[-] 2 points by sandyed (8) 12 years ago

democracy the war on

You can use vlc media player—also free- http://www.vlcmediaplayer.net/

The War On Democracy 1.5 hours http://www.multiupload.com/5JC1O9E7Q2 mp3 intro english 2.5 minutes


Editorial Reviews Review "The War On Democracy is brilliant. John Pilger is the world's most important documentary film maker. He exposes the myths of U.S. empire, and also shows us the growing resistance to U.S. domination and neoliberalism. Pilger asks the bold questions that the establishment media have not asked, reminding us of the power of journalism and documentary film to help us understand the world -- and change it." --Anthony Arnove, author, Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal and (with Howard Zinn), Voices of a People's History of the United States Product Description The War on Democracy demonstrates the brutal reality of the America's notion of 'spreading democracy'; that, in fact, America is actually conducting a war on democracy, and that true popular democracy is now more likely to be found among the poorest of Latin America whose grassroots movements are often ignored in the west. John Pilger conducts an exclusive interview with President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Pilger also goes to the United States and in some remarkable interviews, speaks exclusively to US government officials who ran the CIA's war in Latin America in the 1980s. This reveals more about US policy than all the statements and postures of recent times; it also reveals how what's happened in Latin America is a metaphor for how the rest of the world is being "ordered."

The War on Democracy, however, is a hopeful film, for it sees the world not through the eyes of the powerful, but through the hopes and dreams and extraordinary actions of ordinary people. Although set mostly in Latin America, it is a metaphor for all the world.


Award winning journalist John Pilger examines the role of Washington in America's manipulation of Latin American politics during the last 50 years leading up to the struggle by ordinary people to free themselves from poverty and racism. Since the mid 19th Century Latin America has been the 'backyard' of the US, a collection of mostly vassal states whose compliant and often brutal regimes have reinforced the 'invisibility' of their majority peoples. The film reveals similar CIA policies to be continuing in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon. The rise of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez despite ongoing Washington backed efforts to unseat him in spite of his overwhelming mass popularity, is democratic in a way that we have forgotten or abandoned in the west. True Democracy being a solid 80% voter turnout in support of Chavez in over 6 elections. Written by David Blake

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

I would suggest making a correction with the current capitalist system by placing a small cap on sales profits between all points of buy and sell . Without actually replacing the whole system with an alternative; at least not at this point.

[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 12 years ago

Capitalism has no flaws, the bank bailouts was a socialist act.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

why did they need bailouts? does that not point back to a flaw in capitalism ?

[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 12 years ago

In capitalism the business would have crashed and burned, there wouldn't be a bailout, the corporation would either merge or file chapter 11.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

and .. that isn't a problem/ flaw ?

[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 12 years ago

No, because if the business can't make money they are force to do things that will make money and for consumers to buy such as being honest, selling good products, or polite customer service.

Today Socialism and Capitalism holds hands in America and Business is receiving the benefits of both without the pitfalls. On one hand they are making huge profits with Capitalism and on the other using Socialism to avoid the pitfalls of reckless corporate operations that would otherwise get them canned under a full Capitalistic culture.

They also eliminate competitors by regulating and installing licences for such operations

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

would you say socialism has a kind hand ?

[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 12 years ago

I'm American, I want to make the money and live good just like the next guy, but right now America is a hot mess, mainly due to crooked bureaucrats, over saturated foreigners, and regulation after regulation that has made it almost impossible for an average man to become rich but only on reality t.v shows.

30 to 50 years ago when Capitalism was on top, American's could easier apply for welfare, there was many inexpensive trade programs, Corporations trained their employees on the job.

These days because socialism and it's twin brother communism has showed it's ugly head in the American culture. Now it is extremely hard to get public assistance (You have to work), Businesses no longer train you on the job at the corporate level, you have to pull out your own money to go to 'College" for such skills.

Government control and regulations have strangled real Capitalistic business and among citizens themselves.

As of right now I believe in only regulating foreigners and foreign business or outsource labor.

[-] 0 points by stinkyhippy (-6) 12 years ago

The moron friendlyobserver ends it with...we need price controls...read socialism.

[-] 0 points by fightclub2012 (74) 12 years ago

what is the flaw of capitalism??? have you ever heard of africa?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

tell me what you see..

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

I have used this example b/4. you can buy a whole cooked chicken, seasoned, wrapped and packaged, enough to feed a family of 4, for $5. That means someone hatched a chck, raised the chick, fed the chick, killed the chicken, plucked it, shipped it, cleaned it and cooked it and seasoned it for $5. FIVE dollars. In FOA's world there must be exorbitant mark up in that process. Fact is, you couldnt do it that cheaply in your backyard raising the critters yourself.



[-] -1 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

of all the economic systems, capitalism is magical in its ability to unleash human potential. due to capilalism, life is ridiculously easy for Americans.

however it is terribly harsh on the slothful, lazy, and weak minded relative to high intellevt, high ambition individuals.

[-] 2 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

False - life is easy because of technology and access to energy.

[-] -1 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

Another chicken or egg post. Life is easy because due to the profit motive, there are people working to make my life insanely easy relative to lives elsewhere on this earth. There are guys drillling for oil, on my behalf. There are folks thinking of new ways to treat the scourges of disease, on my behalf. There are ridiculous quantities of fresh delicious foods at my grocer, more than any time in human history, on my behalf.

Please argue the fact that other systems not capitalism, have made the great gains, at profit, that have made your life so easy, you can spend time typing on a keyboard and send your thoughts a 1000 miles at the speed of light, because people want to profit and make my life so darn easy.

Prove me wrong.

[-] 2 points by Anachronism (225) 12 years ago

It's not a chicken egg post you are using correlative thinking (sometimes referred to magical thinking)

Peoples lives are easier because of access to technology and energy. Period. There is no dispute to the simple fact

Yes,. the industrial revolution developed under a capitalist construct. No doubt - but it's created a virtual doomsday machine for numerous reasons. We are a global social trainwreck for very simple structural reasons - if you look at the world scientifically - specifically due to capitalism's INHERENT false assumptions and blindness.

Profit motive - at this stage in our social development is the gun to the head of humanity.

[-] -1 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

A doomsday machine? Really? how? Please I need to understand this.

What is this global social trainwreck you speak of? What blindness and false assumptions? I honestly do not see what you see. I see grocery store brimming with fresh delicious foods at ludicrously cheap prices. Eggs are $1.35 a dozen for large grade AA fresh eggs. You can't raise them that cheap in your back yards. A whole cooked chicken, seasoned, is $5. That means at minimum wage, $7.25 hour deducting taxes to make it $5, you can buy a chicken to feed a family of 4 or 4 dozen eggs. Thats magical and if you can't see it or dondon't want to see it due to your the sky is falling preconcieved notion, no one can help you.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

Have you ever managed a business or owned and operated a business?

What you are saying makes no sense to a person running a business.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

a business is easy to run and with all the freedom that is why most people do it. but this does not give the business owner the right to cripple the economy with their greed.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

You didn't answer my question - have you ever managed or owned and operated a business?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

a business is a small component of civilization which affects the whole. It is at the business sales profit that we are finding has created a terrible crisis within civilization. up until now greed has gone unfettered and thus has failed to act as a proper regulator. it is imperitive to correct and cap greed at a sustainable economic level. business owners have proven to be unable to show restrain on personal greed. its comparable to speed limits. there was a time before there were limits on speed but that proved to be a hazardous safety concern , thus speed limits were employed. now it has come to be greed limits will be necessary .

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

I keep hearing you talk about "greed" but you still haven't answered my question. If a business is a "small component of civizilation" as you say then why is it an issue with you.

What you don't understand is that about 86% of the businesses in this country are "small businesses".

The fact that you can't answer my question about your "business experience" tells me you haven't a clue about what it takes to run a business.

Until you do that or until you understand what is involved in owning and running a business you will continually spew how businesses are greedy"

Let me suggest this to you - go to a local McDonalds, or a local restraunt, Starbucks or any other business you patronize and talk with the manager and ask them how many hours they put in a week to manage the business they are responsible for.

Then put a business plan together just to see what it costs to run, manage and make a profit when you own a business.

You fill find out in a hurry that the vast majority of businesses in this country aren't "greedy and making hugh profits" as you may think. .


[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

it is through the accumulation of profits that wealth has concentrated in the hands of the business person, leaving the rest of civilization struggling to maintain a healthy standard of living. perhaps you should try being a poor working man so you can understand how the greedy business person has affected civilization negatively. I understand both perspectives .. you only understand one side of this .. why? do you refuse to see the facts?

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

Everyone has an opportunity to be "successful". How do you think these people become "owners of businesses"?

They don't leave the rest of "civilization struggling". It is the person who leaves themselves struggling.

How many people do you know who are complaining have a plan to succede?

How many people do you know who graduated from college are expecting a "high paying job"

How many people do you know who want to be successful, knows that it takes not only experience but "time". It is not something that happens overnight.

If everyone was concerend about being "independent" instead of being "dependent" this country would be a better place to live.

There would be less government and less regulation. It was nowhere like this in the 50's or 60's.

Todays society wants everything for nothing - they want the government to step in and give it to them.

Our country wasn't built on that kind of thinking and as you can see that way of thinking has "stifled growth".

The people of this country are the "greedy" ones and they are the ones who want everything without having to work for it.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

placing a cap on sales profits is not asking for a free handout. it is simply a long needed regulation which will provide a level distribution of wealth. as you can certainly agree the distribution of wealth is not level.with so many with nothing and an equal amount with way more than they will ever need . If a cap was placed on profits and millionaires had a reduced income .. what harm would that do?

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

Let me ask you - who are you talking about when you say the "wealthy" Please define that for me for I am not sure you know.

Also tell me what your definition of "profit" is and how it applies to a business.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

SyeveKJR, until you realize there is an unfair distribution of wealth, you will not understand nor consider solutions.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

Threre is not a "unfair distribution of wealth". It's all in a persons mind. I never had a problem making money, never had a problem getting a job and never had a problem wanting whatever I wanted.

You like lots of people are "brainwashed" by our society to have a "needy feeling" instead of an "independent" feeling.

I wonder if you would be able to survive for more then 3 or 4 days should this country suffer a major catastrophy - Katrina showed just what our society is about.

Stop thinking about what others have and go out "do what you need to do to become successful".

Do you really know how to do that? Do you really understand what it takes to become successful without worrying about what others have Learn to be independent and stop worrying about what others have and you will be much happier.

I am and I have everything in life I want and am in the process of getting more.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 12 years ago

Because of my altruisitic nature I can never live happily with enormous wealth while others go suffering and hungry ..

my measurement of success is not personal wealth , but equality and fairness for everyone. where we can all live a happy prosperous life.

for you to say there is no " unfair distribution of wealth " is clearly why you miss the entire point of this discussion

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

You have to understand that there is no such thing as "equality and fairness" in todays society. The next guy will pick your pocket if he has the opportunity.

Go to a 3rd world country and see how things are there - lot different then here.

I clearly don't miss the point - I don't care about the wealthy becaue I know if I want to become monitarily rich, I can. If I want to have wealth I can, If I want to be poor I can - those are the options that everyone in this country has and if they don't want to take advantage of them then I can't do it for them and "neither can you.

I am not sure how old you are but if you continue with looking at your life from this perspective you will be gravely disappointed and always be depressed - be concerned about yourself and if you desire to help others then do so but you can't change the way the world is. .


[-] -1 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

FOA is frustrated to the point of mental illness. he "says" he doesnt want to be rich, but in the next breath bemoans uneven distribution of wealth. why would one care about others being rich, if being rich holds no appeal for oneself?

i doubt he is older than 16-18 and already he has given up, and looks to a central planning authority to save him. his mind is fertile soil for anarchists who hate america.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

its disturbing that he has already lost understanding of how rewarding personal initiative can be in a wonderful capitistic society. he would prefer we be ruled by kings. this, friends, is the danger of having unionized teachers infect our young with the disease of communism.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

Well, you got to give him the benefit and at least try to inform him that "being rich" is not a bad thing. Anyone can do it if they make their mind up to do so.

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 12 years ago

You're fucking clueless,you can't answer a simple direct question,why? Because you don't know WTF you're talking about and are just making shit up as you go along.

You haven't run a business,Govt. regs most of the time are the reasons a business has got to raise its prices because Govt. tends to always want a piece of the action.

Grow the fuck up and find out what are the facts before you post something as ridicules as this.

[-] -1 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

FOA is a person of limited wit, certainly below average, who is frustrated by the world around him, because he has no intellect to understand. he cannot comprehend simple economics, he thinks the mark up on doscretionary consumer goods is exorbitant, cannot read a balance sheet of publically traded company and refuses to even spend 10 minutes researching how little profit retailers actually make. he has no answer for a Sears or Circuit City or Bennigans declaring bankruptcy and wont answer very simple, concise questions that confuse him and dont support his inane reasoning. certainly there could be a genetic issue here, as his relatives are very dense, without even an average IQ. he admits that.

he is truly a foot soldier for liberals who easily manipulate someone as weak minded as he. he and the relatives he mentioned here are to be pitied.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

Just because someone cannot articulate doesn't mean they don't understand. Just as you know your sidestepping the point and the underlying debate by taking the lack of articulation to steer the conversation in the direction that allows you to pat yourself on the back. His lack of articulation does not invalidate the reality that wealth is becoming concentrated. Now you can argue the little tiny details in such a way to never be proven wrong, just as I can make a valid argument that the sky is actually purple. In the end you don't look any cooler or smarter, you just look like a dick.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

Where did I side step the issue? Yes wealth is being concentrated in america. since we have by a long shot the highest standard of living amongst large multi ethnic countries, is that a bad thing, since so many of our weaker minded citizens have a style of living far in excess of the same person in any other similar country.

There are really smart people who have the talent to accumulate great wealth. Whats the problem?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

Your association of intellect and capital boggles the refined mind.

Outliers: The Story of Success is a non-fiction book written by Malcolm Gladwell and published by Little, Brown and Company on November 18, 2008. In Outliers, Gladwell examines the factors that contribute to high levels of success. To support his thesis, he examines the causes of why the majority of Canadian ice hockey players are born in the first few months of the calendar year, how Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates achieved his extreme wealth, and how two people with exceptional intelligence, Christopher Langan and J. Robert Oppenheimer, end up with such vastly different fortunes. Throughout the publication, Gladwell repeatedly mentions the "10,000-Hour Rule", claiming that the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

I just now read the amazon reviews of outliers. Its an opinion piece, not science, like Jared Diamond's opinion piece, "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

10,000 hours> Hmmmm? I take it then you agree. Intellect married to ambition yields great wealth. It isnt an accident. Now just get FOA to understand that hard work with industriousness is what truly yields great wealth and we can put this to bed.

Cheers for understanding and agreeing with me.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

Now you try to equate intellect to hard work then to wealth. Your need to associate things that have no definitive relationship in order for you to grasp them, brings into question your own ability to reason.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 12 years ago

its this simple. intellect + ambition= wealth.

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 12 years ago

Great summation,totally agree.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 12 years ago

Headless: also mindless

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 12 years ago

Such a thoughtless,intellectually vapid reply. Turak,could you be the one that is mindless here?

You've just demonstrated so.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 12 years ago

no. two of the dumbest imbeciles on this forum aren't worth talking to.