All economic systems end, including capitalism

[Kerpal]

So the plan is to sit in a park until the Fed decides to do what you say?

Somehow I don't think this strategy is going to be very effective

 

[JustLurk]

Just because you see a shiny object next to dull ones, it does not mean the shiny object made them that way. The same logic goes with Businesses. They did not get wealthy by seizing it, they got wealthy by producing items that people want or need and then selling it. Nothing wrong with that at all.

A power system was taken advantage of to sell the natural resources of an entire nation, with the proceeds pocketed by the ruling elite. Business, partly owned by these powerful elites, took resources and then used these resources as products in their business. When the people don't like that, well, then the men with guns. Or the order can just be switched on that. My point is that, while real businesses don't bring men with guns, a lot of businesses have taken advantage of the natural resources of various undeveloped countried through the direct or indirect use of men with guns or other political power system abuse. If these businesses do not quality as businesses under your definition, then your definition is unfortunately not the ones in use today. The history of several large businesses contain these actions, and are yet referred to as businesses and not pirates. (Amusningly enough, copyright violators are referred to as pirates instead.)

They did not get wealthy by seizing it, they got wealthy by producing items that people want or need and then selling it.

Some companies got wealthy by seizing resources. Some then used the resources and some just sold them. All businesses take advantage. Otherwise, they would fail. It may be that the advantage has a positive net effect for the society the business came to or it may not. In undeveloped countries with weak governments, the power of business often allowed them to take advantage in ways that had a negative net effect. You have to consider that this creation of value system and selling as needed has a slight catch sometimes, and it's the people at the bottom of the food chain that suffer for it. Sometimes, they get a good deal and get paid. Sometimes, businesses employ thugs or indirectly support dictators to uphold regimes in which it is more profitable for them to operate their business.

by producing items that people want or need and then selling it.

Look at businesses throughout history. Tell me that nothing's wrong with doing the above. Let's take some examples. IG Farben manufactued Zyklon B, used in concentration camps during the Holocause to kill Jews. By noting the for-profit nature of the companies, you may be trying to show them in a non-marvolent light, but the problem is the very for-profit nature of these large companies has led them to consider profit over their consumers, often deceiving them or cutting corners to turn larger profits. They also have a nasty tendency to not discriminate against whoever has the cash, even selling to some less-than-optimal people. Cisco, for example, just produces items that people, like China, needs to keep up censorship. Let's see your quote again:

they got wealthy by producing items that people want or need and then selling it. Nothing wrong with that at all.

EDIT:

I do not disagree that Businesses can purchase Government officials, but that begs the question of where the problem was in the first place? The officials were purchaseable long before the Business arrived I'm sure.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they were pressured. Either way, whether the door's open or you pick it when you break into a house to steal someone's plasma TV, it's still theft. Even if the officials were on the market, so to speak, it would still be the (Illegal) fault of businesses to buy them up.

 

[synergy1]

People are always asking, "What should the government do to fix the economy?" And then I hear a whole bunch of ridiculous sh!t. As far as the economy is concerned, all the government has to do is GET THE FVCK OUT OF THE WAY AND LET THE MEN OF VALUE PROVE THEIR WORTH. That is the only way to get America back on the right track; all the government has to do is get out of the way and do nothing! Damn!

I am going to finish atlas shrugged shortly, so i'll reserve my analysis for when I am complete. While I do not totally agree with the premise, I see many similarities. I understand alusions are used to make a point, one thing they do not mention is what some monopolistic companies do that are negative. As much as I hate government regulation, its not quite all or nothing. If there was no regulation what so ever, what would stop oil companies from making a mess where they were, or from natural gas companies fraking and not completely messing up the local water supplies? While I am not for the strong to support the leeching weak, but I don't think the weak deserve the shaft merely because they are in the way of companies resources. There has to be a little responsibility on the end of the corporations.

No ideological system is perfect. Capitolism has its merits, but its pitfalls too. Why? because all casts are greedy. People who do not deserve handouts will strive to get them. People at the heads of corporations will always try and make sure more money stays in the company rather than is wasted on salaries. Its a two way street which is something atlas shrugged does not cover.

There is a passage in the book that holds true, and its when they are ( I think) announcing weapon X - the professor keeps saying ' this is what happens when you are dealing with people' At the end of the day , its not so much an ideological system thats the problem so much as it is the people.

 

[JustLurk]

Your points above are well taken.

I should perhaps clarify what I mean when I say "Business". I mean a Corporation that employs the practice of free-market capitalism, which is the point of this thread. Of course any entity that steals from a populace by the point of a gun or enables the enslavement of people is not what I am talking about. That is not Capitalism!

Capitalism is not to blame for any of the items above, with perhaps the exception of Cisco and China, but again, the China Government is the root cause of that problem, although I would agree that Cisco is not blameless.

Capitalism is the savior of mankind, not the evil that so many ignorant people think it to be. EVERY single piece of wealth around you was created and permissable only by Capitalism. Take away Capitalism and welcome back to the Dark Ages, because it WILL come.

It most Certainly is not the fault of Businesses when Politicians are for sale. If you got rid of the Businesses, the Politicians are STILL for sale. THIS is why you limit Government power. By doing so, you limit the amount of favors for sale. This is why people that love freedom advocate LESS Government interference in Capitalism.

It is a simple equation.

More Government = More corruptable, purchaseable power
Less Capitalism = Less property rights, less generation of wealth

That is clearly the wrong direction for anyone who has a grasp on how wealth is created and retained in a society.

This is theoretically very true. In practice, capitalism can invest power in certain business structures and get them to do this: :kick" xD
It would be very nice if capitalism rewarded moral behaviours over profit-generating motivations. While this may be true for the long term of business (And some small/ethical businesses know that and can be helpful.) it does not apply for the majority of businesses to choose moral choices over profit. My point is that the capitalism system, without regulation by a hard-to-corrupt 3rd party, tends to fall into a profit-over-ethics mindset.

I should perhaps clarify what I mean when I say "Business". I mean a Corporation that employs the practice of free-market capitalism, which is the point of this thread. .

You're entirely correct in your post. The only problem is that your true corporations are rare.

 

[JustLurk]

The weakness of our Corporate structure, is that when things go bad, such as a Company dumping toxic chemicals, often there is only a fine involved and no criminal time served. Changing this to so that certain people in charge get prison time would go a LONG way in fixing those sorts of problems.

It would. But wouldn't that require a strong enough government? An interesting situation is like China's, where instead of time served, such a businessperson could be executed. Yet China is in posession of a strong government and, in some cases, poor regulation. Hmm.

But again, that comes down to Governments and corruption. As long as favors are for sale, and as long as we continually increase the size of Government, the problems will only get worse. There is no other alternative.

An uncorrupt government is very important, of course. On the other hand, too weak a government and they would have no teeth to rein in businesses that put profit over morals. Of course, then there's the big question: how do you have a government free of corruption?

But weaker government won't rein in bad business. That's the problem. Of course, strong governments are often in bed with bad businesses. :/

 

[Cry For Love]

It would. But wouldn't that require a strong enough government? An interesting situation is like China's, where instead of time served, such a businessperson could be executed. Yet China is in posession of a strong government and, in some cases, poor regulation. Hmm.
An uncorrupt government is very important, of course. On the other hand, too weak a government and they would have no teeth to rein in businesses that put profit over morals. Of course, then there's the big question: how do you have a government free of corruption?

But weaker government won't rein in bad business. That's the problem. Of course, strong governments are often in bed with bad businesses. :/

Hilarious argument. Reining in profit seeking firms. The whole reason why government fails at everything as a producer is because it doesnt have profits. A surplus in receits goes to no one, so even an accounting "profit" in a government isnt a profit. And without profit, it is impossible to guide allocation of capital to ends desired by consumers.

 

[Drdeee]

Capitalism will never end! Even during Soviet rule in USSR, now Russia, capitalism existed, there were always people who'd want to sell you something in deficit for a profit, they called them speculators, and they executed a lot of them, but at the end, those pesky speculators convinced some pensioners and students take down the government. Now every babushka has a place she could sell her sh1t at, to you! Capitalism even existed during our caveman times. They called it trade back then.

The problem is not Capitalism, not even Communism, Fascism, or Cannibalism. The problem is not the system that rules us. The problem is the treadmill system, we call money. A few wealthy people control how much money is printed, and thus they control governments, and us. They own the media which tells us exactly what and how to think, and we pay money for it, it's called cable bill. That's the real problem.

Money is debt, and debt is a modern form of slavery. I want money that does not depreciate! I want money based on gold standard. I want money which is issued by open and transparent system, NOT a private corporation! I don't want FEDEx people tell me when the next crisis happens. FEDEx, as in Federal Express the package shipping company, because the FED, is just a corporation, just like FEDEx. Bunch of rich people print money and invent policies. They dictate if you poor, doing good, rich, or homeless.

Watch this film called The American Dream http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU&feature=player_embedded

 

[synergy1]

call it money, gold back currency, wompum or whatever, human beings have an hierarchical structure wherein only a smaller few will control a larger percentage of the power. A true system of equality is a pipe dream as those with talent and ability to acquire will never abdicate what they have earned for the sake of the masses. While I don't agree with excessive greed in my own moral framework, it is a natural human instinct that we can not deny. While a good portion of money percolates to the top 10%, this is because the bottom 90% are unable to acquire it - they don't have the tools to do so otherwise they would. I feel some aspects of socialism are an attempt to seize power and is no different than the powerful trying to keep theirs.

Humans will always be in debt or slavery to others with more. It doesn't matter what medium you elect to use as a currency. There will always be the haves and have nots - those with minimal intelligence or drive will usually have not, and those with the means and drive will.

 

[r0cky]

call it money, gold back currency, wompum or whatever, human beings have an hierarchical structure wherein only a smaller few will control a larger percentage of the power. A true system of equality is a pipe dream as those with talent and ability to acquire will never abdicate what they have earned for the sake of the masses. While I don't agree with excessive greed in my own moral framework, it is a natural human instinct that we can not deny. While a good portion of money percolates to the top 10%, this is because the bottom 90% are unable to acquire it - they don't have the tools to do so otherwise they would. I feel some aspects of socialism are an attempt to seize power and is no different than the powerful trying to keep theirs.

Humans will always be in debt or slavery to others with more. It doesn't matter what medium you elect to use as a currency. There will always be the haves and have nots - those with minimal intelligence or drive will usually have not, and those with the means and drive will.

You've pretty much summarized the history of the world. I think anyone with a basic highschool education is aware of this.

The protests going on around the world shows that the people are waking up. They realize that capitalism has not made society any better than it was 600 years ago. The new paradigm is coming, and the people are slowly getting ready to accept it.

 

[JustLurk]

Also, there is no need to "rein in profits". Only to criminalize certain actions as opposed to fines.

Hey! No putting words in my mouth.

Edit: Not a lot of people oppose pure capitalism. Anarchists are a possible exception. On the other hand, there is no such thing as pure capitalism on a large scale. Due to human nature and corruption, it is currently pretty much impossible to have "pure" capitalism on a large scale. Corruption, use/abuse of political power systems, oligarchies in certain countries, international price fixing, and various other pieces of s*it has rendered the system of international "capitalism" far from actual capitalism.

The "capitalism" they oppose is not true capitalism, but the capitalism the world has thrust upon them. This "capitalism" f*cking stinks.

It's like opposing communism, using the examples of the "communist" governments of China and USSR. Of course, just like theoretical capitalism != actual capitalism, theoretical communism != actual communism.

You can extol the virtues of pure capitalism all you want. Show us where it exists in large scale first.

 

[Kerpal]

I agree that we have never had true Capitalism. That is a large part of my beef with the people that go on calling it a failure or that it needs to go. Very ignorant statements by people who's ultimate goal really boils down to "seizing wealth".

+1

It's really irritating. I think someone already wrote this but it bears repeating; It's like me claiming that the fall of the USSR proves that Communism doesn't work, when they were not even close to true Communism.

 

[r0cky]

+1

It's really irritating. I think someone already wrote this but it bears repeating; It's like me claiming that the fall of the USSR proves that Communism doesn't work, when they were not even close to true Communism.

So you're saying that communism does work?

In that case any economic system can work as long as it is not applied by emotional beings.

Which means that we should come with a system that isnt really a system.helping.

 

[JustLurk]

I personally think you shouldn't be defending a theory to people complaining about what it turned out to be in practice. Unless you have a way to fix the "capitalist" system it should not be coddled.

The fall of the USSR did actually illustrate a flaw of the theory of communism, mainly how people abuse the system to seize illicit power, just like the capitalist system.

 

[Kerpal]

So you're saying that communism does work?

You'd have to define "work" in order for me to answer that question. It's like when people say that the US can still "win" in Afghanistan and Iraq. What is a "win"?

BTW, how's that protest going? Still camped out in that park? :crackup:

 

[Alle_Gory]

You'd have to define "work" in order for me to answer that question. It's like when people say that the US can still "win" in Afghanistan and Iraq. What is a "win"?

This is a win: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-...ages/e9ca6825-c351-4a40-b4df-cd86d8575a66.jpg

Look they have a banner and everything.

 

[PeterSiddle]

Yes,I am with you,"Cry for Love".There are always two sides of every Incidence and I think you are just considering one side of the picture while ignoring the other side...
Do consider both...
Personal Training St Kilda

 

[r0cky]

You'd have to define "work" in order for me to answer that question. It's like when people say that the US can still "win" in Afghanistan and Iraq. What is a "win"?

BTW, how's that protest going? Still camped out in that park? :crackup:

By work I mean that it succesfully accomplishes its goal. A classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production by all the people.

I think all systems can TEMPORARILY work. But the human ego always wants more. Once the system is proven to work, they always try to tweak it to make things easier or better. However, this is also our downfall. The US was doing extremely well in the middle of the century under capitalism, until Reagan came in and we essentially stopped paying the national debt.

 

[Kerpal]

By work I mean that it succesfully accomplishes its goal. A classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production by all the people.

A society based on common ownership of the means of production is possible, but it being stateless is impossible because without a state how do you force people to give up ownership of their farms and factories?

Unless of course you're talking about getting a bunch of people together, building a factory/farm and running it communally. Which I wouldn't mind if you did. If you want to start a commune that people can join voluntarily, go right ahead. Just leave me out of it.

Oh, and we will never be classless, ever. Unless some mad scientist creates a virus that restructures everyone's DNA to make them exactly the same. Some people will ALWAYS be better looking, smarter, etc. These people will rise to the top as per usual.

So are you posting on your laptop from that park in Chicago? :crackup:

 

[Alle_Gory]

The national debt has been on an ever increasing trend ever since the Great Depression. That is not to be laid at the feet of any administration. That is to be lain at the feet of a Fiat dollar.

To an extent. Mostly because you can just print more money. Spent all your money? Fire up the presses.

With something like gold, you would be more careful with it because it's not like you can create it out of thin air.

If all debts were paid, there would be no money in existence.

Uhhh... deffinetly not. You can always print more funny money and devaulate your current debt. The inflation would reduce that trillion dollar debt to nothing. Zimbabwe style. I think they had a 100 trillion dollar bill at one point because of the inflation.

The other reason it would not work is because no two people are equal in abilities. Some deserve more than others, and if you give the same no matter what, people will shirk their duties.

The system is fine as it is. On paper it works. In reality there is much corruption and people aren't held responsible for their actions. If they were, everything would be better.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Show me one way in the US that money is created without debt attached to it (or anywhere for that matter).

Bailouts. That money was created without debt behind it, it was free money to "stimulate" the economy.

Some of it was structured as a loan with ridiculous payback terms and the rest simply dissapeared into various businesses and has been hard to track. Realistically, it was free money.