Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Then buy a ticket to Venezuela and experience your paradise. People there don't waste anything, they even pick food leftovers from trash!

  2. #62
    Jesus, move to Venezuela already....
    Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Just because the Blue Wave was forecast, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    Yeah folks, he said it....

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by sam86 View Post
    its nice to know that poverty is 'low' when we also know that we are literally either 1 or 2 degree global from f8cking earth forever with no hope of repair
    let's also ignore that in entire human history, for first time ever in 2016 or 17 90% of world wealth is in control of 1%, a rate that never happened before even in most dark ages, back then there was more fair than now
    don't get it wrong, right now we advanced a lot in compare to any other time in history, but we advanced in 'both' directions, we got things better than ever, and also worst than ever, however the bad things will literally end earth, while the rich CEOs will just leave earth and inhabit mars or something, hence how 'the meek shall inherit the earth' will actually happen
    So basically you are advocating for countries to turn into Venezuela? Socialism always works in the beginning. As the state turns more into the "nanny" state and starts telling people they don't really need to eat Cows because they are harming the environment. People start to starve, companies flee your country left and right because you are taxing them at 90%, now you have a country that is out of work, starving and looking for answers to why. I'm also betting before you enact these policies you take away their right to bear arms.

  4. #64
    Over 9000! Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    9,701
    I agree with the statements about capitalism. Right now too many businesses make money by providing nothing. Banks "barrow" money with interest from the Federal reserve to sell it to you with even more interest. Federal reserve is also a private business. So we the people have to pay interest twice to be able to buy a home or a car. We have so many scammers that operate with little restrictions. Scam callers that the FCC should have put a stop to, continue to operate. Wells Fargo who seems to screw people once or twice a year and is still in business and wasn't fined into bankruptcy. Cable companies are allowed to operate without any direct competition and therefore can do and charge what they want. Lobbying is legal, which it really shouldn't. Stock market is a scam as it's like selling your company without selling your company. Lottery is a scam and 1/2.

    But these are things that can be fixed with laws and regulations with enforcement. Specifically enforcement as we have laws but they aren't enforced. Communism is not a good alternative as you're putting your faith into a government that you have no control over, assuming it's a society without a strong democracy.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    Fun fact: Adam Smith hated landlords and other forms of "rent-seeking", which is ironically mostly what we think of when we talk about "capitalism" today.

    "Real capitalism has never been tried!" kek.
    Why would a restaurant want to tie capital down on the real estate when it could have gone towards you know... the restaurant. Renting or ground leases etc serves different needs for different people. By renting, their rent is just by an operation expense instead of needig a huge equity investment. Renting makes the economy more efficient.
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Dickmann View Post
    Close, but no cigar. The lesson is "Green Jesus knows the way, infidel."

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by vashe9 View Post
    There are alternatives to capitalism AND communism.... but well "The delusional ramblings of someone who I'm guessing has never actually tried to accomplish something meaningful in their life"... okay I guess, stay in your binary world

    We only have a few decades to go if we continue wasting resources and polluting like we currenty are. But I dont care, I have no children and I'll probably die before it really happens.

    I don't even talk about climate changes, just plain pollution... The plastic continent is a thing, you can't ignore that fact. Even if you vote Trump.

    I've given up, people are such idiots anyway. Humanity DESERVES to be obliterated.

    Don't forget that capitilists countries are rich because all their shit is made in "communists" countries. Why are Iphones not made in your magnificient country but in China ?
    Because Chinese labor was competent and cheaper, that is not a product of an economic system, it's a product of global connectivity.

    Wasting resources and pollution might sound bad, but we've taken huge steps away from how it was in the 50s, and as technology keeps improving, some of the trash again gains value. Other parts will have tax funded economic inventions to be removed.

    You might not know it but this year the chemical thought responsible for the death of most insects was found and banned, 20 years ago you had the Freon gasses banned universally, what is important is that we have the industrial strength to combat pollution when it reaches dangerous levels.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by sam86 View Post
    that isn't because current society wants him to live better, this comparison makes no sense
    if a middle to lower class farmer from the 1400s was living today, he would be living far better than current middle to lower class, and if a homeless man was living in the 1400s, he would be 'living' worse than homeless back then (which was usually dead)
    This is like saying that u eat tastier food than Ceaser ever did because u are richer, u aren't, if Ceaser exist in modern age with all his power and wealth he would live 10 times better than ur life can ever be, only reason he lived the life he had is technology limit, not because he didn't want but because it was literally impossible to
    the same for ur comparison, farmers lived 'worse' because there was no other option, if there was, their lives would been better
    you missed how it was capitalist motivation that drove society forward, and is why a homeless man today is better than a middle to lower class farmer in the 1400's. innovation raises everyone. and also the concept of abundance, capitalist abundance begins surplus, and some of that surplus took the form of charitable foodbanks. in the 1400's if you had a bad crop year, and your neighbors didnt genuinely like you, then you starved. again, it waas the capitalist push of surplus amounts that raised quality of life for everyone, the realisation of surplus bringing people up led to innovation, whihc led to more capitalism. my comparison isnt wrong. year they are totally different era's, but thats because innovation and selling of surplus from innovation is why capitalism is where society strives. commuism encourages laziness, and the desire to do the expected bare minimum, with sever punihsment not too. ever been to north korea? i have, those are some "lazy" ass people when it comes to meeting their oppressive work week. the ones that hustle, are the ones who keep things kosher for the government when someone is very sick. the rest just dont do much when their dictated shift is over. (lazy is subjective here, because they are forced to work long ass hours daily, and forced to "volunteer" for sunday work, but they all do the bare minimum that their society expects of them, unless they need to maintain government favor to request a special service such as healthcare

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by vashe9 View Post
    There are alternatives to capitalism AND communism.... but well "The delusional ramblings of someone who I'm guessing has never actually tried to accomplish something meaningful in their life"... okay I guess, stay in your binary world

    We only have a few decades to go if we continue wasting resources and polluting like we currenty are. But I dont care, I have no children and I'll probably die before it really happens.

    I don't even talk about climate changes, just plain pollution... The plastic continent is a thing, you can't ignore that fact. Even if you vote Trump.

    I've given up, people are such idiots anyway. Humanity DESERVES to be obliterated.

    Don't forget that capitilists countries are rich because all their shit is made in "communists" countries. Why are Iphones not made in your magnificient country but in China ?
    You've quoted me but you seem to be talking to someone else. Nothing in what I wrote suggests a binary world. China became much more economically successful when? Oh right when they adopted elements of capitalism. You think their system isn't adding to the plastic continent? We'll both have to live in our little worlds

    OP suggested that communism is a better way to distribute chairs. Delusional is a good word for it.

  9. #69
    Capitalism have had 50 years to fix climate change and so far we have seen nothing done from them. We have known about the problem very well since around 1970 and if you think the speed of change from capitalism isnt fast enough to fix the problem, you are right it isnt fast enough to solve the problem since capitalism dont give a shit about what happens 50 years from now, the current shareholders etc are probably long gone and dead at that point and anything that hurts the bottomline short term is bad for a capitalist run business

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I see a lot of people making some pretty basic errors. The primary one is about basic definitions; "Capitalism", as a concept, is not about free market activity as a price-setting and distributory system. Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production, and specifically, the ability to profit off said means of production. Market activity predates capitalism, and capitalism has no ownership of the concept.

    Another seems to be an inconsistent application of principles. How would you pro-capitalist types feel if, say, the local mayor took 5% of the gross tax revenue in your city, and pocketed it? He's taking a "profit", no? That's the system you like. But when it's an elected official, you don't? He's corrupt and a snake and he's stealing from you? Why isn't the same argument applied to private ownership? Note that I'm asking about basic principles, here. I fully understand that private vs public is legally different, but that's a justification after the fact for the inconsistency on the principle.

    People also seem to think the choice is about free markets (capitalism) vs central planning (socialism). That's really not the case. It's not that this framing isn't an ideological battle, it's just not "capitalism vs socialism". It's "liberalism vs totalitarianism".

    Just as an example, consider a hypothetical Liberal Market Socialist nation, for a moment. "Hypothetical" because market socialism is entirely feasible, it just hasn't been used in practice, because the above conflict has swamped all discussion, from all sides.

    A liberal market socialist system would see;
    1> Companies owned by citizens, not the State. Said ownership would (in this argument) be employee-based; all employees own some number of shares in the company, with some restrictions on how wide the spread can be (25:1 as the widest gap from executives to janitors/clerks, say, to provide an example). Salaries also exist; this is separate. These are voting shares, not just ones that pay dividends, too.

    2> The market is allowed to run as freely as any in the modern era. Some necessary checks and controls by the State would exist, because without them abuse tanks the economy, but no more than exist in any modern Western nation.

    3> No shareholders/stock markets/etc. Profits are shared among those who work to produce them. Yes, this creates a lot of complex differences that I'm glossing over, because I'm not writing a comprehensive book; let's just note that I acknowledge that they would exist, but am generally in favor of the end result.

    Free markets. Focus on individual freedom, to a greater extent than modern capitalist systems can (by ensuring individual profits from your own labor, providing greater economic freedom to workers). Not a drop of "capitalism" in the concept; it's 100% socialist.
    While I'm sure this has some merit, there is a huge problem, would every employee be prepared to go into lifelong debt and live on the streets if the company failed?

    How would you innovate with 2000 people employed? "Guys, I think we as apple need to produce smartphones, it'll make us rich if we can pull it off" "No Steve, look at Microsoft, they tried and failed, I don't want to live on the streets Steve"

    The tax forms were faulty, and we are suddenly liable for 2 million in taxes, did you save your 27 000 dollar share to pay back Endus? Because we need that, now, or we are all going to prison for Tax fraud.

    Unions would be unbelievably strong, I do think they are too weak at the moment, but you could literally give yourself a 2 hour work week and run the company into the ground, then leave before it goes bankrupt. Are you still responsible then? Who is?

  11. #71
    Legendary! Zelk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Newcastle Upon Tyne
    Posts
    6,561
    ctrl + f "venezuela"
    Great to see everyone engaging with the OP's post!

  12. #72
    Banned Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    59,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Sialina View Post
    While I'm sure this has some merit, there is a huge problem, would every employee be prepared to go into lifelong debt and live on the streets if the company failed?
    You're talking about liability.

    Even in the USA, limited liability is a thing. Let's not pretend this can't be handled.

    How would you innovate with 2000 people employed? "Guys, I think we as apple need to produce smartphones, it'll make us rich if we can pull it off" "No Steve, look at Microsoft, they tried and failed, I don't want to live on the streets Steve"
    Literally already happens. The only difference is those responsible for making that decision. This is particularly true since companies don't put their entire portfolio on the line when they innovate; they test the waters first.

    The tax forms were faulty, and we are suddenly liable for 2 million in taxes, did you save your 27 000 dollar share to pay back Endus? Because we need that, now, or we are all going to prison for Tax fraud.
    Again, liability. Same as above. A problem that already has a solution. Also, you're making an error in assigning a dollar value to shares; that wouldn't happen in the system I proposed.

    Unions would be unbelievably strong, I do think they are too weak at the moment, but you could literally give yourself a 2 hour work week and run the company into the ground, then leave before it goes bankrupt. Are you still responsible then? Who is?
    That kind of stuff literally happens, with vulture capitalism, right now. And there's no liability to the executive doing it. They profit off the process, in fact.

    Workers doing the same thing just put themselves out of a job. They can't "leave before it goes bankrupt"; that's just quitting your job before the company collapses. It gains you nothing. And again, you're back to talking about liability, when LLCs are already a thing, making it a pretty baseless argument.


    To expand on this liability thing, we really need to discuss what kind of liability. If we're talking financial, then the company's assets are what's on the line, not personal property of employees. If we're talking legal, yeah, if the entire staff of a company vote to have the company bribe government officials, all the staff who went along with that should face penalties. I just think it's way less likely that would ever happen, whereas now, a few executives can vote to do so and hide it.
    Last edited by Endus; 2019-04-04 at 04:36 PM.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Sialina View Post
    While I'm sure this has some merit, there is a huge problem, would every employee be prepared to go into lifelong debt and live on the streets if the company failed?

    How would you innovate with 2000 people employed? "Guys, I think we as apple need to produce smartphones, it'll make us rich if we can pull it off" "No Steve, look at Microsoft, they tried and failed, I don't want to live on the streets Steve"

    The tax forms were faulty, and we are suddenly liable for 2 million in taxes, did you save your 27 000 dollar share to pay back Endus? Because we need that, now, or we are all going to prison for Tax fraud.

    Unions would be unbelievably strong, I do think they are too weak at the moment, but you could literally give yourself a 2 hour work week and run the company into the ground, then leave before it goes bankrupt. Are you still responsible then? Who is?
    The last assumption about unions is a weird one. In my last job we worked in partnership with our unions, allowed employees to participate in business decisions, and part of the reason it worked really well is that the union is comprised of people who want to remain employed. They don't do dumb shit like give themselves 2 hour workweeks because they want the business to be a success. The idea that only management/executives have the wisdom to make strategic decisions is flat wrong.

  14. #74
    Stood in the Fire BlackBoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Savannah
    Posts
    399
    Capitalism has no interest in anything that's not about making money.
    CPU :- Intel i7-4970k
    Ram :- 16 GB avexir dragon RAM
    Mobo :- Asus Maximus 7 Formula
    GPU :- MSI GTX 980 (X2)
    Cooling :- Deepcool Captain 240

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaktar View Post
    The delusional ramblings of someone who I'm guessing has never actually tried to accomplish something meaningful in their life. The chair example is hilarious. Communism proposes what: a planning committee which sets the number of chairs each year? I'm sure that will end well for people who want to sit. Results speak for themselves - capitalism isn't perfect, should never be used in place of an ethical compass, and yet is a necessary component for any entity which wishes to be economically relevant.
    That depends on how you define "meaningful". For me "meaningful" consists of being compassionate, respectable, and trustworthy. Having empathy, integrity, reliability and dependability. Then again, for me "success" has nothing to do with money. Having money falls under the category of "fortunate".

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Surreality View Post
    That depends on how you define "meaningful". For me "meaningful" consists of being compassionate, respectable, and trustworthy. Having empathy, integrity, reliability and dependability. Then again, for me "success" has nothing to do with money. Having money falls under the category of "fortunate".
    To be clear in what I'm referencing, it's the notion that some kind of central planning committee/expert can make broad decisions for people's lives and this will work out well. If you've ever tried to run a large scale operation then you can easily see the pitfalls of such thinking. By meaningful I mean: something in which numerous people have competing interests in the results of what you're trying to accomplish (being an economy's central planner, etc). An academic making vital decisions using nothing but ironclad ethics and deep knowledge as their guides is the kind of pure fantasy which people with little/no real world experience enjoy. None of this is to say that our existing system is perfect; it's not even to say that there isn't a huge amount of room for evolution and optimization; just that what OP proposes is not the right path.
    Last edited by Zaktar; 2019-04-04 at 05:37 PM.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You're talking about liability.

    Even in the USA, limited liability is a thing. Let's not pretend this can't be handled.
    Its not about liability. Its about deciding to take the company in the wrong direction which cause the company to go bankrupt. The reason why some people dont own their own companies is because of the volatility. At any moment you could end up with nothing. Law Suit, failure to respond to the market, failed product release etc. As people get older, get married have kids etcs.. people generally become more risk adverse. If you have equal stock in a company, you also have equal success and failure in it.

    I think it is a great idea to encourage it but I am not sure it can be mandated.

    Corporatism aside.
    Kara Swisher: What do you think about Cory Booker saying kick them in the shins?
    Hillary Clinton: Well, that was Eric Holder.
    Kara Swisher: Eric Holder, oh, Eric Holder, sorry.
    Hillary Clinton: Yeah, I know they all look alike.

  18. #78
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alpha Quadrant
    Posts
    572
    So many people in this thread are completely ignorant of history. No wonder we're going to repeat it.

  19. #79
    I am Murloc! Ealyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Switzerland, Geneva
    Posts
    5,720
    Love the confusion between market economy and capitalism.
    Quote Originally Posted by primalmatter View Post
    nazi is not the abbreviation of national socialism....
    When googling 4 letters is asking too much fact-checking.

  20. #80
    Single payer systems have significantly more potential that competitive systems. Everyone knows this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •