Forum menu
kaesae - if it isn't the right answer, what is? I've not seen your manifesto for the alternative, but is that because it is easier to just throw stones at what is there?
Capitalism with greater regulation, the free market is only good for those controlling the companies. And profit should be kept out of public services.
TooTall - Member
kaesae - if it isn't the right answer, what is? I've not seen your manifesto for the alternative, but is that because it is easier to just throw stones at what is there?
Even if I had the answer, how would you propose I implement it?
The point of this thread isn't to massage my ego, it's to raise awareness for the issue and see what solutions can be put forwards.
I have already said that capitalism has some very good aspects, however the current system of hyper capitalism where the lust for wealth and power has created a vacuum of instability and has also created a system where by the negative effects on the planet or environment and the peoples living on it, far outweigh the positive.
This cannot be allowed to continue as it makes it less likely that we as a species will survive. I have also said that we as consumers can decide which companies and organisations to support and should be looking to have a greater say in where the resources are going and what is being done with them.
In short my point is this, if change is to happen it must be a conscious swing towards all of us being involved in that change, yes it will take a great amount of work. That said the, let us do your thinking for you! way of life that capitalism has always relied on and that hyper capitalism now promotes so skillfully, is simply not working.
Lifer - Member
Capitalism with greater regulation, the free market is only good for those controlling the companies. And profit should be kept out of public services.
We cannot wait for these fools and their allies in politics to regulate themselves. It simply will not happen, we need to actively decide if and where we give support to companies and organizations.
Having come to this thread v late (probably good thing in terms of avoiding ego massaging and bottom smelling) I think the point about capitalism is this - it's crap, it leads to disproportion and increasing inequality (and equality, as we now know, is an index of how happiness is perceived), not to mention periodic catastrophic crisis, starvation and war. It's not that 'there's no alternative', but that the political and ideological apparatus of capitalism worldwide does everything in its power to strangle and pervert all possible alternatives at birth...........its ideological power is immense and it is this which keeps our brains enslaved and unable of being able to conceive of a world without the profit motive.
OK all you neo-cons and right wing goons - come and get me!
and equality, as we now know, is an index of how happiness is perceived
Is it ? really ? acording to whose worldview ? I should imagine there are vast swathes of humanity for whom the concept has little meaning towards their happiness.
in fact the concept of hapiness being linked to gdp or any other kind of economic stats form the basis of the argument for capitalism that you seem to be arguing against.
confused, devon.
it's crap, it leads to disproportion and increasing inequality (and equality, as we now know, is an index of how happiness is perceived),
As already mentioned on the thread, the concept that its ok for the poor to be poorer as long as the rich are less rich is pointless -The truth is that the wealthier those around you are, the better off you are. This is very important. The more wealth your neighbours have, the more they can buy. The economies of scale drive prices down, increasing your standard of living, and decreasing your cost of capital so you can increase your productivity and further increase your standard of living. One man possessing enormous wealth does in no way negatively affect any other people, unless he uses that wealth as a means to initiate force.
The saying should be: the rich get richer and the poor get richer. Everyone gets richer under capitalism where they are free to do so.
not to mention periodic catastrophic crisis,
A squirrel collects nuts for the winter, if he works hard and collects enough he has enough to last him till next spring - does this repeated boom and bust cycle indicate that nature, as a system, does not work?
starvation
Name a capitalist democracy that has suffered a famine? I can point you towards more than enough communist famines...
and war.
Free trade stops wars!... And we figure out a way to fix the rest
It's not that 'there's no alternative', but that the political and ideological apparatus of capitalism worldwide does everything in its power to strangle and pervert all possible alternatives at birth... its ideological power is immense and it is this which keeps our brains enslaved and unable of being able to conceive of a world without the profit motive.
Can you point me towards a single communist democracy? I do not recall West Berliners being shot for trying to escape the evil capitalist West!
[i]Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind...![/i]
There are problems with managed economies. There are other problems with un-managed economies.
So, the problem is with economies. I wonder if it went wrong when someone invented money.
it [capitalism] leads to disproportion and increasing inequality (and equality, as we now know, is an index of how happiness is perceived), not to mention periodic catastrophic crisis, starvation and war.
War (or conflict) seems to have been a part of human history since the beginning. Inequality very likely has as well. Starvation a function of capitalism? China, North Korea and Ethiopia's recent experiences with famine don't tell me that story, but I'm open to the idea that I'm misremembering things I didn't know that much about in the first place.
Oh, and a secular 'Amen' to the thought above that there's nothing like free trade to make folk friendly!
It's not that 'there's no alternative', but that the political and ideological apparatus of capitalism worldwide does everything in its power to strangle and pervert all possible alternatives at birth...........its ideological power is immense and it is this which keeps our brains enslaved and unable of being able to conceive of a world without the profit motive.
I have no idea where to begin regarding possible alternatives - any reading on thinking that has been done on this would be appreciated but right now I can't think of a better system than capitalism for dragging standards of living uphill. And IMO alternatives would need to bear in mind that human nature isn't evolving - the alternative would need to take us as we are.
Maybe a simpler question, is it possible to "conceive a world without the profit motive" while still keeping (broadly speaking) my current lifestyle (bike bits, food from a supermarket, lovefilm, etc)?
The saying should be: the rich get richer and the poor get richer. Everyone gets richer under capitalism where they are free to do so.
Ah, see here's the thing; 'where they are [i]free[/i] to do so'.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
One man possessing enormous wealth does in no way negatively affect any other people,
how can the man posses great wealth without me[us] being worse off?
imagine I work in the factory - they could give up the great wealth and pay me/us more for example
If we have 100 nuts and 5 squirrels and one of them has 65 nuts are the others squirrels really no worse off because of it's great wealth compared to sharing the nuts equally? Comparing capitalsim to a squirrel collecting nuts made me smile but it is nuts.
IGMC
[img] 
[/img]
Problem there Junky is that rich squirrels great, great granddad, instead of eating one of his nuts, planted it in the ground - Its called return on investment, without that return there would be no incentive to plant the nut and grow the tree - he might as well have just eaten the nut himself...
and if granddad hadn't planted the tree in the first place, [b]you[/b] would have no 'king nuts at all 😉
The real beauty of capitalism, is that the squirrel with 65 nuts now has more nuts than he can eat himself, so goes and plants five of them in the ground, so in a few years theres more trees and more nuts than ever before - and you know the other beauty of capitalism, you and a few of the other squirrels could go and plant a nut yourself, and go into competition with him by growing your own tree!
Elfin - Yes, capitalism is clearly to blame for the existence of a trade that has gone on for thousands of years and in every single major society from the Egyptians to the Romans and Ancient greece, but was outlawed and prevented by force only under the Globally Capitalist society of the British Empire...
That is a fascinating ramble there but you omitted to just answer the question - with the unequal sharing of the nuts how are the others not worse of as you claim ?
The real beauty of capitalism, is that the squirrel with 65 nuts now has more nuts than he can eat himself, so goes and plants five of them in the ground,
Whilst the others who, whilst apparently not being negatively affected by this, cannot survive the winter and starve- that is the very ugly side of inequitious wealth distribution inherent in capitalism. I assume you can see plenty examples in the real world we live in - Elfin even gave you a picture to help
No one in their right mind could argue. That wasting so much human life, which is our greatest resource, could be anything other than illogical and psychotic.
The assumption is that our evolution over the last few hundred years has been fuelled by capitalism, that somehow it is responsible for our technological advancement.
It could also be argued that without war, we would be far less advanced technologically, however if starvation and oppression, if tyranny and injustice is what humanity needs to motivate it, then humanity has gone mad.
To propose, that the capacity to accomplish all that we as a race have. Only exists when you have capitalism to drive our race, is for me simply preposterous.
However regardless of how we came to this point in time, we now require new leadership, that possesses great scope of vision.
We also require that we are involved in the decisions that determine the future of our race and that those who have power over us are held accountable when their actions are detrimental to our races development and evolution.
Humanity has become arrogant and complacent, the universe is a big place with a lot of change happening all the time, we have no idea what the future holds for us.
That said, if we cannot run the planet even when everything is going smoothly. What chance do we really stand if anything goes wrong?
The draw backs to the system far outweigh the advantages, for that reason alone we must look to either reform the existing system or replace it alltogether.
how are the others not worse of as you claim
Junky - without the (capitalist) incentive to plant the tree in the first place, you'd ALL be worse off, because there wouldn't be ANY nuts!
You seem to be missing the point zulu-eleven, under capitalism you would need 25 squirrels to plant the nut and at least 25% to 50% of the nuts would go missing.
Plus the other squirells would all swap their nuts for tooth pics and stab the greedy bastard to death.
If there was capitalism in the squirrel kingdom that is.
Anyone read Tony Judt's Ill Fares the Land, Postwar or the Memory Chalet? I've only read the latter, but have the other two kicking around. Great stuff.
The truth is that the wealthier those around you are, the better off you are
Mexico City (8th richest city in the World):
[url] http://www.hardrainproject.com/hrpl.php?n=1392 [/url]
Sao Paulo (10th richest city in the World):
[img] 
[/img]
Buenos Aires (13th richest city in the World):
[img] 
[/img]
Hong Kong (16th richest city in the World):
[img] 
[/img]
Mumbai (29th richest city in the World):
[img] 
[/img]
Manila (40th richest city in the World):
[img] 
[/img]
Wonders where first capitalist squirrel found first nut without capitalism to grow tree from which nut fell.
those photos are so depressing 🙁
Lifer - That is a truly fantastic post.
Right, I would never claim to be fully clued up with regard to economic theory, although Id like to think I can understand the basic principles. With all the current talk of economics etc, a question I keep coming back to is how the worlds #1 economy / economic powerhouse for most of the last century / and champion of free market economics has currently run up debts of 14 trillion...
[url= http://www.usdebtclock.org/ ]usdebtclock[/url]
Looking at the big picture, as a system for wealth creation, this capitalism idea doesn't seem entirely sustainable?
Should I start converting my lawn into a vegetable patch or a bunker?
Those photos are depressing, but are the problems of over-population really capitalism's fault?
loco, have a look here: [url= http://www.survivalistboards.com/ ]http://www.survivalistboards.com/[/url]. I've also got a link somewhere to choosing the most defensible home in a suburban development. It's US centric (so assumes US style subdivisions and ready access to weaponry), but still...
Thanks Markie, fingers crossed I can get credit/mortgage/loan for some survival equipment. 😀
but are the problems of over-population really capitalism's fault?
No, lots of factors contribute to over-population, but it wouldn't be a problem if
The truth is that the wealthier those around you are, the better off you are
Which was the point of my post.
a question I keep coming back to is how the worlds #1 economy / economic powerhouse for most of the last century / and champion of free market economics has currently run up debts of 14 trillion...
I return to my previous point regards boom and bust being a natural cycle!
Lifer - on all those cites you've posted, I'd point you towards the comparative conditions in the countryside for rural villagers in the same countries!
Wonders where first capitalist squirrel found first nut without capitalism to grow tree from which nut fell
Junky, in case the other squirrels haven't noticed, in great great granddads days, the population of squirrels in the wood was a quarter of what it is now - and there was only one nut tree... if it wasn't for g.g.granddad's dream of owning his own nut tree, there would still only be one nut tree in the wood, and there would be less nuts per squirrel... any other squirrel could have planted one of their nuts, but they ate them themselves, they were not willing to take the risk!
obviously, some squirrels have noticed that recently owl populations have risen, and have connected the increase in nut trees to rising owl numbers, showing that they cause global hooting, and are currently campaigning against planting any more nut trees!
Ah yes - 'human nature'. Now there's a thing............is it really that human nature is this fixed unevolvable set of 'me-me-me's (and screw the rest of you)', or is it that human nature is a set of variables which changes as the social and economic context changes - but we've been so stuck for so long in the capitalist context that we accept what the system's ideological enforcers tell us when they say 'you can't change human nature'?
There's been a lot of interesting research recently about altruism in both animal and human behaviour (which I am too much of a techno-dunce to get links to on this site)..........makes you think though, cos if we are so immutably selfish and hard-wired for personal (not collective) gain, why is there continuing evidence of unselfish acts?
C'mon Zulu, Stoner et al - you didn't disappoint me last time. Allow yourselves to be goaded again!
Boom and bust, don't you mean delusion then reality?
Capitalism only works if a bunch of fools buy an even bigger bunch of junk, they don't really need.
The problem is that people are sick of the system and are refusing to buy shite anymore.
Hence the reason we are not recovering from the recession, no argument in the defense of capitalism can hold up'
The state of the global economy and environment, as well as the poor quality of life due to poverty in developing countries and stress depression and mental I'll health in wealthier countries, means it is no longer a viable system.
The only question now, is how do we regain control of the resources of our species, from the deranged lunatics who now squander them?
I dunno about you. But I've got this picture of Kaesae winning the euro millions and buying a million bearings to inspect, then spreading the rest of the cash around to the needy. Bless ya m8 🙂
I return to my previous point regards boom and bust being a natural cycle!
What, nothing to do with the exploitation of foreign lands and the enslavement of their peoples then?
Do you have any idea why Britain became such a Global power? Why we all still live in relative luxury while half the World gets **** all? Why you can ride a nice mountain bike? How you came to have such a decent standard of education? Because others were denied basic essentials to prioovide Britain with luxuries, that's why.
Capitalism is all about making the few rich at the expense of the many. Even you know that.
Britain is in debt because it can no longer exploit the labour and resources of it's former empire, and produces bugger all itself any more. Britain never produced sufficient for it's own needs within it's own borders, not within the Modern era anyway; it simply took, by force, that which it wanted from others. Now we can no longer exploit the Darkies, and no longer even produce anything worth selling, we're stuffed. And now the Darkies can do the same jobs we do, only far cheaper. Cue time for another War to secure precious resources, then....
Why does my iTunes on random shuffle keep playing Joy Division? ❓
What, 'Love Will Tear Us Apart...'?
Bizarre.
I'm sure they wrote 'Agadoo' in their spare time. 😀
Britain is in debt because it can no longer exploit the labour and resources of it's former empire, and produces bugger all itself any more.
Part truth, part falsehood, part somewhere inbetween.
Britain continues to exploit countries abroad specifically the labour of global South countries who provide the cheap consumer goods at prices that we can't afford to produce ourselves. At the same time we fill our shops and keep our economy ticking over without going beyond the carbon limitations of Kyoto.
Imperialism isn't over it just evolved.
Lifer - on all those cites you've posted, I'd point you towards the comparative conditions in the countryside for rural villagers in the same countries!
Eh? You said that people close to wealth get the benefit of it, and I showed that's monkey balls.
And in your Squirrel/Nut analogy Squirrels not related to Grandad would have to collect the nuts/clean the nest in order to earn some from Grandad's family, who are the ones who decide the value of a collecter/cleaner's time (depending on how many surplus nuts there are, or rather how many nuts Grandad's family decide are surplus).
Maybe over time a clever squirrel would weave a sack from grass which meant they could collect more nuts before returning to the warehouse, and as there are only so many nuts needed there would be too many squirrels collecting, and some would lose their role and have no means of earning nuts. But Grandad and his family would be okay sitting on their massive pile of nuts so never mind the others.
Kevevs - Member
I dunno about you. But I've got this picture of Kaesae winning the euro millions and buying a million bearings to inspect, then spreading the rest of the cash around to the needy. Bless ya m8
Odd! my fantasies include gorgeous women serving me cold beer on warm breasts 😉
And although I like to help people, I'm too much of a realist, so the chances of me giving my money away rather than reinvesting it in humanity as much as I can, isn't going to happen any time soon.
Every individual and nation in the world has great potential, if I do all I can to help them realize that potential, I do all I can to ensure the survival of our species and my own survival as well.
I simply see it as humanity verses the universe or creation, why do I choose to see it like that?
Because me verses the universe, is a truly scary thought!
Lifer - the people in those cities are (generally) better off than those in the countryside - as a (general) rule, thats why they and their families moved to the cities.
Lets evaluate your alternative - maybe a quick look at the non capitalist utopia's that we see in China, North Korea and Cuba... The squirrels don't appear too happy there do they?
Elfin - do you [i]really[/i] think that India would be in a better state without the infrastructure and cultural legacy of Empire?
Kaesae
Boom and bust, don't you mean delusion then reality?
Yes, I'm sure that the Lemmings are just deluding themselves over boom and bust:
[img] 
[/img]
"Lifer - on all those cites you've posted, I'd point you towards the comparative conditions in the countryside for rural villagers in the same countries!"
Eh? You said that people close to wealth get the benefit of it, and I showed that's monkey balls
You might have thought you showed that, but did you actually read what you just quoted? If those living in the relatively rich cities are better off than those living in the same countries outside those cities, then however badly they are off in an absolute sense, that actually quite neatly proves the point that you're better off being close to wealth.
Those pictures are very sad, but they really don't prove anything at all. I mean I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find a picture of people living in poverty in wonderful (ironic) London. There is poverty everywhere - the point of the original suggestion is that poverty is decreased by others being wealthy, not that it's totally eliminated. The trouble is, in situations like those capitalism and the wealth of others is insufficient in itself to bring people up to a decent standard of living, even if it makes things better than they might otherwise have been.
On the squirrel analogy - it's a really rubbish analogy, as there's not a fixed supply of money in the same way there's a fixed supply of nuts (certainly not within a community as small as a town). The thing is, the big boss might now have 100 nuts where he only had 50 before, but due to wealth he's created, and his reliance on the workers to make him more, they now have 6 nuts rather than the 5 they had before. The inequality might have increased, but you'd really have to be special to argue that therefore the workers are worse off than they were before.
I refer you all to Dervla Murphy's book 'Full Tilt'
One womans adventure (by bicycle) through lands (at the time the book was published) still fairly unsullied by the Empirical overseers capitalist nightmare..
Places where it would appear that life is a lot more valuable and the landscapes are seemingly populated by far less callous and blustering breadheaded buffoons..
It seems such a shame that we chose to step out of Eden.. look at what we've become.. It's enough to make one weep
EAT THE RICH
but you'd really have to be special to argue that therefore the workers are worse off than they were before if you shared them out equally.
FTFY
The thing is, the big boss might now have 100 nuts where he only had 50 before, but due to wealth he's created, and his [b]reliance[/b] on the workers to make him more
Everyone needs everyone but only the boss creates the wealth 8O. Despite the reliance on workers to create this they get much less than the boss.
The trouble is, in situations like those capitalism and the wealth of others is insufficient in itself to bring people up to a decent standard of living,
It is but it is insufficiently evenly spread to achieve the decent standard.
In terms of wealth the top 1% own 40%,top 2% of the population own 50% and the top 10% 85 %. However the bottom 50% have only 1 % of the wealth. Given we are in a capitalist world it seems fair to conclude that this is also what it does and many conclude this is not fair.
You might have thought you showed that, but did you actually read what you just quoted? If those living in the relatively rich cities are better off than those living in the same countries outside those cities, then however badly they are off in an absolute sense, that actually quite neatly proves the point that you're better off being close to wealth.
Around 7 million people in Mexico City live below the poverty line, that's 40% (the national average is between 17% and 20%). A third of the population live in shanty towns.
Elfin - do you really think that India would be in a better state without the infrastructure and cultural legacy of Empire?
Oh right I forgot; they're all ignorant graceless savages incapable of organising their own society, and needed the clever White men to come and sort things out for them. Of course, How stupid of me. Any evidence of culture and language predating anything in the British Isles must obviously be made up.
🙄
Because of course, the British occupation of the Subcontinent was purely for altruistic reasons, to help the indigenous peoples gain enlightenment and self-determination. Nothing to do with the exploitation of vast natural resources of course. Oh no.
You know, I think it's just possible that the peoples of the Subcontinent might possibly have been able to make a fair go of things, had they not been subjected to foreign rule, virtual enslavement, starvation and genocide. As well as having their valuable resources of their own lands forcibly taken from them by an oppressive foreign nation hell bent on increasing it's Imperialist control and own national wealth.
Just a thought, like...
Around 7 million people in Mexico City live below the poverty line, that's 40% (the national average is between 17% and 20%). A third of the population live in shanty towns.
Source?
According to wiki:
[i]Mexico City is the wealthiest city in all of Latin America, with a GDP per capita of $25,258. Mexico City's poverty rate is also the lowest in Mexico, and its Human Development Index (2009-MHDI) is the highest in the nation at 0.9327.[/i]
And, according to another report:
[i]According to Jaime Saavedra, World Bank Poverty Manager for Latin America, Mexico has made considerable strides in poverty reduction since the late 1990s, with performance above the Latin American average. Saavedra explained that: “Between 2000 and 2004, extreme poverty fell almost seven percentage points, which can be explained by development in rural areas, where extreme poverty fell from 42.4 per cent to 27.9 per cent. The urban poverty rate, however, got stuck at 11.3 per cent.”[/i]
See that - rural poverty rate of 2-4 times the urban poverty rates - point proved!
Elfin - can't be arsed mate - just google "post colonial guilt" and you'll probably find a picture of yourself 🙄
can't be arsed mate
More like; whenever your bigoted narrow-minded views are challenged, you shut up shop, because you know you can't actually form an intelligent and reasoned response free from your jingoistic and parochial prejudices.
Don't you have an EDL meeting in the morning? You'd best get some sleep then.
Night night.
Actually Elfin if you really want a serious answer, then you want to go away and consider the insistence on perpetuating a caste system that does more to maintain inhumane levels of poverty than the colonial period ever did.
Sorry Elfin - but you can't blame the Caste system on the Raj!
http://www.littleabout.com/India/india-caste-system-handwork-british-raj-dna-proves/36180/
Caste system, Indian! 😉