If capitalism is so badly flawed...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman

Capitalism is a step in the evolution, but its going to fall either dramatically or being abandoned as my evolution catalyst motivates the world.

---

I agree with everything before the comma. :p

Quote:

---

Simon M says:
Stop defending capitalism and let's look at what sort of system could replace it. All this argument over attacking and defending capitalism is holding back to quest to improve society. Let's move on.

---

Are you talking to the debaters to formulate an alternative to capitalism, or are you talking to 'humanity'?

Due to the sheer frequency of posting, a lot of the posts are getting ignored, ppl. Just thought you oughta know.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
I agree with everything before the comma. :p

---

yep, some posts are getting ignored, have you read my last one to you?

Honeybee, here's a reality check - I think we're in agreement here and it will apply to any type of society.

Somehow there has to be some administration. If we can remove this requirement and the society can continue to maintain itself, then there is no problem. But I don't think that is possible.

So in the communist society, for example, the administrators have a certain amount of power. As long as the society prospers, then all is well.

But when there is less to go around, human nature will cause the people with the additional power to provide for themselves and their loved ones before others.

However, there are those who have the actual skills to grow the crops which can give them even greater power depending on the circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Flustor


Thankyou, thats the first time I've have one of those in under 20 mins :D

---

Don't worry I got myself one too;)



:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak

I must point out that under capitalism, those who are incapable of supporting themselves are a tiny and ever-shrinking minority.

---

Dude, you need to leave your house more often. Do you have any idea the number of people in the US who live at or below the poverty level? I'm talking about citizens. The number may or may not be getting smaller, I don't know. But I do know the number itself is not small. And it is much larger than those on the other end of the bell curve.

Quote:

---

yep, some posts are getting ignored, have you read my last one to you?

---

Answered.

HoneyB

Quote:

---

Honeybee says:

To mankind, there is only a limited amount of resources available. Using these limited resources we must satisfy our ever-growing needs.

---

Mankind also creates resources for himself. It is through the needs that the resources arise. We might be talking about different resources here.

Quote:

---

Cafeen Man sez:
But when there is less to go around, human nature will cause the people with the additional power to provide for themselves and their loved ones before others

---

This is exactly the reason any ideology will get corrupted. People in general will simply view the corruption as a flaw in the system itself and blame it, theregy explaining the general dissatisfaction with capitalism in this case. The very same example as above does apply to capitalism as well and it HAS corrupted the ideology in practical senses.

mendhak: the one starting with "acknowledgement of majority doesn't make an argument." at last page

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
This is exactly the reason any ideology will get corrupted. People in general will simply view the corruption as a flaw in the system itself and blame it, theregy explaining the general dissatisfaction with capitalism in this case. The very same example as above does apply to capitalism as well and it HAS corrupted the ideology in practical senses.

---

That was my point which I stole from Honeybee. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak

This is exactly the reason any ideology will get corrupted. People in general will simply view the corruption as a flaw in the system itself and blame it, theregy explaining the general dissatisfaction with capitalism in this case. The very same example as above does apply to capitalism as well and it HAS corrupted the ideology in practical senses.

---

Including virtually all the religious ideologies

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp



Including virtually all the religious ideologies

---

take out the word "virtually" and you get 100% agreement from me.

Honeybee - there are other choices. In many of the other choices, a person has to contribute to survive. Capitalism isn't unique in that respect. Read my original post again.

the 'virtually' is included because there might be religions out there that I don't know about :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
the 'virtually' is included because there might be religions out there that I don't know about :)

---

I don't think that matters. The word religion equates to "flawed beliefs" as far as I'm concerned. But my views are jaded by the religions I'm aware of as well, so I know there's at least a possibilty that I'm wrong.

OK... back to capitalism vs. napster.

Honeybee

I notice that those who insist on defending capitalism do so by comparing it to it's failed contemporaries (such as communism) and predecessors (such as fuedalism). This is understandable but it's a moot point really.

I have already acknowledged that capitalism is the best of the bunch that we currently have. The point is, we need to find a system that works better. A system that leverages the good points from capitalism and leaves the bad points behind.

Human endeavour needs to be rewarded and not smothered. However, greed should not be. Capitalism works by convincing us we need things we really don't. This is how it drives human progress. However, it leads to feelings of disatisfaction and self-inadequacy.

Capitalism is driven by inequality and is highly unstable.

We need a system that tends towards stability and yet at the same time drives human endeavour and progress. I don't know how it's going to work but I know we need it.

Quote:

---

CafeenMan says
That was my point.

---

so we're finally agreeing on something???

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
acknowledgement of majority doesn't make an argument.

---

How so? Any general populace does have the brains enough to make decisions based upon what they observe. In this case, the other system I was referring to was observed to be useless in the face of the changing economy, and capitalism was accepted as the best. Does that not make it an argument enough? What type of 'argument' do you want for this?

Quote:

---

I did not say that, I said there is limited amount of resources that can be considered capital.

---

I was referring to "if someone gains capital, someone else looses." This does imply the very same as the increasing divide between the rich and poor. If it does not, please tell me how.

Quote:

---

Capitalism is unfair as it is, people doesn't start with equal capital with equal opportunities, and its practically impossible.

---

If you'll read the other posts in this thread (by me) you'll see it's NOT impossible. It's very much a reality in fact. By saying "practially impossible," the only thing I see here is a lack of motivation on your part. (Hey, no offense, ok? read the other posts, I've explained how it's possible)

Quote:

---

This is not true, there is a limited amount of resources, and profits converge

---

I see we disagree on the concept of resources here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
So, what sort of system could do a better job than capitalism and actually work? Other systems have tried and failed. Can it be improved?

---

If you were the one making the decisions, what would you start with and what would be the most fundamental thing you would change about it to improve it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
How so? Any general populace does have the brains enough to make decisions based upon what they observe. In this case, the other system I was referring to was observed to be useless in the face of the changing economy, and capitalism was accepted as the best. Does that not make it an argument enough? What type of 'argument' do you want for this?

---

No. People are stupid, greedy and go with the flow regardless of whether or not it is a good path to take.

How about a social democracy like the ones we have in Holland and such ?

Cafeenman

Quote:

---

If you were the one making the decisions, what would you start with and what would be the most fundamental thing you would change about it to improve it?

---

This is a very good question and I think it is one t hat we should all attempt to answer. Name one thing that people would change if we had the power to do so...

Equality for all people in a state. One law to abide created by and for the people.

To be honest, the first things I would introduce would be concerning the environment. I would create incentives for both businesses and individuals to help honour and protect the environment. I would introduce harsh penalties for those who pollute and destroy the environment.

We've got to start with the environment because there won't be a future otherwise. Once we've sorted that one out, we can look towards the economy...

Quote:

---

Equality for all people in a state. One law to abide created by and for the people.

---

Except her royal highness of course ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
I have already acknowledged that capitalism is the best of the bunch that we currently have. The point is, we need to find a system that works better. A system that leverages the good points from capitalism and leaves the bad points behind.

---

Do you realize you're talking like yet another economist here? Karl Marx + simon = Karl Simon. :D

I too agree that capitalism is the best we have, at present. No new system is going to be adopted overnight, however. It will be developed based upon the everchanging finanical and economic conditions that develop around the globe.

Quote:

---

Human endeavour needs to be rewarded and not smothered. However, greed should not be. Capitalism works by convincing us we need things we really don't. This is how it drives human progress. However, it leads to feelings of disatisfaction and self-inadequacy.

---

Greed is also a part of what drives us all. It cannot be denied. Instead of denying it, it 'should' be sidelined, so that it is not a factor in the overall working of a system.

Quote:

---

Capitalism is driven by inequality and is highly unstable.

---

It is not highly unstable. I have already shown how it IS stable. It has withstood several 'catastrophes' in the past remarkably well, and even the example I stated, 9/11, goes on to support this fact. Also, a consequence of capitalism is inequality, it is not driven by it. Capitalism is driven by profits.

Quote:

---

Honeybee says
Mendhak, yes mankind will try generating newer resources, but somehow I think the speed will be less. One day, the needs will outweigh the resources. Consider this simple situation. If you are out of a job, don't have enough money to have one meal a day, you keep thinking, "Oh god, at least let me have a job that will pay me enough to have some food everyday." When you get a job that pays you enough to get the bare minimum needs satisfied, you start thinking, "It would be nice to have a job that allows me to save enough to go to a restaurant once a month" You land a job that pays you higher than the bare minimum, so you are able to save up and visit a restaurant once a month. Then you eye a job that will let you pay for a decent apartment, so you move into a better apartment. Then you seek a job that lets you have a car, then a few pieces of furniture, then to support a family, then for the kids' education and so on and so on. When you find that there are no jobs available that will pay you that much, you venture out on your own and start your own business. You reap in profits never seen before, but you will still crave for more dough. It's a growing business and in order to keep it growing you require more funds ... The loop will never terminate.

---

What the **** are you on about?

Exactly what you just said Honeybee. That's pretty much what I said in my first post.

We have it too good in our society. Kids today "need" a game console. When they have it they "need" another game. Those aren't needs, but they don't know the difference because they've never been in "need" of anything. Their basic survival is taken care of.

I think it's a cycle. First we have nothing - tribal society. Then our society "advances" to the point where we are now. I think we're not taking the path to advancement as much as we're taking the path to collapse.

The collapse isn't inevitable, but we don't seem to be learning the right things either. If our values don't get adjusted, the collapse will happen and we'll be back at taking care of our basic needs again.

And as simon and I have both said, the people will be more satisfied because our self-image won't be dependent on brand-name conformity. In fact, self-image won't even be an issue. Finding nourishment, a safe place to sleep and a good partner will provide all the satisfaction a person will want.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Equality for all people in a state. One law to abide created by and for the people.

---

Well, well, well, if it isn't Jeremiah Roddenbach.

Quote:

---

How so? Any general populace does have the brains enough to make decisions based upon what they observe. In this case, the other system I was referring to was observed to be useless in the face of the changing economy, and capitalism was accepted as the best. Does that not make it an argument enough? What type of 'argument' do you want for this?

---

its a very well known bogus argument mendhak, I know I'm using it right now, but unfortunately philosophers have learnt from their mistakes this way too. A contradiction.

Quote:

---

I was referring to "if someone gains capital, someone else looses." This does imply the very same as the increasing divide between the rich and poor. If it does not, please tell me how.

---

the gap can both increase and decrease, between two parts, but we have a 2^human population parts to take into account for, such a statement is flawed, if you want mathematical proof, I have.

Quote:

---

I see we disagree on the concept of resources here.

---

Define resources




I will have a look at your other posts

EVERYONE GO BACK AND READ THE POSTS YOU MISSED!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Cafeenman

This is a very good question and I think it is one t hat we should all attempt to answer. Name one thing that people would change if we had the power to do so...

---

If I had the power to change one thing, then I wouldn't change the type of society because they are all equally flawed. So I would use my change to make the pay scales equate to the good of a contribution and there would be a cap.

So those who provide education and public service would be on the high end of the scale but nobody would make so much that they could just hoard it away. If they were careful with their spending, they can still afford a nice house, a boat or what have you, but nobody needs a property in 5 countries with a full staff and still have multi-billions in the bank.

COFFEE MAN

Quote:

---

Cafeenman says
If I had the power to change one thing, then I wouldn't change the type of society because they are all equally flawed. So I would use my change to make the pay scales equate to the good of a contribution and there would be a cap.

So those who provide education and public service would be on the high end of the scale but nobody would make so much that they could just hoard it away. If they were careful with their spending, they can still afford a nice house, a boat or what have you, but nobody needs a property in 5 countries with a full staff and still have multi-billions in the bank.

---

"Good of a controbution"!! Who is going to judge this? People may even argue what is the better contribution! A priest will argue his case with "God" on his side, a prostitute may argue that she provides pleasure, and a sweeper will say that she keeps the environment clean for all of humanity.

What then?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak


Well, well, well, if it isn't Jeremiah Roddenbach.

---

:confused:

Don't tell me you object to that idea ...

I think its too crowdy in here

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee


I was going to propose a deal: you telling me how you got the word "****" in and I telling you what the **************** it was about :D But after quoting you I have changed my mind :p

I am simply trying to say is you need a brain to create a new resource and you need a dick to create a need. You decide which one will be used most often. ;)

.

---

I knew you'd ask :D

Anyways, if you'll look over time, the demands have constantly increased. When, if possible to point out, have they ever decreased? Right from the beginning (of whenever) needs increase, technology has helped increase the demand manifold. With needs come demands, and with demands come needs. THey help each other and they also propagate.

Kedaman, if you're reading this, this is how I'm viewing the concept of a resource. This is the resource that propagates us to continue forward, to meet needs and create even more.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
COFFEE MAN



"Good of a controbution"!! Who is going to judge this? People may even argue what is the better contribution! A priest will argue his case with "God" on his side, a prostitute may argue that she provides pleasure, and a sweeper will say that she keeps the environment clean for all of humanity.

What then?

---

I agree that it's entirely subjective. But in this case I get to decide and that's the decision I made. If we value "capital" then the music industry and sports stars get the money because they definitely make money.

But my "improvement" is to make people better through education and helping others and less emphasis on having "stuff."

You can answer the question any way you like. And you are not Mendhak, by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
I think its too crowdy in here

---

I can answer this two ways:

1) Refresh often and try to keep up.

2) The same can be said for the world. Everyone has a right to have kids, but somebody has to decide not to. That is a large part of the problem. Too many people who want too much. Even if they didn't want too much, our resources are definitely being taxed - and I don't mean financially. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp


:confused:

Don't tell me you object to that idea ...

---

Don't tell me you were serious? What you stated was the most basic definition as it had started out for democracy, around uhm.. a thousand years ago or something.

If you're referring to capitalism, maybe you'll elaborate? I mean your idea is a very very stripped down version of democracy, one that no longer can really hold (in today's world)

Cafeenman, you have the problem nicely formulated

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cafeenman
[B]

But my "improvement" is to make people better through education and helping others and less emphasis on having "stuff."

---

Your emphasis on "Less emphasis on having "stuff"" is actually against human nature. If this were truly possible, it may have been implemented in the first place, and we'd live in utopia or a semi-utopia or something.

OK, OK, it's your decision, a theory, therefore I'll cease.

Quote:

---

And you are not Mendhak, by the way.

---

HUH??? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee

If I work more, I should have a right to more rewards, and if I have a sick brother back home who cannot go to work.

---

That is the way things are now. I don't agree that's the way things should be. On some days I'm fully in favor of genetic elimination - those who are severely genetically defective are not allowed to reproduce.

On other days I see that as being a totally inhumane concept. But in either case, I don't believe that a person who is unable to contribute through no decision or fault of their own should have to barely subsist while others are capable of contributing get to have a higher quality of life. Everyone should be provided the means to enjoy their lives. It's up to the individual to actually do it though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman

I think its too crowdy in here

---

After you post, make sure you go back one full page and read everything. Takes time, and by the time you reply something, a new page emerges. So do it again.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
Cafeenman, you have the problem nicely formulated

---

OK, I'm not keeping up well with this thread, but I hate passing up being complimented, so which of my posts are you referring to?

really ...

then why are certain persons immune to law then ? Politicians who cannot be prosecuted before their immunity is relieved for one, a Queen who virtually cannot be prosecuted as a second ...

Then why does our police force use different measures for different people ? Why do they judge others to be more susceptible to crime or, the other way around, why are they too lenient on someone of foreign origin.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's not equality.

As for capitalism : it thrives on inequality, it works on the basis that some people are better than others.

My idea was rather : one law for everyone and everyone, from top to bottom is treated the same. No lenient procedures on people who are of importance. A crime is a crime.

The competition thing is a good wheeze but I would go for regulated competition.

Hence my preferrence for social democracy rather than hard capitalism. It's not because you can't live up to your potential that you should be written off entirely and that is exactly what happens too much nowadays.

Someone not fit enough is simply left behind with no chance of getting back in the system.

Of course I'm serious :rolleyes:

I'm seeing a lot of utopia oriented concepts here. Why not come out with some practical concepts that can be improvements upon the present system of capitalism.

After all, that is the topic at hand... or related, rather.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
Your emphasis on "Less emphasis on having "stuff"" is actually against human nature. If this were truly possible, it may have been implemented in the first place, and we'd live in utopia or a semi-utopia or something.

---

One more time....

Human nature has nothing to do with good for society. They are not necessarily exclusive, but as I said before... people are stupid and don't make good choices. Look at the world as it is today. It is like it is from choices made by people. If you like the world the way it is, then there's not a problem, is there?

If you don't like the world the way it is, then we need people to make better choices. My way inflicts that on them whether they like it or not.

I should repeat a LOT of utopia like concepts and ideas. A dime a dozen.

We don't live in utopia, and rest assured, it will never be attained. We live in a practical world filled with *******s like you, me, him her and it.

I ask anyone to bring forth a practical idea, if possible, for that would be more appropriate, wouldn't it?

Mine is not a utopia concept. In fact, most European countries have been working out that idea for the last 20 years. With impressive results and impressive failures to. But they're constantly reminded that it needs work.


All in all, I'd prefer that system over a hard capitalistic society.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Mine is not a utopia concept. In fact, most European countries have been working out that idea for the last 20 years. With impressive results and impressive failures to. But they're constantly reminded that it needs work.


All in all, I'd prefer that system over a hard capitalistic society.

---

What countries are you referring to? I'm a little surprised to say I'm not aware of these ideas being worked out... or maybe I've come across the examples, but never realized it.


GODDAMNIT!
shucks! It's almost 6 and I have to go home. I'm afraid that by the time I come back, I'll have to sift through a thousand pages of postings, and by the time I reach the end I'll be so utterly confused I'll just drop out of here. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
I'm seeing a lot of utopia oriented concepts here. Why not come out with some practical concepts that can be improvements upon the present system of capitalism.

After all, that is the topic at hand... or related, rather.

---

Practical would be a salary cap. If your argument about everyone being able to excel is true, then in theory, everyone could have as much money as Bill Gates. If everyone had as much money as Bill Gates, then money would be seriously devaluated. The fact is that in order for some to excel, some have to fail.

We like to blame the failures for not being motivated enough, but somebody HAS to do it. Capitalism will create failures from people who may not have failed otherwise.

Anyway, I think a salary cap would be a serious improvement because the excess would have to go somewhere which I hope would filter into societal programs and to people in need.

When we got the Lotto in Florida, there was this big deal about how most of it would go to education. Do you know what actually happened? They took away the money education was getting and gave them the lotto money. Now education gets the same as it got before and the rest goes to wherever it goes. The fact is they deliberately deceived us into voting for the lotta because it was supposed to improve education. I don't know what actually happened to it, but it didn't go to the schools.

There was a point to that, but I forgot what it was. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak

shucks! It's almost 6 and I have to go home. I'm afraid that by the time I come back, I'll have to sift through a thousand pages of postings, and by the time I reach the end I'll be so utterly confused I'll just drop out of here. :(

---

Stay late. You'll impress your boss.

What countries ?

you're kidding me right ?

Try Germany, Holland, Scandinavian countries, Belgium, Italy, France ...


Ever heard of the Rheinland model, the Poldermodel ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Ever heard of the Rheinland model, the Poldermodel ?

---

I haven't. What are they?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cafeenman

Practical would be a salary cap. If your argument about everyone being able to excel is true, then in theory, everyone could have as much money as Bill Gates. If everyone had as much money as Bill Gates, then money would be seriously devaluated. The fact is that in order for some to excel, some have to fail.

We like to blame the failures for not being motivated enough, but somebody HAS to do it. Capitalism will create failures from people who may not have failed otherwise.

Anyway, I think a salary cap would be a serious improvement because the excess would have to go somewhere which I hope would filter into societal programs and to people in need.

When we got the Lotto in Florida, there was this big deal about how most of it would go to education. Do you know what actually happened? They took away the money education was getting and gave them the lotto money. Now education gets the same as it got before and the rest goes to wherever it goes. The fact is they deliberately deceived us into voting for the lotta because it was supposed to improve education. I don't know what actually happened to it, but it didn't go to the schools.

There was a point to that, but I forgot what it was. :(

---

You may have forgotten your point, but I get what you're saying. You're pointing at corruption, and keeping a check on it. It's just that I had found your previously stated idea a bit too, erm... what's the word for it... 'idea type thing'... ok, fill in the word for me if you can.

Also, how on earth can you believe that people can exist 'equally' in society? It's never true, never has been, never will. The only place we're equal, is in front of God's eyes, and that too only if God exists.

Otherwise, we're on our own, and we must strive to work in an hierarchial (sp?) society. Am I going off topic here?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
What countries ?

you're kidding me right ?

Try Germany, Holland, Scandinavian countries, Belgium, Italy, France ...


Ever heard of the Rheinland model, the Poldermodel ?

---

As travelled as I am, you've bruised my ego... I haven't heard of those. I will read up on those when I get home.

CAFEENMAN::
WHy am I not mendhak??? what have I done?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cafeenman

I haven't. What are they?

---

Social democratic models for economy and social advancement. Created in Germany and Holland.

Characteristic is it's open economy idea and an elaborate social security system.

In practice : you go to a hospital, receive a bill and get refunded up to 90% of the amount.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp


Social democratic models for economy and social advancement. Created in Germany and Holland.

Characteristic is it's open economy idea and an elaborate social security system.

In practice : you go to a hospital, receive a bill and get refunded up to 90% of the amount.

---

If there are any good links you know, please post them. I would like to read on this. If you don't, I'll search, nevertheless.

Gotta go, I'll come back and check this.

What would happen (this is not a rhetorical question) if people were allowed to pick their job rather than try to get hired. The only criteria is that you have to pick something you enjoy doing, it has to be a contribution and you have to be able to do it to a certain level of competence. So you don't get to pick "playing video games." Although I guess somebody needs to test them.

All the jobs have equal pay, so no job is more enticing than another in that regard.

Would everyone flock towards certain jobs or would things be evenly distributed by demand (more or less). I don't have a clue about the laws that govern these things.

But when you think about it, there are people that enjoy things that I don't. For example, some people enjoy mindless jobs such as assembly lines.

Just something I wonder about sometimes - especially when I'm unemployed. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
Also, how on earth can you believe that people can exist 'equally' in society? It's never true, never has been, never will. The only place we're equal, is in front of God's eyes, and that too only if God exists.

---

The point of this thread is an ideal society or at least an improved one. So we don't have to stick totally to what we can just go out and change.

I don't believe all people can exist equally. I just take issue with people who can't contibute having to live at a basic survival level. I think all people deserve to enjoy their lives. So that means that some people will have to have less so other people can have more. That doesn't make them equal. It just makes it better for those who can't do for themselves without taking away other people's ability to enjoy their lives as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
CAFEENMAN::
WHy am I not mendhak??? what have I done?

---

If I tell you then I would be helping you imposter him.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
How would you distinguish between those who cannot contribute because of their own fault, and those who cannot contribute because of someone else's fault?

---

Mostly I'm referring to physically and mentally handicapped people. I'm not sure who else might fall under the "no fault of their own rule." It would have to be an exceptional case. I get to be the judge and nobody is allowed to lie to me. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
Has the thread died??

.

---

mendhak went home so we're all waiting on him. :)