Does anyone feel like this is normal or acceptable?

Wandering Monk · Jul 6, 2019

Stevicus said:
You're not a fan of Rush Limbaugh? Could have surprised me.

If there are problems with the environment, then who would be the ones to blame for that? The same capitalist ruling class which has been ruling the world for centuries.

The same ones who claim that they're so much more enlightened and superior than the hapless "Great Unwashed" or any of those "eeeeeeviiiiil socialists."

If they're as freakin' smart and superior as they claim, then how did we reach a point of overpopulation, resource shortages, and environmental disaster on their watch?

Could it be that capitalism isn't really all that it's cracked up to be? Is it possible that the masses have been foolish in listening to capitalist propaganda filled with empty promises and pipe dreams?

Do you think that could be the case? Maybe instead of worrying so much about educating me, you might consider educating your fellow capitalist ideologues, myopic as they are.

Check out the stats: population growth is lowest in educated, wealthy countries.

You have to have excess capital to enable environmental clean up. Look at the environmental conditions in East versus West Germany during the Cold War.

Population growth and ecological, and environmental problems are mostly third world issues. The greatest species extinction rates are in third world countries in South America due to deforestation.

The Reverend Bob · Jul 6, 2019

Wandering Monk said:
Anyone care to respond to the data that shows that income inequality is a bigger problem in poor nations that wealthy ones?

No thanks. Chart doesn't prove squat

BSM1 · Jul 6, 2019

PureX said:
The capital investor will not pay anyone a "good wage" unless forced to do so. And because in a capitalist system, they hold all the decision-making power, millions of Americans are not making "a good wage" for the work they do. And even if they were suddenly to be paid twice as much, the cost of everything they need to live would simply double. Because the system is designed and intent on taking as much as possible from as many as possible and giving it to the biggest, greediest, capital investors.

Good Grief, Charlie Brown!

Stevicus · Jul 6, 2019

Shadow Wolf said:
Its pretty much everyones fault. At any time we could hve or can rise against Capitalism as was done against Feudalism, but it hasnt happened as people allow themselves to accept spoon fed narratives, shut their brain down, and see the disaster that is American Consumerism as a good thing that shohld be zpread atound the world.

Well, sure, the people could have risen up against capitalism, but they were manipulated, cheated, misdirected - along with being dazzled by glittery shiny objects, which the capitalists were offering as a reward for their loyalty.

I would concede that the people were lied to and tricked, but that's why revolutions tend to target the tricksters, cheaters, and manipulators.

Stevicus · Jul 6, 2019

Wandering Monk said:
Check out the stats: population growth is lowest in educated, wealthy countries.

You have to have excess capital to enable environmental clean up. Look at the environmental conditions in East versus West Germany during the Cold War.

Population growth and ecological, and environmental problems are mostly third world issues. The greatest species extinction rates are in third world countries in South America due to deforestation.

Who's been ruling over those "third world" countries? How did that whole situation get started in the first place? You think it's all East Germany's fault? I don't think so.

Shadow Wolf · Jul 6, 2019

Stevicus said:
Well, sure, the people could have risen up against capitalism, but they were manipulated, cheated, misdirected - along with being dazzled by glittery shiny objects, which the capitalists were offering as a reward for their loyalty.

I would concede that the people were lied to and tricked, but that's why revolutions tend to target the tricksters, cheaters, and manipulators.

People are lied to, decieved, and manipulated, but there does come a time when personal and collective responsibility must be considered. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, and many more times after, shame on us.

Shadow Wolf · Jul 6, 2019

Revoltingest said:
Enjoyer of frufru burgers which are taller than they are wide!

(I really do like the dofu I eat.
Try Korean tofu stew.)

Fine then. Bacon hater!

PureX · Jul 6, 2019

icehorse said:
I agree that this has been what's happening, but it's not necessary.

It's WHY IT'S CALLED 'CAPITALISM'. It's what defines capitalism as capitalism. I agree that it's unnecessary that the capital investors have all the control, but if that commercial control is shared among the consumer, the producer, and the investor, then it's called 'socialism', not 'capitalism'.

PureX · Jul 6, 2019

icehorse said:
The current system has been rigged to be a nanny state for the wealthy. It has not been left on its own.

But when the capital investor gets to make all the business decisions, it IS A NANNY STATE FOR THE INVESTOR CLASS. And because that is disastrous, and we won't let go of the capitalist system, the government has had to step in to protect everyone else from the capitalist's greed. But even that didn't work for long, because eventually the capitalists get control of so much wealth that they can use it to buy the government, corrupt it, and turn it against the people it was previously trying to protect. THAT'S where we are, now.

The solution was to NOT ALLOW all that wealth to pile up in the control of the investors to begin with, but that's the whole point and purpose of 'capitalism': to reward wealth with more wealth, so there really is no preventing it, ultimately. CAPITALISM IS A FAILED, SELF-DESTRUCTIVE, SOCIALLY TOXIC ECONOMIC SYSTEM. Plain and simple.

Revoltingest · Jul 6, 2019

Shadow Wolf said:
Fine then. Bacon hater!

Canned spaghetti eater!

Stevicus · Jul 6, 2019

Shadow Wolf said:
People are lied to, decieved, and manipulated, but there does come a time when personal and collective responsibility must be considered. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, and many more times after, shame on us.

Yeah, and that somehow tends to be a generational affair. It was the previous generation which screwed everything up and left us with this mess, but the current generation will likely be blamed for screwing things up even further.

But yeah, I think you're right that there should be some personal and collective responsibility.

I would say that some reforms in our system came about indirectly through some measure of insurrection and uprising. The labor movement created enough of a stir as to motivate the government towards greater reform in wages, working conditions, and other programs to make things better for working people. Likewise, the civil rights movement pushed harder for better treatment and equal rights for all, which led to reforms in that area too.

I think that's both a good thing, since it makes it appear that the system works and responds to the will of the people. But on the other hand, it can also be a trap, since people can be fooled into settling for too little or allowing themselves to be placated by political pandering.

So, when things don't turn out as expected or once hoped for, people become discontented and wonder what happened to "the dream." That's what happens when reality sets in and they realize they've been hoodwinked once again by those wily politicians.

Vee · Jul 6, 2019

Audie said:
You are correct of course, it cannot be done.

I think if the world's money could be evenly
distributed, so many people would move up
into serious consumption that our poor beleagured
planet could not absorb the demands.

If people had better values, the world resources would probably be enough for everyone to have what they need.
Our basic material needs are water, food, shelter, clothing and health care. The rest is emotional needs that can't be met with money. Once people have those things, they're okay and everything else is a matter or "want", not "need". While there's nothing wrong about wanting extra things that make us feel good, destroying the planet and the lives of other humans being in the process cannot be justified. It's wrong, unfair and we're already paying for it whether we're guilty or not. I don't want to imagine what this world will look like in 20 years if this system lasts that long.
The thing is, central banks create money out of thin air and drop it into the market, which in turn creates debt that burdens everyone and their future offspring. Big industries are very happy to produce stuff that they will sell, making their shareholders crazy money and in the process, keep the currency running and the stock market high. For that to go on, they need clients, so they have these very clever ways to motivate people to buy more and more.
Beautiful people, photoshoped to insanity, sell their image to promote everything from clothes, to watches, cars, holidays, perfumes, etc. The message is clear: if you buy that ___________ (fill with whatever you want) you will be better, more desirable, more lovable and happy.
However, if I go to one of those busy streets full of shops and start asking people what was the brand of the clothes they were wearing in the best moments of their lives, half won't remember and the other half will tell me they weren't wearing any clothes!
Its all marketing, it's all superficial, but unfortunately it works and people keep being deceived, piling up more and more debt with the believe they need more material things to be happy. Some of them will live and die without ever figuring out that what they need is not more stuff. They just need better values.

icehorse · Jul 6, 2019

PureX said:
It's WHY IT'S CALLED 'CAPITALISM'. It's what defines capitalism as capitalism. I agree that it's unnecessary that the capital investors have all the control, but if that commercial control is shared among the consumer, the producer, and the investor, then it's called 'socialism', not 'capitalism'.

false dilemma.

icehorse · Jul 6, 2019

PureX said:
But when the capital investor gets to make all the business decisions, it IS A NANNY STATE FOR THE INVESTOR CLASS. And because that is disastrous, and we won't let go of the capitalist system, the government has had to step in to protect everyone else from the capitalist's greed. But even that didn't work for long, because eventually the capitalists get control of so much wealth that they can use it to buy the government, corrupt it, and turn it against the people it was previously trying to protect. THAT'S where we are, now.

The solution was to NOT ALLOW all that wealth to pile up in the control of the investors to begin with, but that's the whole point and purpose of 'capitalism': to reward wealth with more wealth, so there really is no preventing it, ultimately. CAPITALISM IS A FAILED, SELF-DESTRUCTIVE, SOCIALLY TOXIC ECONOMIC SYSTEM. Plain and simple.

another false dilemma.

Audie · Jul 6, 2019

PureX said:
But when the capital investor gets to make all the business decisions, it IS A NANNY STATE FOR THE INVESTOR CLASS. And because that is disastrous, and we won't let go of the capitalist system, the government has had to step in to protect everyone else from the capitalist's greed. But even that didn't work for long, because eventually the capitalists get control of so much wealth that they can use it to buy the government, corrupt it, and turn it against the people it was previously trying to protect. THAT'S where we are, now.

The solution was to NOT ALLOW all that wealth to pile up in the control of the investors to begin with, but that's the whole point and purpose of 'capitalism': to reward wealth with more wealth, so there really is no preventing it, ultimately. CAPITALISM IS A FAILED, SELF-DESTRUCTIVE, SOCIALLY TOXIC ECONOMIC SYSTEM. Plain and simple.

That is just like, just your opinion, man.

And not a very sensible one.

The more you yell the more obvious
that is.

PureX · Jul 7, 2019

icehorse said:
false dilemma.

No, just the common sense definition of the terms.

icehorse · Jul 7, 2019

PureX said:
No, just the common sense definition of the terms.

You're defining a hypothetical, pure concept. The reality is that no economic system is ever implemented in a pure fashion. But like an engine needs a flywheel and a governor and a thermostat and a radiator and so on, so ALL economic systems need similar mechanisms to keep them running under control.

Again, the US (and probably most of the world), has let the oligarchs take over the controls, and of course you are correct, the oligarchs have skewed the system to be immensely unhealthy. But we've also seen time periods during which the system ran well. Think about how the economy was running in the late 50s. Tax rates on the wealthy were very, very high, the economy was booming, infrastructure was robust, STEMish education was flourishing, and so on. That's an example of capitalism with the correct checks and balances in place.

Wandering Monk · Jul 7, 2019

icehorse said:
Again, the US (and probably most of the world), has let the oligarchs take over the controls, and of course you are correct, the oligarchs have skewed the system to be immensely unhealthy. But we've also seen time periods during which the system ran well. Think about how the economy was running in the late 50s. Tax rates on the wealthy were very, very high, the economy was booming, infrastructure was robust, STEMish education was flourishing, and so on. That's an example of capitalism with the correct checks and balances in place.

No, that is an example of no competition. Every significant economic opponent in the world at the time lay under the rubble of WWII. We were the ONLY participant in that war with excess capital at the end. Where were the wealthy gonna go if they didn't like our tax structure?

icehorse · Jul 7, 2019

Wandering Monk said:
No, that is an example of no competition. Every significant economic opponent in the world at the time lay under the rubble of WWII. We were the ONLY participant in that war with excess capital at the end. Where were the wealthy gonna go if they didn't like our tax structure?

Warren Buffett disagrees with you on the "where are they going to go" claim.

PureX · Jul 7, 2019

icehorse said:
You're defining a hypothetical, pure concept. The reality is that no economic system is ever implemented in a pure fashion. But like an engine needs a flywheel and a governor and a thermostat and a radiator and so on, so ALL economic systems need similar mechanisms to keep them running under control.

Socialism has those mechanisms of control built in as part of it's "pure conception". Capitalism does not. Neither does any other system that gives control of commerce to a single or to a select entity.

icehorse said:
Again, the US (and probably most of the world), has let the oligarchs take over the controls, and of course you are correct, the oligarchs have skewed the system to be immensely unhealthy. But we've also seen time periods during which the system ran well.

The system never "ran well" for anyone but the rich. We simply rained in their greed-based system better in some years than in others. But we could not keep it reigned in because greed never rests, and it never gets 'enough'.

icehorse said:
Think about how the economy was running in the late 50s. Tax rates on the wealthy were very, very high, the economy was booming, infrastructure was robust, STEMish education was flourishing, and so on. That's an example of capitalism with the correct checks and balances in place.

That's an example of socialist policies at work. So stop calling it "capitalism".

Does anyone feel like this is normal or acceptable?

Well-Known Member

Fart Machine and Beastmaster

What? Me worry?

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Certified People sTabber

Certified People sTabber

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist

Well-Known Member

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist

Veteran Member