Hitler was the victim in your opinion, eh.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Capitalism: why eternal growth is self-destructive
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Absolutely not. A perpetrator.
The problem is a person can make more than that by simply investing. They can take their 3.5 million euros elsewhere and have a lot less hassle than trying to keep a business afloat. You simply have 85 less job available. The entrepreneur will simply make their 500,000 euros some other way.
You simply don't understand because you live in a country where the word socialism is banned.
Just read the article 41 of our constitution.
Art. 41 Private economic enterprise is free. It may not be carried out against the common good or in such a manner that could damage safety, liberty and human dignity.
The law shall provide for appropriate programmes and controls so that public and private-sector economic activity may be oriented and co-ordinated for social purposes.
For social purposes= in order to protect people's right to labor.
I hear it all of the time.
How do you protect a person's right to labor?
I live in a "right to work state" but I suspect this means something different.
You live in a plutarchy called United States.
Right to work means that the Governments needs to impose regulations on Capitalists, so they invest their money on something productive for the society. Like a firm.
What does this have to do with eternal economic growth?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That part is usually something that is overlooked by all those people who are crying about how companies need to share their profit with their employees.
Somehow, they feel it's a two way street.
If the company makes profit, it needs to go to the employees or their salaries should all be doubled or whatever.
But if the company takes a loss then the owner should take the hit while the employees should still be paid a small fortune.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes, how is the political/economic situation in Italy currently?
Have they finally decided on who will lead them and dealt with their stagnant economy?
Sure, I've noticed. I've also noticed what the government has done and what our politicians have advocated and implemented over the past several decades. And, in addition, I've seen how it has affected the country and how the people have responded to it. From what I can tell, there have been sharp divisions about the kind of change people want and are willing to support. So, the question of "what kind of change do we want" still stands, and I don't think the public or the politicians have really figured it out yet. They seem to be preoccupied with other things these days.
Then this part of your post was odd....
"Should we even have control over how things change?"
Capitalism is the number one system to pull people out of poverty and raise them up. So, there’s that.Eternal growth is impossible: yet it's what unbridled Capitalism and the profit maximization advocate for.
They want a country to grow every year, and what does that imply?
That more cars are produced, more cars are sold: but spaces are limited and at some point, we will need to stop producing thousands and thousands of car because there will be not even one inch free.
All garages, all parking lots will be taken.
Eternal growth is suicidal and self-destructive: capitalists want more and more people on Earth, because they want more and more customers.
As for your car example, cars will be fully automated in the relatively near future and traffic will be a thing of the past. Think Minority Report.
I didn't think you were justifying Hitler. Perhaps there were those who wanted to use Hitler as a puppet. But the puppet's eyes were open, and he quickly grew out of control.
Using Hitler to destroy the Soviet Union would have been consistent with the West's (and the bankers') general policy of supporting right-wing dictatorships in the name of opposing communism. However, it didn't turn out that way in the end.
I can't say much about Europe's population, as I live on the other side of the planet. The American population has been in a rather strange mood these days, though.
I can tell from the overall narrative which tends to circulate through mainstream circles is that some people in high places appear to be nervous. I don't know if that reflects the attitude of the elites, if they're running scared or what. It could be that.
By that question, I was thinking more in terms of change consciously guided and driven by society as a whole, as opposed to allowing things to operate in a more laissez-faire manner expecting change to happen by means of the "unseen hand."
You've not noticed that we have a government
run by elected leaders? They guide overtly, not
by an "unseen hand". Are you paying any
attention?
Yes, but does that answer my question? Are the elected leaders in control? Does the public know or care all that much about what they do in office? Are they even that overt about it? Not really. There's not enough transparency.
Case in point: You've pointed out many, many instances of police officers out of control, with the elected leaders either too scared, too spineless, or too corrupt to do anything about it to clean house. You might think they're separate issues, but it's all tied in to those same "elected leaders" and the measure of their guidance.
This isn't productive.
It never is.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Fixed it.
Capitalism in the US had that function until the 80s. Since then, it has degenerated into a scheme to push people into poverty or at least keep them where they are. Almost all wealth created from then on has been gobbled up by the 1%.