Capitalism has failed, let's consider other options

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

If you have the standard of living of Y, and someone else has Z, Z can get any good they wanted that Y who's of a lower bracket could. So them trading goods is irrelevant. It would be Z trading a good deemed worth more in value to Y for a good deemed lesser in value to Z. It's Z trading downwards.

In monetary standards, is equivalent to me giving you 10 dollars in exchange for 5 dollars.

You can only trade downwards or evenly, as two people of the same standard can trade perks for the same products.

originally posted by: 35Foxtrot

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Puppylove

This is the deciding factor for me. Do they give these "perks" at massage parlors or do I still have to pay 500 dollars?

You, son, are being ripped off.

Unless....

Depends on which parlor, different value for different people. lol

a reply to: Edumakated

The premise that capitalism has failed is utter bunk.

Its runaway capitalism I think is the problem.
That a young family cannot buy a home with out indebting them selves for the rest of their lives. That they are forced into indebtedness in a system happy to exploit desperation.

a reply to: snowen20

Different strokes for different folks.

a reply to: Edumakated

There's just as much upward mobility here, there's nothing in the system that says you can't acquire the skills or ability to move on to a better job with a higher standard of living. That's what getting education and training is for, as is demonstrating your ability to work hard at the job you already have.

The main point is, there's a point where upward mobility stops, and no one gets anything handed to them. Everyone plays their part, and no one gets more than any person reasonable should. There's a maximum and a minimum standard of living for everyone. Capitalism has no limit to how low someone's standard of living can be, nor how high. This lack of a limit is a major, major problem as it allows for billions to suffer and die while someone else lives in excess with 80% of the world's wealth.

I guess what all my replies (the serious ones, at least) are getting at is that humans are A-Holes. We are always gonna want more. Of whatever.

And, you know what? That ain't necessarily a BAD thing. It leads to exceptionalism. And breakthroughs of all kinds. And jobs. And people working hard cuz they want to buy XYZ or go on vacation to Uzbekistan or wherever. To all kinds of crap.

Sure, it leads to abuses as well. It's not all good, but I can't think of anything better. We are flawed so I gotta think anything we create will be as well; even if the idea starts out perfect, we will pervert it in some ungodly and unimaginable way. That's the way we are.

I think all "Ism's" are the problem. These few letters endeavour to pull us away from the flow of the cosmos and into a fiction of singularity.

Actually Edumakated, There actually has been A Great Victory of Capitalism (Crony Capitalism That Is). The Human Nature Thingy brings people to The Conclusion that, The only way to get ahead is to somehow find a way to Steal The Fruits of Other's Labor. That's where we are at now in this cycle. Those in power positions are making sure that their Friend's and Families are well taken care of. To the detriment of The Large Mass of The General Population. It's just how it works in Nature and we are no different in that regard to other creatures. They are currently at their Near Apex of Their Kleptocracy and soon as The Debts of The Many become more and more un payable is when The Great Fall Comes. IOW, make sure you're not owed nothing by nobody (Governments Included) as it is now Mathematically Near Impossible to Grow The Credit Bubble Much Farther and All Debts and Promises will go down like A Large Pile O' POO when things destabilize just a little bit more. Good Post Arjunanda a reply to: Edumakated

Boris Banger I can't use ats properly on a cell phone evidently


On a more serious note she's right (she am I right?) Haven't you noticed how the so called deals for impoverished people are horrible interest and trap scams. I mean heck I went down to help at the salvation army and they have vending machines innocent enough but why should these people who have nothing have to pay to eat? Isn't that counter intuitive? I watched the vending machine and its a too seller a real cash cow I bet the vendor wait line at the local homeless shelter is years. How sad is that? If your ignorant to the jnx inherint in this system than your blind and comfortable but not everyone is.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Go getem tiger

a reply to: Puppylove

Curious..

This only works on the basis that there is someone who has more than you. Lets say Y has a fondness for sailing and is infatuated with sailing yachts and dreams of having one of his/her own; however in reality this is far beyond their financial means.

Z on the other hand owns a sailing yacht and will be willing to give this yacht to Y for "some servitude" thereby allowing even Y realize his dream of sailing.

That's an expensive dream and unless you are cleaning doctor Z's house for nigh on the rest of your life in addition to your normal work load I doubt you will have ever paid back what you have taken.

So this method only works if Z has an abundance that he/she is willing to give Y In exchange for service of some sort.

So what does a middle lineused yacht go for these days,

It really depends on the previous owners idea of its value. Naturally Y will always look to go to the Z who is offering exchange at the lowest prices. All Y's will most likely do this. All Z's will see that more service can be acquired if more luxury is given at less cost for Y.

Z has assets privately held by Z. Offers Assets to Y in exchange for service rendered. Assets = Capital.
Capitalism ?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: six67seven

I can agree with you right up until Citizens. Most people still seem to have no idea what the government was arguing for in that case. But, if you think the government should have been able to ban books ... which is exactly what they were arguing they had the right to do under election law, I guess Citizens was decided wrongly.

But if you really want to clean up election funding, you need to look at Union spending and foreign spending as much as any corporate spending, but Citizens wasn't going to block any of that.

Do you feel that your summation was honest and accurate? You're referring to the argument by the FEC's counsel that under the BCRA (McCain-Feingold), the government could prevent the publishing of ANY "electioneering communications" by non-exempted groups including nonprofit corporations AND unions that directly advocated for a candidate's election. This would include movies, commercials, advertisements, books, pamphlets, etc. This ultimately led to the case being argued again and the SCOTUS overruling McConnell v FEC (at least section 203) and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce on the grounds that they violate First Amendment protections.

The upshot is that organizations (including unions) with money to spend influencing elections aren't held in check by the limits of campaign contributions in that they can now channel the money into spending on direct advocacy which is effectively the same thing except that in theory, they're not allowed to coordinate with campaigns. When you say, "But if you really want to clean up election funding, you need to look at Union spending and foreign spending as much as any corporate spending," you should realize that the BCRA also limited those expenditures. Previously, only 501(c)(4) and 527(e)(1) organizations were exempted by section 203 of the BCRA (as long as the funding was exclusively from US citizens) and under section 201, news media corporations (not owned by candidates or parties) and independent expenditures (not coordinated with campaigns or PACs).

I'd say that the BCRA wasn't perfect but in my opinion, Citizens United v FEC, in what was ostensibly an effort to resolve inequities stemming from the BCRA and uphold First Amendment protections, did have the result of opening the floodgates for even more massive expenditures on propaganda and led to a worse state of affairs.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

If you have the standard of living of Y, and someone else has Z, Z can get any good they wanted that Y who's of a lower bracket could. So them trading goods is irrelevant. It would be Z trading a good deemed worth more in value to Y for a good deemed lesser in value to Z. It's Z trading downwards.

In monetary standards, is equivalent to me giving you 10 dollars in exchange for 5 dollars.

You can only trade downwards or evenly, as two people of the same standard can trade perks for the same products.

Nope. Anyone could trade for anything they want. Just as they can now.... The PS4 has more value to a 15 year old than it does to me (slightly)... Sooooo, It's worth more to him than me. I hope to God in any system a 15 year old makes LESS than me. As a result, I can take him for every Perk he's got (or every good he has I want, every job he'll do for me around the house or whatever) if I give him my PS4. Since (hopefully, as stated) said 15 year old makes less, I've again bested your controls and gamed your perk-system!

But, whatever. I've got a party (and some drinking) to attend. Hope the liquor store takes perks... Deuces!

a reply to: Borisbanger

Its the truth there isn't any class maneuverability when its rewarded to be rich and punished to be poor. Our credit system is a fine example of caste imprisonment. Quite frankly I despise this system and its ignorant supporters.

The end result of Democratic Socialism (a moneyless society) should actually be the starting point of any plan to change the system. Unfortunately such a notion is perceived as relying on the government rather than relying on each other.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Borisbanger

Its the truth there isn't any class maneuverability when its rewarded to be rich and punished to be poor. Our credit system is a fine example of caste imprisonment. Quite frankly I despise this system and its ignorant supporters.

Hear, hear!!
2nd

a reply to: snowen20

In such a scenario, the yacht truly belongs to Z, and is basically renting it out to Y. Is also a risk on Z's part as there should only be contracts that work downwards.

In other words, Y agrees to do X for Z in exchange for using the yacht with Xx1000 necessary for the yacht to become theirs permanently.

Until Xx1000 happens the yacht is still the possession of Z, it is not a loan. If Z makes the deal that as long as Y is doing X until Xx1000 he may borrow the yacht, then X is choosing to take the risk that something might happen to his borrowed property. At no point however did Y own said yacht until Xx1000 was paid off. So at any point the deal can end, no fuss no muss, and at no point can Z indenture Y.

It's up to Z if he wants to risk loaning out his property in exchange for services, the risk is his. If an accident happens the responsibility is on him. If Y decides to maliciously blow up the yacht while borrowing it, well that's a crime, for which they would be prosecuted by the law. At no point does Z get any control over Y's life that Y is not willing to give, nor can he take anything from why against his will.

originally posted by: arjunanda
Actually Edumakated, There actually has been A Great Victory of Capitalism (Crony Capitalism That Is). The Human Nature Thingy brings people to The Conclusion that, The only way to get ahead is to somehow find a way to Steal The Fruits of Other's Labor. That's where we are at now in this cycle. Those in power positions are making sure that their Friend's and Families are well taken care of. To the detriment of The Large Mass of The General Population. It's just how it works in Nature and we are no different in that regard to other creatures. They are currently at their Near Apex of Their Kleptocracy and soon as The Debts of The Many become more and more un payable is when The Great Fall Comes. IOW, make sure you're not owed nothing by nobody (Governments Included) as it is now Mathematically Near Impossible to Grow The Credit Bubble Much Farther and All Debts and Promises will go down like A Large Pile O' POO when things destabilize just a little bit more. Good Post

Arjunanda a reply to: Edumakated

I don't think anyone supports crony capitalism. I know I don't. The problem is human nature. You will always have people who are corrupt, greedy, evil, etc. These traits are not the sole province of capitalism. Capitalism gives the ambitious the most opportunities.

a reply to: Puppylove

I still have yet to see where anything you describe (other than setting floors and ceilings) is any different than capitalism. If you don't think the current system is capitalism (and I agree that it's not) then don't write threads about how capitalism has failed and then proceed to basically describe capitalism as your brave new system.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

No you haven't, in my system something cannot be owned until paid off, only borrowed.

You can only get as much out of the kid as he's willing to give. Is a no debt system. The second you say the kid owns it, he doesn't owe you jack in this system.

So yes you could use the system to get kids to do your laundry and # to borrow your system, but you can never indenture the kid by creating a debt. You give it away rather than loan it, it's gone.