Capitalism =Greed

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by hypattia

 

Capitalism, is fine, and the people who invest take a risk, so they deserve to profit from their investments, but do people have to have so much money, at the expense of paying a living wage, to the employees?

Do you have a proposal for a new system, or a proposal for re-structuring the current system? Something you'd like to share that may mean a solution to those ills you've outlined?

[edit on 13-7-2010 by LadySkadi]

Yes, a resource based economy grounded in civil anarchy.

Money is but a means of deceit, control, and manipulation.

All governments are doomed to fail.

reply to post by Muckster


I read your post, and you mention another thing that I find amazing. People embracing the system that they are victims of.
This is something I don't understand. Men in my family, union members, are the worst, and they are not wealthy, but are comfortable. The good paying jobs they had, are no longer there. Yet they have no compassion for this generation.
They never knew or forgot the origins of unions and why people died for the right to form unions.

reply to post by LadySkadi


By discussing these things, we may be able to find a realistic way to not reward greed.

reply to post by Wolf321

Employer then has to offer more money until someone accepts the job. That is fair, because both parties agree its fair, and above all, that is FREEDOM.

Is this fair? Businesses take their companies out of the country to pay lower wages. Businesses hire illegal aliens, so they don't have to pay a fair wage. Businesses have created the problem of illegal aliens. If they were bot hired they would not be here.
They come here and send the money back to their families where the money is worth more, not to better themselves while here. Soon American people will be in the same situation, if they are not already, the way things are going. Thanks to Big Business, Lehman's, Sachs-Goldman, and their puppet politicians.
Remember it is more important for them to have enough disposable income to spend 5k on lunch, than people to have enough money to have health care.

What say you is the solution? People here in the U.S. should take lower wages?
Do you know why unions were started? Why people died for the right to form unions?
Not saying unions haven't had their problems, but it did create a balance.

reply to post by hypattia


Thanks hypattia

It is fascinating how people embrace it... i don’t know why... maybe a mixture of ignorance, misplaced patriotism/loyalty and the need to hold on tightly to the emotional blankie that is society.

The system may be bad... and it may not work... but people are too cowardly to try something new....

As the saying goes... Better the devil you know!!

Personally... i hope the whole system comes crashing down... for too long we have been controlled by pathetically weak men who have mealy inherited power and wealth.


peace

reply to post by hypattia


Your not going to like my reply, if you're unhappy with working two jobs why not change that?? Why not go to college and better yourself so you can get the job you want without working two jobs?? Why put down someone who obviously busted their butts to get to the top??I am pretty sure you wouldn't like someone like my husband who busted his arse for 14 years to get where he is now. Now he makes a descent living , and we are able to start working on our house again. Granted I am looking for ad will be hired soon, as a PA (personal assistant) once the money rolls in I will be signing up for my 2 year degree in Health Information, ie medical records specialist. I am going for that change and I cannot wait for it to happen.

My problem is with people like you, who want to point fingers at our governments and people who worked their butts off to make the money they have right now. Calling them greedy and what not, why because you're pissed off that you make minium wage and have to wok tow jobs. Don't like it change. I too have been dirt poor 4 times in my life, not once did my Mother or Father get on government assistance, why because they knew at the time it wasn't permanent and they looked for another option found it and took it. They got back on their feet and all was well. In fact if my Mother or Father had taken government assistance i have no idea what they would be doing right now. Maybe they wouldn't be looking at retirement??

I am just tired of all of the name calling, finger pointing, and close mindedness. I just consider it very closed minded to equate greed with higher paying people. Not all of them are about the money.

reply to post by LadySkadi


I have a solution...but, it is blocked by our very government that designs business structures. My idea would allow for Partnership LLC's similar to professional LLC's. Where all employees are partners in the business unable to cash out the business upon leaving.

Imagine a partnership business where everyone owns a portion of the business and all work in that business, the success or failure of their work and profit divided up amongst themselves as income. If they want to work more, they can. If they want to work less, they can. If they want to automate, they can and it will increase their profits reducing the amount of hours they work. If they want to expand they need to bring on new partners, but cannot hire employees. If they want to sub contract or outsource work they must use only other partnership business to accomplish this.

Yes, I can think of a solution that fills the middle ground. We must ask ourselves though why this type of corporation is reserved for only professionals Doctors, Lawyers, etc. when I think it could benefit the world.

Originally posted by hypattia
Is this fair? Businesses take their companies out of the country to pay lower wages. Businesses hire illegal aliens, so they don't have to pay a fair wage. Businesses have created the problem of illegal aliens. If they were bot hired they would not be here.
...
What say you is the solution? People here in the U.S. should take lower wages?
Do you know why unions were started? Why people died for the right to form unions?
Not saying unions haven't had their problems, but it did create a balance.

First, yes it is fair. When two people agree work for a given wage, it is completely fair.

Businesses going overseas to find cheap labor is fair. It is tragic, but fair. If people are not happy paying the lower price that producing something overseas where it is cheaper provides, then don't buy from that company. If there is no market for foreign made products, the companies won't produce overseas. However, I will say that any of the taxes and other issues that the government sets up drives many jobs out o the US.

Businesses that hire illegals are doing something illegal. They should be dealt with severely. In another thread on immigration reform I suggested this

20% of net worth or $250,000 fine (whichever is higher,) minimum 6 months up to 5 years in federal prison and permanent removal of any business licensing for businesses who knowingly hire illegal aliens. If the individual employer is a legal immigrant, removal of green card and immediate deportation upon release of prison sentence. This is a felony offense.

The idea of people accepting lower wage is all encompassing. The whole system would have to reboot in order for that to work, such that the cost of living was stable with the wages. After that, a fair wage is whatever anyone will accept.

Unions have outlived their usefulness and become toxic to the economy and the nation. The need to set hours, equality, safety etc are done and regulated and governed by other federal laws and departments. Now, unions only manipulate the political system, and bankrupt business and cities/states.

reply to post by mysticalzoe


Why not go to college and better yourself so you can get the job you want without working two jobs??

Are you for real?? What is my family supposed to live on while I go back to school?

reply to post by mysticalzoe


I am not talking about the average working class or upper middle class. I am talking about the wealthy.

reply to post by hypattia


It is not the right of the people to decide if someone is greedy to the point which a government agency steps in and does something.

On the other hand you do not have to use their services or products.
That is how people should combat the greed they hate of the super rich.

And also do you really need most of these extras in your life. Is not having two cars, TV's in every room, computers for every person, smoking cigarettes, drinking booze, eating sweets, going skiing, hiking, biking, ect,, are these not also greed's that the average person tries to attain at the cost of say not paying bills on time, not clothing your children, running a large credit debt.

reply to post by Wolf321


Now, unions only manipulate the political system, and bankrupt business and cities/states.

And Sachs-Goldman, Lehman, etc, don't.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


I like your idea. This is why I started this post, to find ways to improve lives for everyone.

reply to post by hypattia


Capitalism is just an excuse that people use when they desire to take more than their fair share of resources.

Originally posted by Mumbotron
reply to post by hypattia

 

I think Marx had it nailed. Communism is supposed to be pure democracy from the grass roots up. There is the story that after WW1 and the fall of the Tzars of Russia, Lenin got his hands on a Communist Manifesto and thought it may be an answer for his home that was at that time in shambles. He contacted Marx to ask what he thought about Russia adopting this philosophy and Marx replied: Your attempt will never develop past Socialism (the first stage) due to the fact it must remain centralized to fight off Capitalist influence on the society. As we have seen, no country that has claimed to be Communist has been able to become a decentralized Democracy just like Marx said. As long as there are greedy people offering payoffs and greedy people taking them, we have a problem.
edit: Real communism like Marx intended can't exist in competition with Capitalism which is a system that will destroy itself on it's own.
People hoard for the sake of hoarding. the productive capacity of our resources and efforts are wasted.

[edit on 07/17/2009 by Mumbotron]

What? Karl Marx was long dead by the start of WWI and Lenin was a communist decades before WWI. History is a wonderful thing to know.

I think it would be best if we had something similar to capitalism, but i also believe in a small govn't like back in the day in america, like we had in the thirtys, and you could do what ever you wanted... I think im right, but im not sure.

This country has too much socialism in it, and I cannot stand for this outright horrible countrys' leader, which I thought about serving the us military but after the news I got one day, I thought otherwise...







[edit on 23-7-2010 by weediesavior42]

Originally posted by mike365
Are you comparing the killing of the Taiban in Iraq to something like Cambodian genocide with 1.7million people EXTERMINATED -www.yale.edu... We are in Iraq to git rid of an oppressive government.

I, again, don't the thought process. Do you realize America is one of the, if not THE only country that will
1. Invade a country
2. Kill off the oppressive government
3. FREE the people
4. REBUILD the country to better than pre-war conditions
5. And then leave without asking for anything in return.

In every other war in history it goes this way.
1. Invade the country
2. Kill off all of the government
3. ENSLAVE the people
4. Steal all of the resources
5. and then tax the people of that country to pay for the war

America is THE only country that fights, truly FIGHTS, for peace. If you believe that the US fights wars in other countries to take over, then why do we not control every country in the world? Why have we not taken every barrel of oil in Iraq and left by now?

It would have been easy to go to Iraq, steal every barrel of oil, take every well and nuke the country. We could have done that and no other country could have done anything about it.

Instead our solderer have done their best to not kill the innocent, and at the same time rebuild the country and FREE the people.

Again, find ANY country that has ever done that... especially a communist/ socialist country.

Amen to that. Thank you for defending our nation while others speak ill of it.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

Imagine a partnership business where everyone owns a portion of the business and all work in that business, the success or failure of their work and profit divided up amongst themselves as income.

This is similar to the Mutualist school of thought in Anarchism advanced by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

A free market doesn't exist with negative regulation, nor does it exist with positive regulation. Our current economy eschews negative regulation (and I agree, it should), but it also advances positive regulation (e.g. limited liability).

A major corporate conglomerate is not necessitate in a free market. In fact, in a truly free market, a retailer like Best Buy or a company like Boeing wouldn't be able to exist except in rare circumstance. They exist only because of the legal concept of the juristic person and the de facto insurance subsidies wrought by limited liability laws.

Proudhon, for all intents and purposes, favored the absolute minimization of coercive institutions, both state and corporate based. Most of the state's non-critical (police, armed forces, etc.) functions could be performed by consumers cooperatives. Parks, libraries, schools, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, health care, etc. could be run by voluntary cooperatives financed by individual monthly payments. If you didn't want XYZ set of services you simply don't join that cooperative. If you didn't like the libraries maintained by "A" cooperative, you could transfer your membership to a competing cooperative.

The role of corporations would be replaced by producers cooperatives. We might still have a Boeing, or a Best Buy or a General Electric, but they would be equal-stock corporations, only employees owned shares and each employee owned exactly 1 share. The government would not be involved in running the economy like in a communist state, nor would there be enforced equality. One would still be free to - truly and as an individual - invent or innovate a product, idea or service and monetize it as an individual or - if it required advanced labor infrastructure to support - sell it to that producer's cooperative that bid the highest. Likewise, being an equal shareholder in a producer's cooperative would mean only your split of annual profit would be equal, your salary would as high - or low - as your talents demanded.

Solving the endemic problems of capitalism isn't achieved through some middle-way, like increased regulation or social spending. The solution is only in the abolition of the modern concept of the State.

reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada


Thanks for your input. I am looking forward to reading about the Mutualist school of thought in Anarchism and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

reply to post by hypattia


I get the sense that you know nothing about capitalism, so I will explain.
The tools of capitalism are hard work and innovation. Work hard, innovate, supply the market and you are rewarded with capital.Socialism is merely a system by which the mediocre can, using the power of police, pretend to be equal.
"Capitalism sucks" is merely the battle cry of the under achiever.