The problem of Capitalism

Bye.

 

Try and take the land with you. Oh, you can't? Too bad. I guess we'll do just fine without any con man making grandiose claims about us not being able to prosper if it wasn't for him providing us with land by waving his magic wand.

The "economic" role of the landowner can take a hike and never come back, for all I care, as it's a pure parasite who takes without contributing.

 

I showed no appreciation for your greatness. You called me a fool, and I deserved it. I'm sorry.

Please come back, Mr. Question Beg. We couldn't make it without the land you provide, without the air you let us breathe, without the sun you let us bask in, without the audio frequencies you let us speak in, and without the ideas you make available to us. How will we ever make it?

 

Hello, North Korea.

 

"Morally superior"? When they want to be free to abandon their own community members if they're a 'burden'? And worse, expect OTHER people to accept the burden they rejected? Expect OTHER people to do what they refuse to do?

Yeah, real moral.

 

Here's an idea. Every landowner stops 'taking advantage' of rent serfs, and takes their property out of the rental market. That way no one is being compromised except the Evil Landowner, via loss of income. No more rental serfs. You should love this idea!

 

Right, a system less intrusive than the current one is "North Korea".

 

If you boated down the river to get a city with your goods but there was a crook who put a barrier in place that he usually opens in exchange for money, would the crook taking a vacation, with his barrier still being in place, change the fact that you are being hindered by not being able to get through to continue your journey?

 

I don't know who you are responding to.

 

Your problem is you don't believe it's possible for government to eradicate poverty, without drawing on YOUR personal wealth.

I say there are sufficient resources in the world to do achieve the former.

[I have already indicated you can cease being paranoid about community demands on your wealth, we are rapidly exiting the age of scarcity of vital resources, as AI and IT advance.] ​

As for morality: Man is on a journey from unaware animality characterised by survival-based predation, to....aware humanity based on concept of Universal Rights to Life and Liberty.

btw I notice you and Jetstar simply bail out of debates when the 'going get's tough', indicating an inadequate intellectual base to defend your argument.

Of course 'Rights' - a human conception - belong to individuals, not to the "community", but it is the latter that agrees on and defends those 'Rights" via rule of law.

 

Some "idea". That's like Crusoe kicking Friday off "his" island, telling him that he's not interested in his work anymore. Have fun drowning, Friday.

The market measures just how much it can bear to give to make the landowner's parasitism still tolerable in comparison to making due without the opportunities that location has.

 

Starjet hides from arguments a lot and ignores them. Called me a fool, a part of the Borg, said my post showed the true nature of a tyrant, said that I spoke like a true demagogue, and asked if I'm Jesse James great-great grandson. Then I go over the top a bit, dish out as well, and tell him that he wants legal permission to rob, enslave, rape, torture, kill, and annihilate others [in his pursuit of happiness<<<forgot to add that], some of which actually would be justified by his "arguments", even if not his intention, and he immediately uses that as a convenient excuse to tuck tail and run away.

 

Yes, unfortunately some don't understand such.

Yes, I live in democratic nation so I do often befuddle my comments by assuming others understand that government Should act to represent the people's wishes. As such It could be construed I am casting dispersions, but I am only stating 'you' as being part of your group. NOT actually demanding you agree or demand. Please forgive, and note as it will come up in future I am sure.

Yes, I do believe in the rule of law. but I also believe there should be separation of powers. Many nations and people do not and As it is my opinion based upon my beliefs I will not condemn them for such a stance. After talking to many around the world and at home, it becomes apparent that many just accept leaders for various reasons. some don't know if they have support by the group, some know how to protest or organise. It takes Gandhi’s and other types of people to bring forward true reform. It is not to say they don't exist, just that their time is not at hand. You have to understand, there are a lot of people like Gandhi who fill graves and some who do not have the courage or the voice to be heard. but with 7billion people on this planet, there are not many with the courage to stand against tyranny.

There are many things the UN have to work with and the problem has always been the difference in beliefs (as in this case where people think rights are universal). We are looking to stop war by that exact matter and if you haven't noticed (or maybe understood) War tribunals have become more frequent since WW2. previously people would be tried by their own nations who generally are the winning nation so results would be predetermined by the victors moral imperative. Thus giving incentive for the most horrendous war mongers to win by any means possible such as the most atrocious acts possible. War crimes are becoming great push to outlaw war but also treads the fine line of disappearing into obscurity should it be abused.



As example, wars over 100 years ago would be carried out by destroying armies not people. Ergo those with a red cross on their sleave were given respect and not hunted so they could save the wounded. Since WW1 and WW2 we see targeting people by wounding people and picking of the people who come to assist. Also wounded people take one or two others from battle while they try to assit the injured.

The point isn't how things would be now and so on. BUT how, you would consider acting immorally to meet the moral beliefs. It isn't a factual question, but more of a hypothetical to discuss the issue of difference in moral imperatives. It does make one wonder just how the black and white of moral imposition.

Yes, but unfortunately we need to corrupt the system to achieve such. This however does not determine that justice or rights are infringed. This point only exists due to the principle is the mark of wealth. As I said before, under the true form of capitalism, you can be the richest in the world, but if nobody wants to accept what you provide then you will starve in the streets.

See when you talk of eliminating poverty, I suggest you place your mark at what poverty is. Thus what justice of the rich or poor.

Yes.

Well, I assumed such. The point of rights for this and that are only used to convolute issues of poverty. After all “why should I give so and so anything since they will not act like I think they should”

Welfare is possibly the biggest issue in eradicating poverty some believe it is their god given right to get welfare. Or put it better, it is their right to expect the world owns them. BUT if you remove the basis of claim on rights you actually get to the bottom. People are just not decent enough or understanding enough to realise that giving that poor person a job, making them feel like they are putting into something does more than lifting them from poverty but lifts their mentality (as long as you give just reward for effort)

Maybe one day, your premise might be right but in present mentality Crank has the handle. Unfortunately for the majority to move to a more (for lack of better) humanitarian understanding will take HUGE shift in world thinking. The world is far from such.

 

1) No, I don't believe it's possible for Govt to 'eradicate' poverty, period. At least, not in any way which isn't totalitarian. The eradication of poverty requires FULL participation, and you will never get FULL participation voluntarily. There are far too many people who don't want what you're offering. Ergo, totalitarianism. In the meantime, you have it entirely wrong if you think I'm one of the 'I won't participate' crowd. I'm actually a collectivist (aka, socialist, aka commie), so have far more interest and belief in shared resources than you do. That's called irony, Dear.

2) Yes, there is far more than sufficient. But try telling Leftist elites (who claim to care) that they need to share their resources and take responsibility for each other, and see how far you get. The very people who champion this nonsense are the same people who are least able to tolerate collectivism or any of its incarnations. They are the most selfish of the lot .. even to the point of calling families 'burdens'.

3) Dear, I've been practising collectivism throughout much of my adult life. You need to address those who think they're entitled to live independently when they can't afford it, and who consider sharing resources a 'burden'. I'm actively opposed to un-shared resources and abdication from collective responsibility, and you're telling ME to wise up? Comedy!

4) Those who share resources and care for their less able, ARE aware. Obviously. It's those who refuse to do any of that who are mired in base animal instinct - looking out for number one, and calling mutual responsibility a 'burden'. They're you're problem. FTR, how many ways do you need this spelled out?

5) And each community decides those things for themselves. That's democracy.

 

You haven’t shown anything of the sort, you simply say you do… doesn’t work like that… you made the claims you have to show them.

Just saying they are facts does not make them facts. You have to back your claims of which you have done none. Assuming everybody agrees with you is factually incorrect.

So you got nothing I see.

cannot refute and simply wish to hide… yeah we understand you got nothing.

OR the facts you CLAIM.

The community owes NOTHING, the community grants its members. If stick your head in the sand then it owns you nothing. Just because your there does not make you a member.

Hahaha what a moronic thing to say.

Yeah got nothing we know.

Natural rights practical rights and legal rights, you forgot your constitutional rights or is that because you suddenly realise there is difference between government and economy??? I think not.

No, you laid claim and now cannot support it, not a strawman.

So you have nothing. I thought not. Just as I said, I am not going to keep going around on your merry go round, Come back when you can actually support some semblance of your claims. So far we just have your claim that everything you spew is fact. Nothing more… you didn’t refute my claim you just claimed Encarta as no support.

Like???not like… they are racketeers… Oh you think that is a big got ya moment… LOL

Lol, so what they put into buying or gaining possession is NOT contributing… Yeah rather selective there .

Wouldn’t take long… Hey genious, I been saying it from the start and you agreed that you are owed a living. You simply claim the degree is by community while I say world… Your fast one I see.

And THUS we see in ONE sentence You clearly do not comprehend or understand what capitalism is…

Show us where the definition is that shows such…
But another clear example of the confusion of government and economy.

LOL, got nothing eh??

Too late whiz kid, you have demonstrated the fact in this not three points above… no prizes for second… lol

You have by deliberately taking each and every sentence out of context to answer what you want and hide from the what you cannot understand. Thus the “relevant facts” you want to claim is distant from the points raised...

Is that from your book of moral imperatives… No, it is the fact of the matter, being envious of others due to what they either have or work hard for is evil, pointing it out to the world is not. Sorry.

The fact you claim it is owed to you makes the complaint of fabrication false. So where do you think it will come from???

IF you don’t like the “facts” then change them. As I stated you deliberately misrepresent others to insult them for your own pleasure… nothing more.

I am sorry, you want me to quote your sources??? As I said, get back to me with something new, as source that supports you stance…
Clearly that is the stupidest point you have tried to procure all along.

Of which you have done none… How can I hate something you haven’t provided???

No, you have demolished and humiliated your own credibility. So far everything else has just been your imagination…

 

The above is not the way it happens. It is something You want to believe.

On the local-level, just as on the Federal level, there are authorities that have legal mandates (laws!) that must be respected. Except in one crazy-domain. The amount of money that rich individuals can give to candidates, so that said-candidates can spend it on TV promoting 20-second commercials to get elected .

That's the same way companies sell breakfast-cereal, hamburgers and cars - so why not politicians? (As if they were marketing washing-machine powder.)

What far-too-many Americans have yet to learn is that elections are not beauty-contests. (See below.) They are instruments that can be manipulated. And why? Because their Civics Education is either lacking or not as profound as it should be.

From the Center for American Progress here: The State of Civics Education - excerpt:

Uncle Sam is hurting when it comes to fundamental democratic principles. Like the duty of voting:

 

There is no problem with Capitalism. It has served us well in the past and will in the future.

Don't like it? Move to another Country.

 

I thought so.

As an aside, I already mentioned separation of powers, and therefore no-one would notice a UNSC without veto power, except for the miracle of a world without war between nations (but not among individuals within nations, of course....that is actually more difficult to achieve than the former proposition, because of the proximity of individuals to one-another within a given nation…)

But to your point that many nations do not believe in rule of law, or universality of individual Rights to life and liberty (and btw neither does Starjet, as you have noticed):

I won't 'condemn' them either, but I will point out the error of their beliefs when I can.

One day (sooner than we think, as IT connects the world)
the community of nations will reject 'beliefs', in favour of owning the (know-able) truth, eg, Man is one species before God/Reality.

(And I notice that even Khomeini, a religious bigot to the core, is now saying the world has no need of war mongers like John Bolton...ie, even he has learnt that 'God' doesn't appear to want the military dominance of Iran...) .​

Addressed above; I wonder if optimism has a role to play.

 

You missed the debate. Capitalism within a social democracy is fine, but nevertheless (like the Ford owner's manual said years ago) better for being subject to a policy of continuous improvement (eg by instituting different arrangements between central (public sector) and commercial (private sector) banks.

And then there's the question of the relations of national economies to one-another, via WTO reform.

 

No, it only requires the agreement of the majority. Civics education classes will assist in this endeavour of course (as pointed out by Lafayette).

Only because they think their own wealth will be compromised. Once they are disabused of that belief, we can begin bulldozing those slums...

I happy to accept this in good faith.

But you still don't see I'm not proposing "shared resources" as such, rather universal access to vital resources, which is a different thing. There is much to be had (regardless of 'worth') beyond vital resources.

You mean like Al Gore? Actually if we *are* heading for a man-made climate catastrophe, even he will have to tolerate a specially-constituted IMF-managed ("collectivist") transition of resources from filthy fossil to green.[IMO everyone would be better off anyway.]

Let's assume AGW is real. Still sure you are a "collectivist"?

No...again, note the difference between 'vital' (for life and liberty) and 'shared resources' ie who gets to buy the Rolls Royces. Still sure you are a "collectivist"?

See the shaky ground you are now on, based on your failure to differentiate between 'resources' and vital resources.

Which gets us back to my first comment.

 

ECONOMIC-DEFENSE OF THE NATION

What other country? Where there is no capitalism? Where's that?

You are blind to the facts. It is not "capitalism" that is the problem, but the manner in which it is applied.

Which brings us to the next question, the answer to which you WILL NOT LIKE AT ALL. How fair is the distribution of Income in the US. Meaning "just, equitable, honourable, trustworthy." In fact, in the US it is highly unfair.

And since you seem not to have any idea of Economic Fairness, you wont understand that the US Income Disparity is one of the worst of any developed nation. (As shown in this graphic here.) But, of course, I am sure those two charts convince you of nothing.

The US is one of the generally fairest countries on earth in which to live. But about Income Disparity it is also the MOST UNFAIR!

And what does anybody want to do about it? Not a damn thing!

We seem to be all mesmerized by Great Wealth and think "Well if they've got most of the wealth, and 14 million Americans must live below the Poverty Threshold, that's the way the cookie crumbles!"

In any fair and decent country, the cookie need not crumble in the same manner it does today in the US. Which we in the US continue to fail to understand! So what's a country supposed to do?

Educate its people out of poverty by making a Post-secondary Education very-low-cost for families of low-income! (That is, make the cost of a post-secondary degree at any state-university scaled according to family-income from low- to average-income levels.)

And how do we do that? The world is changing around us, which means jobs in Industry are diminishing as companies employ computer-automated product lines. Services now employ 7-times more people than Industry! (See that fact corroborated in the Bureau of Labor Statistics here.)

But for the Services Industries you need at least some vocational training, but at higher income-levels at least a postsecondary degree. Which we should be able to obtain free, gratis, and for nothing! Howzat?

Damn easy! We are wasting BILLIONS on the DoD, when economic-defense of the nation nowadays means education, education, education. (And thus these: vocational, associate, bachelor, master and doctor degrees!)

 

Some people understand English, and some don't.

Off topic a bit:
This just gave me flash backs, looking back at school. There were students, even teachers, that claimed that texts, sentences, sometimes even single words, can be interpreted in whatever way is desired and that "everyone can have his own interpretation". Yes, you fools. Everyone can have his own ideas; however, THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE POSSIBLE CORRECT INTERPRETATION: The interpretation that perfectly reflects the ideas that the author had in his mind as he was writing the text.

Perfectly closing in on that may not be possible because the author might not be using language accurately, and/or because oneself is not capable of it, and/or because it's physically impossible to have a 100% duplicates of the concepts that are in each others' minds. But there is a very helpful tool that people can make use of to help in the process making oneself more understandable and understanding what others' mean to relay with words: DICTIONARIES.

A reason we have dictionaries is to standardize, and to be able to analyze, verbal and written language to make communication more efficient by helping us know the concept each word represents. So that we can use words to induce duplication of the same concept in our minds. You cannot use words to represent whatever concepts you so desire -- if you want to communicate accurately, efficiently, and honestly, that is.

 

The problem is: America is less and less capitalist and more and more fascist socialism.

As in: Yes you have a right to yours—as long as you pay your fair share to house the homeless, heal the sick, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, care for the elderly, educate the ignorant, save the animals, purify the atmosphere, and on, on, and on, until you feel like you’re in a Twilight Zone scene with Marlon Brando working on the waterfront for Johnny Friendly as Johnny, in his amicably brutish way, explains the deductions in your paycheck. In other words, “Yeah, it’s yours, after we take ours, and we’re in a good mood and feel like leaving you any.”

Ayn Rand: “Morally, the promise of an impossible “right” to economic security is an infamous attempt to abrogate the concept of rights. It can and does mean only one thing: a promise to enslave the men who produce, for the benefit of those who don’t. “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.” (“Man’s Rights” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) There can be no such thing as the right to enslave, i.e., the right to destroy rights.”—http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/welfare_state.html

Yaron Brook: Why is Capitalism the System of Individual Freedom

 

And a good many foreign English speakers (excluding Canada and the UK) are more proficient at the English-language than we Americans. Because they are taught properly.

The new head of the European Union Commission (in Brussels), Ursula von der Leyen, speaks an excellent English. (She is Dutch, so it is not surprising.)

Even better than Donald Dork ...

 

Clarification/Elaboration:

The author of any given text is of course not necessarily correct about what is claimed in the text. What I meant is that there is only one possible correct interpretation with regards to the ideas that he had in his mind when he attempted to put them into words.

An author believing that 1+1=3 wouldn't mean that that's correct. But I don't know what idea he had in his head. Does he actually mean that 1+1=3, or does he merely think that 3 actually means 2, or was it merely a mistake? Only one answer.