Capitalism in itself is not a bad economic theory; people work for something, and they get paid for it.
Modern Capitalism however is a bad theory, in that people who work for something and get insanely rich off of it can manage to completely fuck over the other people working for something.
Working for something and getting paid for it IS NOT exclusive to capitalism. This is a pretty serious fallacy if you think this isn't the case in systems like Socialism, Syndicalism, etc.
That wasn't worded right; I meant that a system that rewards people who put in effort and reap the benefits is a fair system.
Of course that kind of results in screwing over the people who don't have the means to put in that effort, which is why a Capitalist system also requires some way to help the people who are disadvantaged.
Yeah, this runs in contrary to the principles of a capitalist system, but when you've got the choice between letting people starve to death, or keeping your economic system pure, it's not really a choice... Assuming of course you're not a student of Ayn Rand's fucked up philosophies.
Capitalism merely describes the relationship between people in Capital (the means of production, ie the machines that print out machines that print out machines, not the tools in your garage) and the public. In Capitalism, Capital is held by a small number of people, and therefore, the majority is employed by the minority, and are paid to create goods that they are paid a ridiculously small fraction of the profit that said good would make, and so on and so forth. Do you mind if I just link you a video on the LTV and commodification.
I'd say it's pretty clear that I have no idea what the fuck I'm saying.
Romanian My Escutcheon on
[IMG][/img]
0
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
shank seriously if you care so much about these people maybe you should send them your money instead of buying hundred dollar shirts
the difference between buying clothing and joking about the slaughter of human beings is, I would say, substantial
I'm not claiming to be a paragon of justice, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take steps towards moral propriety where we can
besides, the argument that I can't point out despicable behavior where I see it on the basis of my own unfortunate inaction doesn't hold a lot of water
also, for what it's worth, I do give and work where I can, and intend to do more and more in my future
Charles Kinbote on
0
SheriResident FlufferMy Living RoomRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
Also there is totally a donut place near my apartment
AND one right near the house we will (hopefully) be moving into!
I think this is people realising they don't want to be fat.
Same thing happened in Canada.
When they first opened up here the donut shops here had lines going out the door.
Then a few months later everyone felt vaguely disgusted at their excess, and stopped going.
Now most of them have been shut down. Which is a shame, since it's the only place I could find around here that sold chocolate glazed, whip-cream filled donuts.
Really, any system that someone thinks up will only work long enough for someone to figure out how to benefit most from it and fuck it up.
That's human nature.
This 100%. Absolutely.
I think its silly to accept that human nature is naturally competitive and greedy. I think this whole idea of 'humans are rargg bad in their natural state' is a dire misunderstanding of how we came to be. Do you genuinely think we would have moved beyond the hunter/gather stage in our evolution if we were as fiercely as competitive as Hobbes says we are? Humanity only moves forward through cooperation. That is our nature.
I think it's naturally both competitive and cooperative, it all has to do with our relations towards each other.
Wallhitter on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Really, any system that someone thinks up will only work long enough for someone to figure out how to benefit most from it and fuck it up.
That's human nature.
This 100%. Absolutely.
I think its silly to accept that human nature is naturally competitive and greedy. I think this whole idea of 'humans are rargg bad in their natural state' is a dire misunderstanding of how we came to be. Do you genuinely think we would have moved beyond the hunter/gather stage in our evolution if we were as fiercely as competitive as Hobbes says we are? Humanity only moves forward through cooperation. That is our nature.
The competitiveness and greediness that everybody sees in everybody else exists only because of the socio-economic system we've created for ourselves. Its DEFINITELY fixable.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
[Deleted User] on
0
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
Capitalism is the popular system now because revenue is perceived as being a tool to achieve a societal goal. Across many cultures, that goal is "growth."
Yet, no one can really articulate why "growth" is good, especially when that growth only seems to widen the gap between the rich and the poor.
That said, a corporation generating revenue to invest in an economy of goods and services aids in providing better goods and services (by better I mean large-scale, not necessarily better quality). Or, that's the ideal. Rather than a small business struggling for capital and investment, a corporation gathers joint capital and investment from multiple sources and is able to put out advanced goods and services. How they invest is dictated by the wants of the shareholders in that corporation.
A corporation in a CAPITALIST system, then, means the following
- shareholders are concerned with growth and revenue, so the corporation works towards those ends
- competition is good
- competition in the marketplace means products either end up CHEAPER or of better QUALITY versus their opponents
And because cost-cutting is the favored kneejerk reaction here, the costs that get cut are the ones that make a company environmentally sustainable or morally responsible. Ergo, it is not a corporation's fault in its strictest and purest form or intention... it is what drives that corporation that is at fault.
You're not going to blame a hammer for hammering the nail, you're going to blame the dude using the hammer for hammering the nail.
shank seriously if you care so much about these people maybe you should send them your money instead of buying hundred dollar shirts
the difference between buying clothing and joking about the slaughter of human beings is, I would say, substantial
I'm not claiming to be a paragon of justice, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take steps towards moral propriety where we can
besides, the argument that I can't point out despicable behavior where I see it on the basis of my own unfortunate inaction doesn't hold a lot of water
also, for what it's worth, I do give and work where I can, and intend to do more and more in my future
you don't give and work where you can, you give and work where you want. as long as you're buying hundred dollar workshirts you're not giving anywhere NEAR your potential
let's not bullshit each other here
your apathy is much more damaging than mine for two reasons:
1. you have much more money than I do and thus are in a position to do a lot more
2. you don't even realize you're apathetic and thus are less likely to change
honestly I bet getting all riled at me right now will probably have a NEGATIVE impact on the "giving and working" you do, since you probably feel like you're doing your part right now
I don't really know enough about economics to adequately back this up, so if I get challenged on this point I'll likely back down pretty fast, and I understand that this is a sweeping statement, but my gut says that any collective system wherein entities are evaluated on their ability to turn a profit is intrinsically flawed/doomed
By which I mean that the whole "corporations are responsible primarily to their shareholders" thing is a sad fact that, in an ideal society, would be enormously rectified
Really, any system that someone thinks up will only work long enough for someone to figure out how to benefit most from it and fuck it up.
That's human nature.
This 100%. Absolutely.
I think its silly to accept that human nature is naturally competitive and greedy. I think this whole idea of 'humans are rargg bad in their natural state' is a dire misunderstanding of how we came to be. Do you genuinely think we would have moved beyond the hunter/gather stage in our evolution if we were as fiercely as competitive as Hobbes says we are? Humanity only moves forward through cooperation. That is our nature.
The competitiveness and greediness that everybody sees in everybody else exists only because of the socio-economic system we've created for ourselves. Its DEFINITELY fixable.
I don't accept it, but I recognize it as being the facts on the gruond. This is where you and I differ in our social activism.
Reality is that if THAT GUY OVER THERE is getting 10 for putting in 2 and I am only getting 5 for putting in 1, I want to be him. I want that 10. But maybe I can't afford it! OR, I want him to only have 5. OR, how do I get 10 with just my 1? Given the opportunity to get 10 from 1, I would take it, because I can't afford to put in 2 (or don't want to) and I'm not happy with my 5 because it is less than what that guy over there has.
That reality is perpetuated by a capitalist perspective.
My focus is on the individual, because I feel that change starts with an individual and even that the individual needs help NOW, not 50 years from now. Your focus is on the macro systems that govern how that individual interacts with his peers, community, or society. Honestly, social change needs both of us. So while I am working on helping individuals who don't even have 1 to put in, let alone 2, you can work on changing the system that makes it so important to want 10 instead of 5.
That is, our points of view are not conflicting, they are just two different pieces of a much larger picture.
he's a bit tooly but he's even given lectures at major Marxist/Anarchist meetings, and is good at breaking down the ridiculously stilted languages most Marxists use!
Thanks.
I'll watch them in the morning... 1:54 AM is not the time for one to restructure their thoughts on economics.
Posts
Well I mean if it's before he moves here I don't really have a choice
But after that, hell no. Donuts for all.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
That wasn't worded right; I meant that a system that rewards people who put in effort and reap the benefits is a fair system.
Of course that kind of results in screwing over the people who don't have the means to put in that effort, which is why a Capitalist system also requires some way to help the people who are disadvantaged.
Yeah, this runs in contrary to the principles of a capitalist system, but when you've got the choice between letting people starve to death, or keeping your economic system pure, it's not really a choice... Assuming of course you're not a student of Ayn Rand's fucked up philosophies.
EDIT: So after reading this...
I'd say it's pretty clear that I have no idea what the fuck I'm saying.
This 100%. Absolutely.
Which translates to not wanting to be jolly, like Santa!
Viv we are on a wavelength here tonight.
i am generally an optimist about people but this i have agreed with for a looong time.
the difference between buying clothing and joking about the slaughter of human beings is, I would say, substantial
I'm not claiming to be a paragon of justice, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take steps towards moral propriety where we can
besides, the argument that I can't point out despicable behavior where I see it on the basis of my own unfortunate inaction doesn't hold a lot of water
also, for what it's worth, I do give and work where I can, and intend to do more and more in my future
AND one right near the house we will (hopefully) be moving into!
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
Same thing happened in Canada.
When they first opened up here the donut shops here had lines going out the door.
Then a few months later everyone felt vaguely disgusted at their excess, and stopped going.
Now most of them have been shut down. Which is a shame, since it's the only place I could find around here that sold chocolate glazed, whip-cream filled donuts.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
You are moving into a donut?
Satans..... hints.....
I think it's naturally both competitive and cooperative, it all has to do with our relations towards each other.
Damn Teefs just became more optimistic then me.
they are about a million times better and all you really need is a dutch oven and some oil
My dad will eat 2 fucking boxes worth in about 3 minutes.
Yet, no one can really articulate why "growth" is good, especially when that growth only seems to widen the gap between the rich and the poor.
That said, a corporation generating revenue to invest in an economy of goods and services aids in providing better goods and services (by better I mean large-scale, not necessarily better quality). Or, that's the ideal. Rather than a small business struggling for capital and investment, a corporation gathers joint capital and investment from multiple sources and is able to put out advanced goods and services. How they invest is dictated by the wants of the shareholders in that corporation.
A corporation in a CAPITALIST system, then, means the following
- shareholders are concerned with growth and revenue, so the corporation works towards those ends
- competition is good
- competition in the marketplace means products either end up CHEAPER or of better QUALITY versus their opponents
And because cost-cutting is the favored kneejerk reaction here, the costs that get cut are the ones that make a company environmentally sustainable or morally responsible. Ergo, it is not a corporation's fault in its strictest and purest form or intention... it is what drives that corporation that is at fault.
You're not going to blame a hammer for hammering the nail, you're going to blame the dude using the hammer for hammering the nail.
Is your dad a grizzly bear?
That isn't even a reasonable interpretation of what I said
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
you're a moving donut house?
So I'm going to jump onto the doughnut train by saying that Hostess chocolate doughnuts are the best thing ever... As far as doughnuts go anyway.
blake can't read
It's late, sal good.
Can I joke about slaughtering you in your sleep, or will you go on a tirade at me? :P
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
Wouldn't you blame the dude who hired the illegal immigrant to do the hammering?
you don't give and work where you can, you give and work where you want. as long as you're buying hundred dollar workshirts you're not giving anywhere NEAR your potential
let's not bullshit each other here
your apathy is much more damaging than mine for two reasons:
1. you have much more money than I do and thus are in a position to do a lot more
2. you don't even realize you're apathetic and thus are less likely to change
honestly I bet getting all riled at me right now will probably have a NEGATIVE impact on the "giving and working" you do, since you probably feel like you're doing your part right now
By which I mean that the whole "corporations are responsible primarily to their shareholders" thing is a sad fact that, in an ideal society, would be enormously rectified
edit: that picture I mean
minus the hair yes
I don't accept it, but I recognize it as being the facts on the gruond. This is where you and I differ in our social activism.
Reality is that if THAT GUY OVER THERE is getting 10 for putting in 2 and I am only getting 5 for putting in 1, I want to be him. I want that 10. But maybe I can't afford it! OR, I want him to only have 5. OR, how do I get 10 with just my 1? Given the opportunity to get 10 from 1, I would take it, because I can't afford to put in 2 (or don't want to) and I'm not happy with my 5 because it is less than what that guy over there has.
That reality is perpetuated by a capitalist perspective.
My focus is on the individual, because I feel that change starts with an individual and even that the individual needs help NOW, not 50 years from now. Your focus is on the macro systems that govern how that individual interacts with his peers, community, or society. Honestly, social change needs both of us. So while I am working on helping individuals who don't even have 1 to put in, let alone 2, you can work on changing the system that makes it so important to want 10 instead of 5.
That is, our points of view are not conflicting, they are just two different pieces of a much larger picture.
Thanks.
I'll watch them in the morning... 1:54 AM is not the time for one to restructure their thoughts on economics.