Thread: The crisis of capitalism - a love story for LAM

I would much rather not be right on this subject but it's what all the data has shown for a long time.

right now US tax dollars are helping to fund the IMF (located in CT) to bailout OECD country's all over the world, thanks to American greed in the financial sector. but that is not even the worst part. since wages have been stagnant in the US for so long and the national savings rate has been near zero there has been no monies available for capital projects to build/restore our own infrastructure. for profit company's don't fund capital projects to help the community that is were personal savings from the private sector (working class americans) is used. so for basically the past 30-40 years there has been no real investment in the people of this country and our infrastructure is obviously falling apart.

how long do you think it's going to take to correct 30-40 years of neglect once this problem is even addressed which it still isn't. Still think Obama was wrong about his comment about the top 2% sharing the wealth?

Originally Posted by LAM

right now US tax dollars are helping to fund the IMF (located in CT) to bailout OECD country's all over the world, thanks to American greed in the financial sector.

That's not free-market capitalism. We know leftists like to but you can't argue against free-market capitalism by giving examples and condemning institutions not based on capitalism.

Originally Posted by troubador

That's not free-market capitalism. We know leftists like to but you can't argue against free-market capitalism by giving examples and condemning institutions not based on capitalism.

I didn't say what it was or wasn't I simply stated that it is occurring. tax payers in the US are helping to bail out OECD countries while a decent portion the wealth in those countries was transferred to the financial sector in the US.

Originally Posted by troubador

That's not free-market capitalism. We know leftists like to but you can't argue against free-market capitalism by giving examples and condemning institutions not based on capitalism.

I know that LAM has made this point before, but in what free-market system do for-profit organisations get re-capitalised using public sector funds?

I also find it laughable that anyone thinks there is still such a thing as a FREE market, read Harry Braverman The Degradation of Work to get an idea of the implications of the perpetual cycle of so called 'Capitalism'.

Way back when, before both of us were born, tax rates for top earners were at.. what, 98% if I am correct? 98%. This was a clear and unmistakable attack on business - to put them 'in their place' if you will. I am sure there are many people would enjoy the rich to get put into this position again. I believe this goes against the fundamental principles on which this country was founded. What then ultimately, is the incentive to achieve success in the upper echelons of this society? What would happen is people would either leave the country entirely or stay and make less - creating an ever lowering bar for the government to get their financial resources. Top 2% from anyone that makes, let's say 5 million a year. Over a period of (for the sake of argument) 5 years, they then need to lower it to 2 million. Then 1 million. Then 750k, and so on - until everyone from my line of work to a doctor makes roughly the same, give or take. This essentially creates the 'utopia' of which you want this country headed - a commune with little incentive to be more successful than the next person.

Let's say that a huge tax burden is placed on the top 2%. Then what? Does this solve the issues? Far from it unfortunately. If this was the end all, be all of solutions, you would have me on board if it was temporary - with a catch. Lets say as the head of the conservatives I will agree with you, the head of the liberals. If you want the temporary tax that goes against the fundamentals of capitalism and our countries foundations, I want the following: I want anyone.. ANYONE that is on government assistance to not have the rights to vote while on assitance. Welfare. Food stamps. Whatever.

I say this for one simple reason - politicians will no longer have the ability to sway voters based on the goodies they promise. Another huge reason this republic is in the shape that it's in is that politicians have been selling out and giving away the farm for a very long time. Also, In addition to this, there will be stringent guidelines to get on any programs. If people have to have visits by the death tax gestapo, then the people on government programs should be visited and be disqualified for making bad purchasing decisions, aka. they have kids, but have beer in the fridge instead of food, etc. Surprise visits. They should also follow other strict qualifiers in order to maintain government assistance. Also, there should be a restriction on spending and no ear-marks to build up ones legacies in individual states. Restrictions on trade. An opening of the oil fields - with the oil only able to be using in-country and no outside trading with the product.

The ultimate battle is on how we act human. It is human nature to be greedy. No mistake - capitalism is fine, then corrupted through greed. It is also human nature for many people to take advantage of many, many government programs and keep bottom feeding until the well is dry. Why put in extra effort when you can have an unlimited feed trough and other assistance if you just stay under the guidelines, right? It's human nature for both sides and there will never be a final solution on either side when people are trying to circumvent the rules at someone else's expense.

Originally Posted by phosphor

Way back when, before both of us were born, tax rates for top earners were at.. what, 98% if I am correct? 98%. This was a clear and unmistakable attack on business - to put them 'in their place' if you will. I am sure there are many people would enjoy the rich to get put into this position again. I believe this goes against the fundamental principles on which this country was founded. What then ultimately, is the incentive to achieve success in the upper echelons of this society? What would happen is people would either leave the country entirely or stay and make less - creating an ever lowering bar for the government to get their financial resources. Top 2% from anyone that makes, let's say 5 million a year. Over a period of (for the sake of argument) 5 years, they then need to lower it to 2 million. Then 1 million. Then 750k, and so on - until everyone from my line of work to a doctor makes roughly the same, give or take. This essentially creates the 'utopia' of which you want this country headed - a commune with little incentive to be more successful than the next person.

I believe this is the major malfunction in human thought.
Achieve success? what success?

For all your toils, for all the materials you can possess. How much happiness will it really bring you, if you're the only one able to enjoy it?

We need to restructure our thinking as individuals.

Stop trying to "be better" than others. Stop trying to distinguish ourselves, ALIENATING ourselves, from our own god damn race.

Phosphor, remove that carrot and bit and become a real person.

We don't need STUFF to be happy. We are most happy by sharing experiences with others. We should set this as our point of focus.

Then maybe everyone would stop "racing to the top". And just live and be.

Your thoughts are like pollution, and you have no means to recycle.

Originally Posted by myCATpowerlifts

I believe this is the major malfunction in human thought.
Achieve success? what success?

For all your toils, for all the materials you can possess. How much happiness will it really bring you, if you're the only one able to enjoy it?

We need to restructure our thinking as individuals.

Stop trying to "be better" than others. Stop trying to distinguish ourselves, ALIENATING ourselves, from our own god damn race.

People have restructured their thinking, that's why this debate has been going on for at least 130 years. Nietzsche called it slave morality.
I say we should try to be better. If you don't want to that's fine but what the left pushes for is to force everyone to follow their morality. They force equality so that the virtuous and unvirtuous alike are held in the same value. They sacrifice the strong to save the weak.

P.S. I got a kick out of being called a "bipartisan cuntbag". I assume you're retarded and meant 'partisan'.

Originally Posted by Hench

in what free-market system do for-profit organisations get re-capitalised using public sector funds?

By definition, none.

The left criticizes capitalism for greed and corporate hand outs and expects the right(economic right) to defend that accusation but that isn't capitalism. They attempt to make it a class war. Someone truly for capitalism doesn't support corporate welfare or low income welfare. I think this poses a problem for the left; if they can't show their ideological opposition as being oppressors it's harder to gain support. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of conservatives who do defend corporate welfare or at least vote for candidates who do but ideologically this is closer to collectivism than free market capitalism; it's just a difference of who is getting the welfare.

Originally Posted by phosphor

Way back when, before both of us were born, tax rates for top earners were at.. what, 98% if I am correct? 98%.

And it did nothing to curb innovation and job creation.

Originally Posted by myCATpowerlifts

I believe this is the major malfunction in human thought.
Achieve success? what success?

For all your toils, for all the materials you can possess. How much happiness will it really bring you, if you're the only one able to enjoy it?

We need to restructure our thinking as individuals.

Stop trying to "be better" than others. Stop trying to distinguish ourselves, ALIENATING ourselves, from our own god damn race.

Phosphor, remove that carrot and bit and become a real person.

We don't need STUFF to be happy. We are most happy by sharing experiences with others. We should set this as our point of focus.

Then maybe everyone would stop "racing to the top". And just live and be.

Your thoughts are like pollution, and you have no means to recycle.

+1

Best post I've read on IM in a long time.

The paradox of the whole situation is those who covet the values you mentioned, are also those who we typically describes as 'primitive' or 'less developed.

Originally Posted by troubador

People have restructured their thinking, that's why this debate has been going on for at least 130 years. Nietzsche called it slave morality.
I say we should try to be better. If you don't want to that's fine but what the left pushes for is to force everyone to follow their morality. They force equality so that the virtuous and unvirtuous alike are held in the same value. They sacrifice the strong to save the weak.

P.S. I got a kick out of being called a "bipartisan cuntbag". I assume you're retarded and meant 'partisan'.

The problem isn't so much as "we should all be equal." It's a problem of the wealthy and corporations trying to take EVERYTHING from everybody else. Right now "conservatives" and "liberals" are at extreme ends of ideology and are unwilling to compromise on anything. Going to far as to oppose something they once supported simply because the other side now thinks it's a good idea.

What's needed is for both to move towards the middle in their thinking. Not all the way, just towards the middle. That way it's no longer a war of words and ultimate power. That way they will be able to get things done for the good of the people and the country. As I've said many times before, neither side is right nor do they have all the answers to the problems we face. The answers are toward the middle. All that's needed is for both sides to pull their heads out of their asses and work together.

Originally Posted by Hench

+1

Best post I've read on IM in a long time.

The paradox of the whole situation is those who covet the values you mentioned, are also those who we typically describes as 'primitive' or 'less developed.

And those "primitive" people around the world are the happiest.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

And those "primitive" people around the world are the happiest.

Of course. They are living naturally.
Look at the history of native americans before we slaughtered them and stole their land.

They were very advanced, healthy, happy peoples. Then we butchered them and created pollution everywhere we went and are now starting to reap what we've sown.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

What's needed is for both to move towards the middle in their thinking. Not all the way, just towards the middle.

If 'conservative' equals corporate welfare and 'liberal' equals low income welfare then I say we need to move away from both. I think it's wrong for corporations to be in cahoots with the government getting 'tax breaks' and corporate welfare. I also think if it is wrong for them to do it then it is wrong for the poor to do it. I think the principle itself is wrong where many people think the distribution(outcome) is unjust. In other words 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

And those "primitive" people around the world are the happiest.

I don't see anyone preventing people from living like this. I suspect this talk stems from something along the lines of western guilt and it feels good to say. My question is, if you truly believe this why are you here on the internet and not in the jungle?

Originally Posted by troubador

If 'conservative' equals corporate welfare and 'liberal' equals low income welfare then I say we need to move away from both. I think it's wrong for corporations to be in cahoots with the government getting 'tax breaks' and corporate welfare. I also think if it is wrong for them to do it then it is wrong for the poor to do it. I think the principle itself is wrong where many people think the distribution(outcome) is unjust. In other words 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

There's a big difference between corporate welfare and social welfare. I'm not saying either one is right. Corporate welfare is just free income which is often received even when a company would be making a profit without it. Social welfare is free income to somebody that either has no income or such a small income they couldn't otherwise survive. Big difference in my opinion. Should Exxon get money from the government to increase their profit or should we feed a family that has no income?

I'm all for low income and zero income people having to work for their welfare check.

Originally Posted by troubador

I don't see anyone preventing people from living like this. I suspect this talk stems from something along the lines of western guilt and it feels good to say. My question is, if you truly believe this why are you here on the internet and not in the jungle?

I feel this is a very silly comment to make.

The point isn't that we want to live primitively, but that we don't want the masses to be brainwashed into a certain thought pattern by multination-corporations so they can get an increasingly large share of their every-diminishing wages in return for fuck all.

Just a thought, but I'm pretty sure there is middle ground in there somewhere.

Originally Posted by troubador

I don't see anyone preventing people from living like this. I suspect this talk stems from something along the lines of western guilt and it feels good to say. My question is, if you truly believe this why are you here on the internet and not in the jungle?

The western world is full of companies that are trying to sell everything those people don't need, in some cases don't want, to "expand their market and improve the quality of life" of those people.

Why am I not in the jungle? I'll tell you why. I like the way I live. It's what I'm used to. I'm on the verge of total bliss but some assholes out there are trying to take from me what little I already have so that can have that little bit more.

Originally Posted by Hench

I feel this is a very silly comment to make.

The point isn't that we want to live primitively, but that we don't want the masses to be brainwashed into a certain thought pattern by multination-corporations so they can get an increasingly large share of their every-diminishing wages in return for fuck all.

Just a thought, but I'm pretty sure there is middle ground in there somewhere.

There's plenty of middle ground, but people don't want to think that way. They've been brainwashed into an all or none mindset.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

And those "primitive" people around the world are the happiest.

the rate of heart attacks in the US is the highest in the Northeast where life in general is extremely competitive. it's one of the main reasons why I moved out of that Philly area. I can not tell you how many of my friends got MAs, and Phds just because they didn't want other members of our "clique" to have a higher level of education then themselves. The first cert that I got was my MSCE and the only reason why I did was simply because my best friend was taking the course and I could not allow anyone to know more about computers than I. A very sick mentality but fortunately with age many of us grow up and learn to value other things in life and many do not.

A lot of the differences in peoples opinions about economics, etc. all stem from where a person's family immigrated from and the values and belief systems of their native country.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

The western world is full of companies that are trying to sell everything those people don't need, in some cases don't want, to "expand their market and improve the quality of life" of those people.

Why am I not in the jungle? I'll tell you why. I like the way I live. It's what I'm used to. I'm on the verge of total bliss but some assholes out there are trying to take from me what little I already have so that can have that little bit more.

Well Fucking said.

Originally Posted by Zaphod

There's a big difference between corporate welfare and social welfare. I'm not saying either one is right. Corporate welfare is just free income which is often received even when a company would be making a profit without it. Social welfare is free income to somebody that either has no income or such a small income they couldn't otherwise survive. Big difference in my opinion. Should Exxon get money from the government to increase their profit or should we feed a family that has no income?

I'm all for low income and zero income people having to work for their welfare check.

there are many company's in the US that have higher GDP's than a lot of small countries out there and they receive corporate welfare, I just don't understand the mentality and complete lack of logic in this practice.

many on the far right love to blame minorities for being poor but when you read enough sociology studies on the topic there is a direct correlation between the parent(s) education and financial success and the overall success of the children.

wages in metropolitan areas are lower than in outlying urban communities, this along with higher populations and less jobs and ever increasing expenses it doesn't take Einstein to figure out many of these "stereotypes" are simply wrong and are not based on facts but on prejudice.

in the US the roots of politics are socioeconomic which is based on race. this is one of the problems when 99% of the population here is from somewhere else and when you have so many people from so many different places with so many different values and belief systems they tend to focus on themselves and their family and those with money and power pretty much have free reign.

Originally Posted by LAM

there are many company's in the US that have higher GDP's than a lot of small countries out there and they receive corporate welfare, I just don't understand the mentality and complete lack of logic in this practice.

many on the far right love to blame minorities for being poor but when you read enough sociology studies on the topic there is a direct correlation between the parent(s) education and financial success and the overall success of the children.

wages in metropolitan areas are lower than in outlying urban communities, this along with higher populations and less jobs and ever increasing expenses it doesn't take Einstein to figure out many of these "stereotypes" are simply wrong and are not based on facts but on prejudice.

in the US the roots of politics are socioeconomic which is based on race. this is one of the problems when 99% of the population here is from somewhere else and when you have so many people from so many different places with so many different values and belief systems they tend to focus on themselves and their family and those with money and power pretty much have free reign.

IGNORANCE IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL HUMAN SUFFERING.

This ls the result of all my studies in philosophy.
LAM is right. People talk all around the issues all damn day.
But the cause is ignorance. The cause is always ignorance somewhere.
And it's not always the fault of the ignorant, for being ignorant, sometimes it's the fault of others (the gov.) for keeping ignorants ignorant.

Originally Posted by troubador

People have restructured their thinking, that's why this debate has been going on for at least 130 years. Nietzsche called it slave morality.
I say we should try to be better. If you don't want to that's fine but what the left pushes for is to force everyone to follow their morality. They force equality so that the virtuous and unvirtuous alike are held in the same value. They sacrifice the strong to save the weak.

P.S. I got a kick out of being called a "bipartisan cuntbag". I assume you're retarded and meant 'partisan'.

+1

I love to hear people quite Nietzsche, you obviously don't just stick to the easy reading, like many do....

Originally Posted by troubador

If 'conservative' equals corporate welfare and 'liberal' equals low income welfare then I say we need to move away from both. I think it's wrong for corporations to be in cahoots with the government getting 'tax breaks' and corporate welfare. I also think if it is wrong for them to do it then it is wrong for the poor to do it. I think the principle itself is wrong where many people think the distribution(outcome) is unjust. In other words 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

it is not a comparison of apples to apples. being poor is a economic status not a type of person. government transfers to the poor help to increase their income which in developed nations directly increases the overall quality of life.

corporate welfare only goes to "select" industries which puts smaller businesses in the same market at a disadvantage, it fosters an incestuous relationship between business and government. and these same industries that get this also have no problems increasing the costs of goods and services to consumers annually.

Originally Posted by LAM

it is not a comparison of apples to apples. being poor is a economic status not a type of person. government transfers to the poor help to increase their income which in developed nations directly increases the overall quality of life.

corporate welfare only goes to "select" industries which puts smaller businesses in the same market at a disadvantage, it fosters an incestuous relationship between business and government. and these same industries that get this also have no problems increasing the costs of goods and services to consumers annually.

I get that but personally I think the very principle itself is wrong. I think it is wrong to force others to sacrifice what they have for someone else regardless of who that someone else is. I don't believe in altruism, utilitarianism or any similar belief system. On a similar note, I also don't believe in the 'all things in moderation' and 'the truth lies somewhere in the middle' mentality.

I do whole heartedly agree that these incestuous public-private relationships you speak of are wrong and even disgusting. I've personally experienced this in a very direct and harsh way. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it was a life changing experience.

Originally Posted by phosphor

Way back when, before both of us were born, tax rates for top earners were at.. what, 98% if I am correct? 98%. This was a clear and unmistakable attack on business - to put them 'in their place' if you will. I am sure there are many people would enjoy the rich to get put into this position again. I believe this goes against the fundamental principles on which this country was founded. What then ultimately, is the incentive to achieve success in the upper echelons of this society? What would happen is people would either leave the country entirely or stay and make less - creating an ever lowering bar for the government to get their financial resources. Top 2% from anyone that makes, let's say 5 million a year. Over a period of (for the sake of argument) 5 years, they then need to lower it to 2 million. Then 1 million. Then 750k, and so on - until everyone from my line of work to a doctor makes roughly the same, give or take. This essentially creates the 'utopia' of which you want this country headed - a commune with little incentive to be more successful than the next person.

Let's say that a huge tax burden is placed on the top 2%. Then what? Does this solve the issues? Far from it unfortunately. If this was the end all, be all of solutions, you would have me on board if it was temporary - with a catch. Lets say as the head of the conservatives I will agree with you, the head of the liberals. If you want the temporary tax that goes against the fundamentals of capitalism and our countries foundations, I want the following: I want anyone.. ANYONE that is on government assistance to not have the rights to vote while on assitance. Welfare. Food stamps. Whatever.

I say this for one simple reason - politicians will no longer have the ability to sway voters based on the goodies they promise. Another huge reason this republic is in the shape that it's in is that politicians have been selling out and giving away the farm for a very long time. Also, In addition to this, there will be stringent guidelines to get on any programs. If people have to have visits by the death tax gestapo, then the people on government programs should be visited and be disqualified for making bad purchasing decisions, aka. they have kids, but have beer in the fridge instead of food, etc. Surprise visits. They should also follow other strict qualifiers in order to maintain government assistance. Also, there should be a restriction on spending and no ear-marks to build up ones legacies in individual states. Restrictions on trade. An opening of the oil fields - with the oil only able to be using in-country and no outside trading with the product.

The ultimate battle is on how we act human. It is human nature to be greedy. No mistake - capitalism is fine, then corrupted through greed. It is also human nature for many people to take advantage of many, many government programs and keep bottom feeding until the well is dry. Why put in extra effort when you can have an unlimited feed trough and other assistance if you just stay under the guidelines, right? It's human nature for both sides and there will never be a final solution on either side when people are trying to circumvent the rules at someone else's expense.

You make some damn good points phosphor, but JFC you're long winded!

Originally Posted by troubador

I get that but personally I think the very principle itself is wrong. I think it is wrong to force others to sacrifice what they have for someone else regardless of who that someone else is. I don't believe in altruism, utilitarianism or any similar belief system. On a similar note, I also don't believe in the 'all things in moderation' and 'the truth lies somewhere in the middle' mentality.

I do whole heartedly agree that these incestuous public-private relationships you speak of are wrong and even disgusting. I've personally experienced this in a very direct and harsh way. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it was a life changing experience.

remember that welfare and other social protections are not an American thing it's a society thing. these things have existed since the 1600's and only started in the US in the 30's after the Great Depression. the poverty rate in the US was DECLINING for decades until the recent recession when it exploded. those that say other wise are either lying or simply talking out of their ass.

since we now have an excess of labor in this country and a short-fall of many, many millions of jobs thanks to globalization, it's going to stay high for years to come. money transfers from the gov to americans only just recently started to rise. all of this stuff is in the yearly poverty reports put out by the Census.

See Page 22 on the report below.

* the Census puts these reports out every year the 2010 report isn't out yet for some reason. the US has the highest poverty rate out of all the industrialized countries because we also have the greatest income inequality it is a direct correlation.

Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf