This is what's wrong with capitalism [Archive]

Kohanz

Mar 31st, 2012, 12:51 PM

... or at least our version of it.

LINK (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/us-hedgefunds-survey-idUSBRE82T0X620120330)

Collectively, however, this exclusive group of the 25 richest hedge fund managers took a 35 percent pay cut last year, when hedge funds on average lost 5 percent.

AR's "rich list" of top hedge fund earners showed the group raked in $14.4 billion, down from $22 billion the year before. To see the AR story, click on: r.reuters.com/nan47s

Raymond Dalio clocked in at the top spot, earning nearly $4 billion as his Bridgewater Associates was one of the top-performing funds, with returns of about 20 percent.

[WARNING: Long rant]

Our financial system (North America's or the world's) is broken. I was not an Occupy supporter. I am an above average private-sector earner for my age and live comfortably. I am in favour of being able to differentiate oneself as an earner through impact and ability. I am not put off by the fact that a cardiac surgeon makes a lot more than I do. I am not put off by the fact that a successful entrepreneur makes many times what I do (as long as the business is a legitimate one). The financial markets are really where everything starts to go wrong, IMHO.

Raymond Dalio makes about 100,000x what the average earner in our country makes. He earns roughly 10,000x what the average cardiac surgeon makes. One then presumes he must perform an extremely important function. If Raymond Dalio were to cease doing his job tomorrow, surely many people would die or go hungry. Parts of the world would stop in their tracks and the wheels of progress would grind to a halt. Or would they? Would anything happen if one of the worlds biggest hedge funds stopped trading speculatively for profit?

Hmmm, well what is Raymond Dalio's function then? Let's see, his hedge fund returned 20% last year when the markets fell 5%. That's extremely impressive. In terms of degree of difficulty, I agree that his job is up there. Then again, so is that of a doctor or a CEO that earns 1/10,000th of what he does. And don't worry, it's not like he gets killed if he fails. Most funds lost money last year, but their leaders still earned billions. So, where do those funds go?

The firm serves institutional clients including pension funds, endowments, foundations, foreign governments and central banks.

Essentially, Raymond Dalio creates wealth and that wealth funnels down into the rest of our system. However, do you really think that wealth trickles down in a healthy, balanced way? To invest with most hedge funds, you need to be extremely wealthy (hence why for the big ones, it's mostly institutional investment). I'd wager a guess that the net result of the work that hedge funds do increases the gap between the rich and the poor. That is their "product".

This is what's broken with our system. Some men (I'm not intending to demonize Raymond Dalio - he's just an example) earn several hundreds of thousands times more (I can't emphasize that enough, it's staggering) than the average North American. Likely millions of times more than the average person. I'm sure some of them are charitable people (it would be nearly impossible not to be with that wealth), but that doesn't return the system to a balanced state.

What is the net positive impact of their work on human lives? If some hedge funds ceased to exist today (and I don't mean if they collapsed due to squandering their wealth, but I just mean if the disappeared), would we notice?

I'm not saying every person on this planet has a meaningful or "noble" job, but the question begs itself: should any one person earn this much more than the average? And even if so, shouldn't it be easy to look at their work and discern a massive, net-positive benefit to what they've done?

That is what is wrong with our system. The work that our system rewards the most is not the work that benefits the masses. It is a system designed (through financial incentive) to create wealth disparity.

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 01:14 PM

Kohanz

Mar 31st, 2012, 01:23 PM

The financial markets serve the purpose of putting capital to its most efficient use. That is probably the most important aspect of capitalism and hence innovation. It's because they don't do something "visible" that the average person can identify with (like performing life-saving heart surgeries) that they are often painted in a negative light.

My argument was clearly not that financial markets should not exist. I would recommend actually expressing your views in more detail, perhaps by responding to some of the questions in my original post, before we really have a discussion point.

There are the markets, which we need, but then there is an entire industry built on top of the markets that exist solely to create wealth from the markets.

For example, you can't tell me that the speculative trading that many hedge funds are involved in, having computers making algorithmic trades at high-frequencies, with millisecond latencies, is driving innovation in any tangible way (other than innovating ways to make more money off the markets).

neutral

Mar 31st, 2012, 01:23 PM

The financial markets serve the purpose of putting capital to its most efficient use. That is probably the most important aspect of capitalism and hence innovation. It's because they don't do something "visible" that the average person can identify with (like performing life-saving heart surgeries) that they are often painted in a negative light.

Hedge funds are more traders than investors.

To the OP: I actually disagree on the premise of fairness being defined by what's more important to society. The issue with the current system is that it is hugely biased to benefit those who are already wealthy. What we have is a growing trickle down mindset. Cut everything that benefits the majority, in favor of preferential tax treatment, and welfare for business. Tax treatment of capital gains also benefits the wealthy far more than the rest of the general population.

anyasok

Mar 31st, 2012, 01:38 PM

This is a similar thesis to what the Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project advocate (although further than that by many quantum leaps).

I have several things to say about it:

- Their job doesnt produce much, that's true, but neither does the stock market. If we abolish trading then we should abolish the stock market in its entirety because it doesn't drive innovation and doesn't really do anything meaningful to benefit society. I appreciate people like Steve Jobs/Bill Gates way more since their riches are well-deserved.

- The job is still hard though. I checked his Wiki and he has a BA and an MBA from Harvard... so he is not a slob that's for sure... he just happens to be a "victim" of a financial profession that is setup in a system that allows him to get incredibly wealthy if he knows what he is doing merely shuffling 1's and 0's around instead of coming up with projects that would further humanity's progress.

- Financial sector of that scale is really the only profession where you can get extremely rich not putting in long hours or being upset with public/private sector and benefits and security... so it's lucrative, no doubt about it.

Kohanz

Mar 31st, 2012, 01:53 PM

- Their job doesnt produce much, that's true, but neither does the stock market. If we abolish trading then we should abolish the stock market in its entirety because it doesn't drive innovation and doesn't really do anything meaningful to benefit society. I appreciate people like Steve Jobs/Bill Gates way more since their riches are well-deserved.

I disagree that the stock market is not needed. Investment does drive innovation and the stock market facilitates investment. The problem is that the markets and all the derivatives that have been invented now support investment and speculation (gambling). Many of the players in the markets are there to make money, not through long-term investment. They will short-sell, make trades at high-frequencies, basically do whatever it takes to make as much money as they can. Supporting innovation or giving long-term investments to a growing company is not part of their agenda at all.

It's this element of the market that is unnecessary. The question is, can you have a market where these players don't exist in such large numbers and have such a big impat? It sounds like decades ago we did, but I don't really know the history of it well enough.

anyasok

Mar 31st, 2012, 02:00 PM

I disagree that the stock market is not needed. Investment does drive innovation and the stock market facilitates investment. The problem is that the markets and all the derivatives that have been invented now support investment and speculation (gambling). Many of the players in the markets are there to make money, not through long-term investment. They will short-sell, make trades at high-frequencies, basically do whatever it takes to make as much money as they can. Supporting innovation or giving long-term investments to a growing company is not part of their agenda at all.

It's this element of the market that is unnecessary. The question is, can you have a market where these players don't exist in such large numbers and have such a big impat? It sounds like decades ago we did, but I don't really know the history of it well enough.
I am talking about the stock market as it exists right now - all derivatives and nothing else.
If you're talking about innovation back when Apple/Microsoft were founded, I would agree with you, but the stock market in its current form is an abomination that creates bubbles and bursts them to get richer and richer so that everyone else picks up their losses tab and then pay for their bonuses as well

Stock market should exist to facilitate transactions and help upcoming start-ups establish themselves for lack of other means.. it's not there to be gambled/speculated/betted on so that the bankers get richer.

You could say that investing in a promising startup can drive innovation and make people rich (including the investors who at the very least did some good with their money), but when you bet that a recession will happen, dream of it happening and then bet against it not happening and subsequently become extremely wealthy while everyone else goes bankrupt, you didn't create innovation nor did any good to anyone.

I support stock market to drive innovation but I dont support it to create excess lavishness for the 1%

Phoenix3434

Mar 31st, 2012, 02:22 PM

Our financial system (North America's or the world's) is broken. I was not an Occupy supporter. I am an above average private-sector earner for my age and live comfortably. I am in favour of being able to differentiate oneself as an earner through impact and ability. I am not put off by the fact that a cardiac surgeon makes a lot more than I do. I am not put off by the fact that a successful entrepreneur makes many times what I do (as long as the business is a legitimate one). The financial markets are really where everything starts to go wrong, IMHO.
...
That is what is wrong with our system. The work that our system rewards the most is not the work that benefits the masses. It is a system designed (through financial incentive) to create wealth disparity.

You have written a very interesting post, and something that deserves some thought. Good job.

Now, let me ask you a few of questions, just to understand your position better.. You said that Raymond makes 10K the salary of a cardiac surgeon. Lets work with that and lets call the cardiac surgeon John..

Part of compensation is not just the current performance, but the cost of finding a replacement. If this cardiac surgeon goes away, how much would it cost to find a replacement? How much would it cost the system? Is it impossible to find someone to do the job that John did?

Now ask the same question about Raymond. When the market was doing 5%, and he made 20%, you have to admit that it was pretty impressive. How difficult is it to find a replacement for Raymond if he goes away? How much money would you have to burn through in "experiments" (both payroll AND investment money) before you can find a replacement for Raymond? Would it be more difficult to find another Raymond (with his capability, effectiveness) in HIS profession than a replacement for John in HIS profession?

Lets say you have the world's best juggler. He does an amazing job. I mean this guy is brilliant. Lets call him Lance. Now, if Lance bites the dust, how difficult would it be to find a replacement for him? Lets assume it's almost impossible. But would we care? The world loses its most brilliant once in a lifetime juggler. But would people care? On the other hand, would people care if the world loses a very gifted investor? Or the world's best footballer or hockey player? With regards to Raymond, the world might not care, but the rich folk might. Would they pay top money to make sure Raymond doesn't go away?

Essentially, two considerations here:
1) how difficult would it be to replace the person you are targeting
2) how important is the profession to the world - or at least to the people that are willing to pay the money

Exxxxx

Mar 31st, 2012, 02:26 PM

This is what's wrong with capitalism

Awwww, upset that you're poor and you'll never make as much money as them?

Kohanz

Mar 31st, 2012, 02:31 PM

You have written a very interesting post, and something that deserves some thought. Good job.

Now, let me ask you a few of questions, just to understand your position better.. You said that Raymond makes 10K the salary of a cardiac surgeon. Lets work with that and lets call the cardiac surgeon John..

Part of compensation is not just the current performance, but the cost of finding a replacement. If this cardiac surgeon goes away, how much would it cost to find a replacement? How much would it cost the system? Is it impossible to find someone to do the job that John did?

Now ask the same question about Raymond. When the market was doing 5%, and he made 20%, you have to admit that it was pretty impressive. How difficult is it to find a replacement for Raymond if he goes away? How much money would you have to burn through in "experiments" (both payroll AND investment money) before you can find a replacement for Raymond? Would it be more difficult to find another Raymond (with his capability, effectiveness) in HIS profession than a replacement for John in HIS profession?

Lets say you have the world's best juggler. He does an amazing job. I mean this guy is brilliant. Lets call him Lance. Now, if Lance bites the dust, how difficult would it be to find a replacement for him? Lets assume it's almost impossible. But would we care? The world loses its most brilliant once in a lifetime juggler. But would people care? On the other hand, would people care if the world loses a very gifted investor? The world might not care, but the rich folk might. Would they pay top money to make sure Raymond doesn't go away?

Essentially, two considerations here:
1) how difficult would it be to replace the person you are targeting
2) how important is the profession to the world - or at least to the people that are willing to pay the money

That's an interesting approach, here is how I would answer:

1) how difficult would it be to replace the person you are targeting

I would say it would be fairly difficult to replace Raymond. He is a top performer in a very competitive field. He is likely a very smart man, with smart people working for him. That said, I wouldn't see him as impossible to replace. Not many get the chance to even try his job or even get close to trying that job, so it's difficult to quantify how many would succeed or fail at it.

Leaders are indeed difficult to replace, but is any leader among us truly worth a million times more than the average person?

2) how important is the profession to the world - or at least to the people that are willing to pay the money

This is where I think the problem lies. The function of most hedge funds (speculatively trading, not investing, for profit) is not important to the world (the masses). If speculative trading ceased to exist, I think we would see positive benefits for the masses (as opposed to the juggler, where we notice no difference).

The problem is SYSTEMIC, because the wealthy (those who define and control the system) are, as you say, willing to pay the money for these hedge funds because they help to keep the wealth gap wide. In essence, they help to keep the system as is.

Ask yourself, as the average person, Raymond is one of the highest paid people on the planet. Has he had a positive impact on your life? For those who believe he has (DearSummer), I would love to hear the arguments describing this impact.

Kohanz

Mar 31st, 2012, 02:45 PM

Awwww, upset that you're poor and you'll never make as much money as them?

Nope. As I said, I'm doing fine. Probably in the top 5 to 10% if you were to define it that way. I'm not a communist. I'm not even against capitalism in general, just our current version of it. It's broken. Anyway, this discussion is obviously over your head. Welcome to the ignore list.

anyasok

Mar 31st, 2012, 02:57 PM

Ask yourself, as the average person, Raymond is one of the highest paid people on the planet. Has he had a positive impact on your life?
He already made on impact on both your and my life. He made us realize that speculative trading is a tumour on the face of the stockmarket and though he maybe the best in his field and irreplaceable, that may only be among the richest people whose funds he manages. For the other 99%, he had done nothing but widened the gap and kept it wide so that more of that 1% could join his fund.

Not much of a social progress there eh?

squagles

Mar 31st, 2012, 03:23 PM

Now ask the same question about Raymond. When the market was doing 5%, and he made 20%, you have to admit that it was pretty impressive.

This logic could be used to distinguish between the good and bad rain dancers too.

Kohanz

Mar 31st, 2012, 03:45 PM

Now ask the same question about Raymond. When the market was doing 5%, and he made 20%, you have to admit that it was pretty impressive. How difficult is it to find a replacement for Raymond if he goes away? How much money would you have to burn through in "experiments" (both payroll AND investment money) before you can find a replacement for Raymond? Would it be more difficult to find another Raymond (with his capability, effectiveness) in HIS profession than a replacement for John in HIS profession?

The more obvious point that I forgot to add is: why does Raymond need to be "replaced"? Is he performing an essential function? If so, define that function. Moreover, define why that function is 100,000 times more valuable (in real terms, not just by the fact that he is able to pay himself that much) than the task the average worker in Canada, for example, performs.

anyasok

Mar 31st, 2012, 03:55 PM

The more obvious point that I forgot to add is: why does Raymond need to be "replaced"? Is he performing an essential function? If so, define that function. Moreover, define why that function is 100,000 times more valuable (in real terms, not just by the fact that he is able to pay himself that much) than the task the average worker in Canada, for example, performs.
Kohanz, I think there is more to it than just the comparision of the "value" of ones work from rich/poor social strata. Who gets to determine how much someone's work is worth? While I would definitely say that a doctor's work is more important than say a call centre agent, who is to say that a call centre agent should be paid $12 an hour while the economic condition dictates that even working full-time hours, he would not be able to afford much on that salary while a trader gets to have 1,000,000 times that within his field?

While a hedgefund trader might have the whole world at their feet and make 1,000,000 times more than a call centre worker, it seems that in our economic situation, the trader's life is also worth !,000,000 times more than the call centre agent's even though the function of a call centre agent is often more important for society than a trader's if say he arranges for pickup of old appliances and facilitates the transitioning of the country to a greener economy while a trader simply moves his rich pal's money around so all of them skim more profit of the system.

It might be an absurd comparison, but society at large, despite its constant complaining puts a much higher value on people who seem to contribute the least to society, or at least the system is setup in such a way by humans and is never doubted by society (to a serious degree because otherwise it would all collapse)

Kohanz

Mar 31st, 2012, 04:18 PM

Kohanz, I think there is more to it than just the comparision of the "value" of ones work from rich/poor social strata. Who gets to determine how much someone's work is worth? While I would definitely say that a doctor's work is more important than say a call centre agent, who is to say that a call centre agent should be paid $12 an hour while the economic condition dictates that even working full-time hours, he would not be able to afford much on that salary while a trader gets to have 1,000,000 times that within his field?

While a hedgefund trader might have the whole world at their feet and make 1,000,000 times more than a call centre worker, it seems that in our economic situation, the trader's life is also worth !,000,000 times more than the call centre agent's even though the function of a call centre agent is often more important for society than a trader's if say he arranges for pickup of old appliances and facilitates the transitioning of the country to a greener economy while a trader simply moves his rich pal's money around so all of them skim more profit of the system.

It might be an absurd comparison, but society at large, despite its constant complaining puts a much higher value on people who seem to contribute the least to society, or at least the system is setup in such a way by humans and is never doubted by society (to a serious degree because otherwise it would all collapse)

You may be right, but the reason I pose my questions rather simplistically, is that the people that are not onside with this point of view are generally hardcore free market advocates. They subscribe to a school of supply and demand being the reasons for almost everything. In their world, there is a justification to someone making 1 million times the norm and it shows that their system is working as it should. I would like to hear from these people (e.g. DearSummer). It seems to me that the people who often attack the compensation of public workers (to be clear, I work in the private sector) or that we are wasting money on healthcare (of all things) are the same ones who are quick to defend those making the most ludicrous amounts of money for what essentially amounts to shuffling large piles of money around our different markets over short periods of time.

For example, we have a thread quoting a study criticizing an extra $100B spent over 13 years on healthcare with "nothing to show for it". Well, even in the very, very worst case scenario, if absolutely nothing was done with that money other than line the pockets of people working in the health care system (which is not the case), it would still represent a more balanced distribution of wealth than what occurs in the world of hedge funds and trading. How people can attack healthcare funding before focusing on what happens on Wall Street baffles me.

The average person in North America will earn somewhere between $2M and $4M in their lifetime. Less than 1/1000th of what Raymond earned last year. Capitalism and democracy are supposed to go hand in hand. Is that a system that is working for the democratic masses?

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 04:24 PM

My argument was clearly not that financial markets should not exist. I would recommend actually expressing your views in more detail, perhaps by responding to some of the questions in my original post, before we really have a discussion point.

There are the markets, which we need, but then there is an entire industry built on top of the markets that exist solely to create wealth from the markets.

People participate in the markets to MAKE MONEY. Every single player, with no exceptions, is there to make money. To say hedge funds are the only ones who are trying to make money makes no sense.

For example, you can't tell me that the speculative trading that many hedge funds are involved in, having computers making algorithmic trades at high-frequencies, with millisecond latencies, is driving innovation in any tangible way (other than innovating ways to make more money off the markets).

Actually those high-frequency trading computers serve an important purpose. They smooth out fluctuations in the market and create liquidity which creates a more efficient market. More efficient markets = more efficient capital distribution = more innovation.

Kohanz

Mar 31st, 2012, 04:28 PM

Actually those high-frequency trading computers serve an important purpose. They smooth out fluctuations in the market and create liquidity which creates a more efficient market. More efficient markets = more efficient capital distribution = more innovation.

So before algorithmic trading dominated the markets, innovation was stifled?

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 04:32 PM

You may be right, but the reason I pose my questions rather simplistically, is that the people that are not onside with this point of view are generally hardcore free market advocates. They subscribe to a school of supply and demand being the reasons for almost everything. In their world, there is a justification to someone making 1 million times the norm and it shows that their system is working as it should. I would like to hear from these people (e.g. DearSummer). It seems to me that the people who often attack the compensation of public workers (to be clear, I work in the private sector) or that we are wasting money on healthcare (of all things) are the same ones who are quick to defend those making the most ludicrous amounts of money for what essentially amounts to shuffling large piles of money around our different markets over short periods of time.

For example, we have a thread quoting a study criticizing an extra $100B spent over 13 years on healthcare with "nothing to show for it". Well, even in the very, very worst case scenario, if absolutely nothing was done with that money other than line the pockets of people working in the health care system (which is not the case), it would still represent a more balanced distribution of wealth than what occurs in the world of hedge funds and trading. How people can attack healthcare funding before focusing on what happens on Wall Street baffles me.

The average person in North America will earn somewhere between $2M and $4M in their lifetime. Less than 1/1000th of what Raymond earned last year. Capitalism and democracy are supposed to go hand in hand. Is that a system that is working for the democratic masses?

The justification for people making more than others is that they have contributed more to society. The free market rewards people have contributed the most. We vote for who has contributed the most with our dollars. When you buy an iPad, you are voting for Apple as a contributor to society. When you don't buy a Blackberry, you are voting that they are not contributing to society. You pay money for what you value, and the people who are paid the most money are the most valued. Isn't that precisely what everybody wants?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 04:33 PM

So before algorithmic trading dominated the markets, innovation was stifled?

It made the markets less efficient, yes.

Kohanz

Mar 31st, 2012, 04:34 PM

Agafaba

Mar 31st, 2012, 04:36 PM

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 04:37 PM

So what does hedge funds contribute? Which of their products do you regularly buy?

They distribute capital efficiently. Without financial infrastructure and efficient markets, all of the companies we use regularly could not exist.

Are you happy living in a world where someone has 1 million times more of the resources than the average person?

Yes, I believe capitalism is the best system we have. Is it perfect? No, but it's the best we have and that has been proven throughout history.

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 04:38 PM

How would we go about not buying Raymonds product?

You don't invest with him if you don't believe he is offering you a satisfactory return on your investment. If he continues to underperform, I am sure most of his investors will withdraw from his funds.

Phoenix3434

Mar 31st, 2012, 04:39 PM

That's an interesting approach, here is how I would answer:

1) how difficult would it be to replace the person you are targeting

I would say it would be fairly difficult to replace Raymond. He is a top performer in a very competitive field. He is likely a very smart man, with smart people working for him. That said, I wouldn't see him as impossible to replace. Not many get the chance to even try his job or even get close to trying that job, so it's difficult to quantify how many would succeed or fail at it.

It is true that not many people would get to try his job. But as I implied, it might not be feasible to try many people for this kind of job - with the kind of money at play. I didn't read carefully as to what this man does - as in does he own his own fund or not. But lets assume that he does. He opens business to clients and says "if you want me to take care of your money, you will pay me 10% of your profits. If I don't make you profits, you will just need to pay me ". Now, as a customer, lets say I have 10 million dollars. Would I go with Raymond, who has a proven track record, or would I go with Joseph, who charges me a flat $1K / year, but does not have that kind of track record.. I'd go with Raymond b/c I want a profit - and more importantly I do not want to lose my money. 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing..

So, it's not a matter of there not being someone else who could do the job - just that no one wants to give that person a chance b/c of the stakes involved. With a heart surgeon, the whole process is more predictable. As important a job it is, the whole process is streamlined and all it takes to hire another heart surgeon into the system is 1) one very smart kid, 2) X amount of money, 3) Y amount of time. You put such a person through the system, and it will spit out a heart surgeon. 95% chance that the person will pass and will become a competenant heart surgeon. With a Raymond replacement, you don't know what you will get. Your experiment can cost you a few billion dollars. Who wants to give someone like that a chance?

If we are talking about Raymond the employee, and not Raymond the owner of the fund, then perhaps the employer can check the man out by running fake-money experiments. But I think the reason top "employees" get paid so much money is b/c the employer is worried that someone who has so many connections to clients will simply walk out and take all the clients with him. Either to another employer or to his own fund. It's a balancing act really. It will comes back to the customer and what I said in the first paragraph. Employee or owner of the fund - customers would pay a premium to work with someone with a proven real-world-money track record.

Leaders are indeed difficult to replace, but is any leader among us truly worth a million times more than the average person?

Depends on the need satisfied by this "leader". The leader of the world's best juggling act - hell no. But, if it's something that people want.. Perhaps. It doesn't even equate with the number of people. For example, take Cricket. This is the #2 sport in the world in terms of fans - only behind football (soccer). Yet, the players don't make as much money as basketball or baseball players. Why? Not b/c the game is not in demand - it is.. But b/c the "fans" are "poorer". A lot of them are in India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka/Bangladesh.. Probably make up about 2 billion people between them. And most of them love cricket, yet they are not generally wealthy. So, the players don't make as much money. However, if it's a sport enjoyed by rich people - they will pay these players money.

When you ask the question you asked, be mindful of who you are asking the question from and pertaining to what activity. If some activity is very important to a particular group, and they are willing to spend their private money to support this, why is it our business? Think Church of Scientology.

[B]
2) how important is the profession to the world - or at least to the people that are willing to pay the money

This is where I think the problem lies. The function of most hedge funds (speculatively trading, not investing, for profit) is not important to the world (the masses).

I think I responded to this in my above paragraph. It depends on who you ask. If I tell you hockey is a garbage sport and those players shouldn't make more than a TTC bus driver, what would you say? Is it important to you that hockey is played at a high level (and not at a high-school league type level)? If so, you might have to pay a certain amount to attract top talent.

Since I like cricket, I will give another example. Back in the 80's the West Indies (Caribbean Islands) were the most dangerous cricket team in the world. Crazy good team. Tall black dudes that are damn strong playing cricket. When these guys deliver a ball from that height, it is impossible to hit. But, now 20-30 years later, the West Indies team sucks ***** . B/c the tall black guys are playing basket ball b/c of the money. Cricket is not fancy any more. If you value the activity, you got to pay money to win. If the other guy hires the top financial manager, and you don't, he will take the money from you. B/c the guy running his portfolio is smarter than the guy running your portfolio.

If speculative trading ceased to exist, I think we would see positive benefits for the masses (as opposed to the juggler, where we notice no difference).

The problem is SYSTEMIC, because the wealthy (those who define and control the system) are, as you say, willing to pay the money for these hedge funds because they help to keep the wealth gap wide. In essence, they help to keep the system as is.

Different discussion - and I don't have time to go into this right now since in a rush. Will later.

The more obvious point that I forgot to add is: why does Raymond need to be "replaced"? Is he performing an essential function? If so, define that function. Moreover, define why that function is 100,000 times more valuable (in real terms, not just by the fact that he is able to pay himself that much) than the task the average worker in Canada, for example, performs.

Later.

Kaz

Mar 31st, 2012, 04:44 PM

They distribute capital efficiently. Without financial infrastructure and efficient markets, all of the companies we use regularly could not exist.

Yes, I believe capitalism is the best system we have. Is it perfect? No, but it's the best we have and that has been proven throughout history.

How is the capital distributed efficiently? Where does it go and where does it stop?
Someone has simply said that moving money around for the sake of a commision is valued..
The markets are hardly efficient.
Look at speculators. You speculate that the price will go up or down. The side with the greater numbers tends to win.
This isn't efficient and it tends to skew reality.
Yet people make billions for producing nothing...

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 04:50 PM

How is the capital distributed efficiently? Where does it go and where does it stop?
Someone has simply said that moving money around for the sake of a commision is valued..
The markets are hardly efficient.
Look at speculators. You speculate that the price will go up or down. The side with the greater numbers tends to win.
This isn't efficient and it tends to skew reality.
Yet people make billions for producing nothing...

It sounds like you don't understand the basics of the market. Let's say GM wants to design a new car and sell it to millions of people around the world. The cost of such a project would run into the billions. Where should they get the money to start this project?

Kaz

Mar 31st, 2012, 05:37 PM

a-tree

Mar 31st, 2012, 05:46 PM

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 05:48 PM

I understand how companies use the markets to raise capital.

What I don't understand is how speculating on the price of something(oil, electricity, etc) provides a benefit.
There is no service. No end product. Nothing being produced.
Yet people make billions doing this. Wealth is taken out of the system for what?

It sounds like you're talking specifically about commodity futures. There is a very important reason for these to exist. Let's say you're an oil producer. You want to build a refinery that will cost billions but only have an acceptable ROI if oil stay above $100/barrel. Let's say oil is currently trading at $110/barrel. Do you just go ahead and build it and assume the risk of oil dipping below $100? You could, but not many people would want to invest in such a risky operation.

So what's the solution? Well you could buy up contracts to sell oil at say $105/barrel. The people buying the contracts are betting that oil will dip below $105. You just want to secure a price so that your oil refiney is profitable. That is the purpose of "speculating" on the price of commodities. Without the speculator, the producer can not guarantee their price. Without a guaranteed price, many projects would not proceed because there is far too much price risk.

Look at the housing collapse and the debt crisis around the world.
This was a direct result of your efficient, capitalist system the way it is currently structured.

The housing collapse was a direct result of interference in the free market by government. They subsidized risk, created policies to put people in homes that can't afford them, and created an asset bubble with artificially low interest rates. Worse, when it all blew up the government (i.e. taxpayers) bailed out the corporations that drank the alcohol they poured! Privatized profits and socialized losses!

The debt crisis is a GOVERNMENT debt problem. How does it have anything to do with the FREE MARKET SYSTEM that governments have spent more than they can afford? :confused:

Kohanz

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:20 PM

I'm sick of these capitalism sucks threads. Why is it unfair for someone to make 10000000000x the average worker? You make whatever the society is willing to pay you. Even if it means earning 1000000000x more than every else just by picking some stocks. A fair wage is whatever the other party is willing to pay. There's no such as 'the society should be equal to a greater degree by taxing the rich'. The society can only offer equality of opportunity, not conditions. That's capitalism. Want more money? Do whatever pays more money. The world is already fair.

What if *gasp* you don't want for more money or quality of life for yourself, but you want less of a gap and more equality for the population as a whole when it comes to those things? I would be willing to take a lesser quality of life than I have now if it meant closing the massive gap we've grown. As a capitalist, I'm supposed to just strive to get more and more for myself. It seems that capitalism and compassion do not mix well.

Not even the most fervent supporters of the free markets can deny that the gap between the super-wealthy and the masses has grown substantially over time. What is the endgame of this process?

MrKap

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:21 PM

Well, why not take a look at alternatives forms of government?

I vote for the Khmer Rouge system of militarizing the wealthy so they can impose forced labor on the lower class population.

There is nothing wrong with Capitalism, but to honestly believe that the theoretical concepts of a pure Capitalistic system is actually how things run is totally false. I am fairly certain the only way to eliminate capitalism is to abolish currency.

If not, how so?

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:23 PM

What if *gasp* you don't want for more money or quality of life for yourself, but you want less of a gap and more equality for the population as a whole when it comes to those things? I would be willing to take a lesser quality of life than I have now if it meant closing the massive gap we've grown. As a capitalist, I'm supposed to just strive to get more and more for myself. It seems that capitalism and compassion do not mix well.

Not even the most fervent supporters of the free markets can deny that the gap between the super-wealthy and the masses has grown substantially over time. What is the endgame of this process?

So why don't you donate your money to charity and/or the government? :confused:

Let's assume that the gap between rich and poor is growing. Is that the end of the world? The reality is the standard of living is higher than it has ever been, from poor people to rich people. Isn't that the most important thing?

Mercury048

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:25 PM

The justification for people making more than others is that they have contributed more to society. The free market rewards people have contributed the most. We vote for who has contributed the most with our dollars. When you buy an iPad, you are voting for Apple as a contributor to society. When you don't buy a Blackberry, you are voting that they are not contributing to society. You pay money for what you value, and the people who are paid the most money are the most valued. Isn't that precisely what everybody wants?
Absolutely not. The "free market determines value" argument is completely circular and it bothers me that so few recognize this fact. The law and our concepts of property have set up a system in which money flows into certain positions, not because the people in those positions make anything of value, but because they have found, though skill of chance, the "sweet spot" in the system.

The free market does not reward contribution proportionately. There are so many examples of inefficiencies and completely absurd distributions of wealth produced by the free market that's it's clear it doesn't work as intended. I would point out some of these examples, but the response to any such example by pro-capitalists is always one of two:
1. They grudgingly admit that, yes, this is an inefficiency, and capitalism isn't 100% perfect, but it's still better than anything else.
or, more commonly,
2. The example isn't valid because money has flowed in a certain direction, which indicates that this was the correct way since it was done under the rules of the free market. This is the circular logic: It's right because the free market brought it about and the the rules of free market bring about the right result. DearSummer seems to be fond of this argument.

People acting in their own self-interest do not produce optimum results. The classic prisoner's dilemma comes to mind. Capitalism sucks. Communism failed not because it is inherently flawed but because it's more susceptible to political interference. Communism would work well if the government in charge is not stupid or corrupt to all hell, which unfortunately it has been in the countries where communism has been tried. History has not "proved" capitalism superior since nothing even approaching a controlled experiment has occurred in this area.

That said, I am not a communist. It goes too far in curtailing economic freedom for individuals. A mixed economy, with government-owned corporations in charge of natural monopolies and essential services, tight government control of large private corporations, and most micro-share-ownership (owning less than, say 1/10th of a corporation i.e. what you normally get with stocks) eliminated entirely would be my dream world. Individuals would have virtually complete economic freedom when dealing with each other.

It sounds like you don't understand the basics of the market. Let's say GM wants to design a new car and sell it to millions of people around the world. The cost of such a project would run into the billions. Where should they get the money to start this project?
Um, how about saving it up? It's called "growing a business". You know, you make money, which allows you to expand you business with more staff, new products, etc., you make more money, repeat. Asking the public for money, with a company having thousands or even millions of part-"owners" - many of whom don't even know they're owners because they didn't even buy the company stock directly but some packaged product which in some roundabout way includes it - is just idiotic. If a company really needs thousands of people contributing to it to function, then it shouldn't function. That is fair market: you earn your money, with every cent coming from a real exchange of goods or services, not some gambler giving you money in exchange for boxes of pixie dust or jars of unicorn piss, which he hopes he can sell at a higher price later.

MrKap

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:26 PM

Why not just hand all your money over to banking and insurance cartels, and expect them to provide you with clean, drinkable water and health services?

Guys, the G20 is basically a giant cartel. Is it not?

How can we ensure that every human prospers on equal footing to another, while prohibiting the accumulation of wealth and the organization of successful minds?

Nettles

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:32 PM

Meh capitalism is fine. Problem is that the illuminati (or the elites if you don't believe in "conspiracies") designed it and have the most control over it so the proper checks aren't there.

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:33 PM

Absolutely not. The "free market determines value" argument is completely circular and it bothers me that so few recognize this fact. The law and our concepts of property have set up a system in which money flows into certain positions, not because the people in those positions make anything of value, but because they have found, though skill of chance, the "sweet spot" in the system.

The free market does not reward contribution proportionately. There are so many examples of inefficiencies and completely absurd distributions of wealth produced by the free market that's it's clear it doesn't work as intended. I would point out some of these examples, but the response to any such example by pro-capitalists is always one of two:
1. They grudgingly admit that, yes, this is an inefficiency, and capitalism isn't 100% perfect, but it's still better than anything else.
or, more commonly,
2. The example isn't valid because money has flowed in a certain direction, which indicates that this was the correct way since it was done under the rules of the free market. This is the circular logic: It's right because the free market brought it about and the the rules of free market bring about the right result. DearSummer seems to be fond of this argument.

Your argument is not clear. If I have $1 to spend and I buy a Mars bar with it, am I not voting that the Mars bar is the most valuable thing to me for that $1? Are the owners of the company that makes the Mars bar not being rewarded for providing a product that I enjoy? Are people not going to try their best to create products/services that I value in order for me to pay them so that they can in turn buy products/services that they value?

What is this "sweet spot" you are referring to? You will have to explain your argument more clearly, preferably with examples to crystallize what you are saying.

People acting in their own self-interest do not produce optimum results. The classic prisoner's dilemma comes to mind. Capitalism sucks. Communism failed not because it is inherently flawed but because it's more susceptible to political interference. Communism would work well if the government in charge is not stupid or corrupt to all hell, which unfortunately it has been in the countries where communism has been tried. History has not "proved" capitalism superior since nothing even approaching a controlled experiment has occurred in this area.

Do you know of some benevolent being that is going to manage our lives for us with no self interest? Even if they wanted to, it is not possible to manage such a large and complex system. The advantage of the free market system is that everybody acting in their own self-interest creates an economic system that manages itself without some overall ruler. It is democracy for the economy.

Um, how about saving it up? It's called "growing a business". You know, you make money, which allows you to expand you business with more staff, new products, etc., you make more money, repeat. Asking the public for money, with a company having thousands or even millions of part-"owners" - many of whom don't even know they're owners because they didn't even buy the company stock directly but some packaged product which in some roundabout way includes it - is just idiotic. If a company really needs thousands of people contributing to it to function, then it shouldn't function. That is fair market: you earn your money, with every cent coming from a real exchange of goods or services, not some gambler giving you money in exchange for boxes of pixie dust or jars of unicorn piss, which he hopes he can sell at a higher price later.

Haha so nobody should be able to borrow money? :facepalm:

Kohanz

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:34 PM

So why don't you donate your money to charity and/or the government? :confused:

Let's assume that the gap between rich and poor is growing. Is that the end of the world? The reality is the standard of living is higher than it has ever been, from poor people to rich people. Isn't that the most important thing?

I do both through charitable donations and taxes, but both of us know that is not a real solution. That does nothing to change the gap. It's a systemic issue.

Is the standard of living, world-wide, higher than it has ever been? There is no effective way to even quantify that, leave alone evaluate it.

Mercury048

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:34 PM

It sounds like you're talking specifically about commodity futures. There is a very important reason for these to exist. Let's say you're an oil producer. You want to build a refinery that will cost billions but only have an acceptable ROI if oil stay above $100/barrel. Let's say oil is currently trading at $110/barrel. Do you just go ahead and build it and assume the risk of oil dipping below $100? You could, but not many people would want to invest in such a risky operation.
This sounds like hammering a nail with a pickaxe; the wrong tool for the job.
If you want to insure against loss, there's already a thing for that: it's called insurance. Which should be provided by, you know, insurance companies. (Insurance is an exception to the general rule that moving money around is not beneficial to society; in this rule I firmly believe.)

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:36 PM

This sounds like hammering a nail with a pickaxe; the wrong tool for the job.
If you want to insure against loss, there's already a thing for that: it's called insurance. Which should be provided by, you know, insurance companies. (Insurance is an exception to the general rule that moving money around is not beneficial to society; in this rule I firmly believe.)

So how exactly would an insurance company "insured" a particular price for a product? It would be the exact same process that is currently used. What is the difference if an insurance company does it instead of another type of financial institution? :facepalm:

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:41 PM

I do both through charitable donations and taxes, but both of us know that is not a real solution. That does nothing to change the gap. It's a systemic issue.

How does charity not change the gap? Look at all the great work charitable organizations have done over the years. You're saying charities don't have an impact?

Is the standard of living, world-wide, higher than it has ever been? There is no effective way to even quantify that, leave alone evaluate it.

Yes, the standard of living world-wide is higher than it has ever been. There are plenty of ways to quantify it. Life expectancy is one. Look at how technology has changed the world even in just the past 50 years. That has benefited everybody on this planet. Anybody with half a brain has to realize how much better things are now than they were 100 years ago.

MrKap

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:41 PM

Your argument is not clear. If I have $1 to spend and I buy a Mars bar with it, am I not voting that the Mars bar is the most valuable thing to me for that $1? Are the owners of the company that makes the Mars bar not being rewarded for providing a product that I enjoy? Are people not going to try their best to create products/services that I value in order for me to pay them so that they can in turn buy products/services that they value?

That's not how it works. The only profit after the agreed upon value for the chocolate bar is realized, is through the systematic exploitation of the weak.

You are in reality not voting for anything other than the systematic exploitation of the weak.

There is a boiling point at which no further value or vote is needed for a chocolate bar company to exist, yet they persist.

When was the last time a chocolate bar was pulled from the shelves because it couldn't cut it? None... these things are absolutely worthless.

Mercury048

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:43 PM

What is this "sweet spot" you are referring to? You will have to explain your argument more clearly, preferably with examples to crystallize what you are saying.
The OP has provided an example. You have already rejected it using the circular logic I pointed out.
I very much doubt I value anything produced by the top earners. You say that I must, because my money ends up in their hands. Circular reasoning: the free market has made a fair decision, because the free market is fair, because it produces fair decisions.

The Mars bar example has no major flaws but only because it is naively simple. I'm not making the claim that the free market never produces fair decisions; it often does. But you are making the claim that it produces fair decisions in general. This claim is completely false.

Haha so nobody should be able to borrow money? :facepalm:
I didn't say that. But there should always be a direct relationship between borrower and lender. I don't have an issue with lending money, I do have an issue with debt as a commodity. In simpler terms: you should be able to lend and borrow, but not to "sell" a debt.

Kohanz

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:49 PM

How does charity not change the gap? Look at all the great work charitable organizations have done over the years. You're saying charities don't have an impact?

I'm saying their impact is very small compared to what a modest change in the size of the gap would accomplish. Charities do not represent systemic change. In my view, the system is broken because our resources are distributed more and more unevenly over time.

Yes, the standard of living world-wide is higher than it has ever been. There are plenty of ways to quantify it. Life expectancy is one. Look at how technology has changed the world even in just the past 50 years. That has benefited everybody on this planet. Anybody with half a brain has to realize how much better things are now than they were 100 years ago.

Fair enough, but the standard falls across a large gap, you just like the wealth. And we don't know whether it would have increased faster and to higher levels with a more equitable distribution of health. I think it would.

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:49 PM

The OP has provided an example. You have already rejected it using the circular logic I pointed out.
I very much doubt I value anything produced by the top earners. You say that I must, because my money ends up in their hands. Circular reasoning: the free market has made a fair decision, because the free market is fair, because it produces fair decisions.

The Mars bar example has no major flaws but only because it is naively simple. I'm not making the claim that the free market never produces fair decisions; it often does. But you are making the claim that it produces fair decisions in general. This claim is completely false.

If you value a Mars bar, you are right in that you indirectly support more than just the Mars bar itself. You support the whole process it took to make it, including borrowing the money it took to create the plant, pay employees, buy materials, etc. However, without all of things that go into making a Mars bar, it couldn't exist. Hence, capitalism is doing exactly what it is designed to do: rewarding those that deliver the products/services you value.

I didn't say that. But there should always be a direct relationship between borrower and lender.

So you're saying no mutual funds, pension plans, etc.? No investment advice?

I don't have an issue with lending money, I do have an issue with debt as a commodity. In simpler terms: you should be able to lend and borrow, but not to "sell" a debt.

That would just raise the price of borrowing and make the economy less efficient. What purpose would such a rule serve?

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:50 PM

I'm saying their impact is very small compared to what a modest change in the size of the gap would accomplish.

Fair enough, but the standard falls across a large gap, you just like the wealth. And we don't know whether it would have increased faster and to higher levels with a more equitable distribution of health. I think it would.

The million dollar question: how do we achieve a better distribution of wealth without impacting the amount of overall wealth?

Mercury048

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:50 PM

So how exactly would an insurance company "insured" a particular price for a product?
"My company will pay $X amount/X% of our profits to insurance company Y. If we do not make a profit, insurance company Y will cover our losses so we are guaranteed to come out even."

It would be the exact same process that is currently used. What is the difference if an insurance company does it instead of another type of financial institution? :facepalm:
You have a different view of this than I do. Because this kind of transaction is special (in my eyes, not yours) it should only be done by tightly-regulated companies that specialize in it, and money flow in and out should be controlled so, say, a collapse of the insurance company will have very limited effects.

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 06:55 PM

"My company will pay $X amount/X% of our profits to insurance company Y. If we do not make a profit, insurance company Y will cover our losses so we are guaranteed to come out even."

How is this any less of a speculation that a futures contract? Not only are you guaranteeing the price of a commodity but the profitability of an entire company! Guess what a company that was "insured" under this model would do? They would take on obscene amounts of risk since there is no downside for them! It would be impossible for an insurance company to price such a risk. To be honest, this is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.

You have a different view of this than I do. Because this kind of transaction is special (in my eyes, not yours) it should only be done by tightly-regulated companies that specialize in it, and money flow in and out should be controlled so, say, a collapse of the insurance company will have very limited effects.

People that speculate in the futures market DO specialize in it. Banking and financial institutions are among the most regulated markets in the world. What regulations could you enact that would lower the risk that have not already been enacted?

MrKap

Mar 31st, 2012, 07:02 PM

Mercury048

Mar 31st, 2012, 07:09 PM

How is this any less of a speculation that a futures contract? Not only are you guaranteeing the price of a commodity but the profitability of an entire company! Guess what a company that was "insured" under this model would do? They would take on obscene amounts of risk since there is no downside for them! It would be impossible for an insurance company to price such a risk. To be honest, this is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.
Could you stop for one second interpreting my ideas in the dumbest way possible? Obviously to get insurance you would have to submit a detailed business plan, etc. and insurance would only pay out if you followed it. The insurance company would have to be aware of all the risks.

People that speculate in the futures market DO specialize in it. Banking and financial institutions are among the most regulated markets in the world. What regulations could you enact that would lower the risk that have not already been enacted?
How about, for a start, the fact that the same institutions that bet on another company's success should not be allowed to hold the retirement savings of individuals?

If you value a Mars bar, you are right in that you indirectly support more than just the Mars bar itself. You support the whole process it took to make it, including borrowing the money it took to create the plant, pay employees, buy materials, etc. However, without all of things that go into making a Mars bar, it couldn't exist. Hence, capitalism is doing exactly what it is designed to do: rewarding those that deliver the products/services you value.
It's not accurate to say the Mars bar couldn't exist if the process were any different. A different process might even produce a better Mars bar.

I don't consciously support the current process; hell, I'm not even aware of most of the process. That's a major flaw. Let's say I have an ******* neighbour and I wish swift death upon him. The next day I buy a Mars bar. What I don't know is that my neighbour is a plant manager for the local Mars manufacturing plant. If I knew that some of my money was going to pay his salary, I wouldn't buy that Mars bar. BUt I don't know that.

This is very tame example. The larger the institutions, the more indirect the relationship, the more inefficient my decisions get. The most abstract, indirect, and convoluted systems are things like the stock market, investment firms, and the insurance industry (in its current state) and so they are horribly inefficient. That's why the "sweet spots" exist in these; huge amounts of money going to people that produce nothing of value.

That would just raise the price of borrowing and make the economy less efficient. What purpose would such a rule serve?
Indirectness breeds inefficiency. See my explanation above.

Look, I know I can't convince you. I've said my piece, so I'm going to bow out of this thread, at least for now. Have fun.

lip

Mar 31st, 2012, 07:14 PM

The financial markets serve the purpose of putting capital to its most efficient use. That is probably the most important aspect of capitalism and hence innovation. It's because they don't do something "visible" that the average person can identify with (like performing life-saving heart surgeries) that they are often painted in a negative light.

The financial system did not work like this until Reagan and his lot changed our system for the worse.
The financial markets in their truest form are there to allow companies to gain investment from the public so they can expand their business. Hard to argue with that.
However, this is not what goes on in our financial system today.

I could not agree more with the OP...the system is broken and if someone doesnt fix it, society will will fix it eventually but it will be through violent means.

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 07:22 PM

Could you stop for one second interpreting my ideas in the dumbest way possible? Obviously to get insurance you would have to submit a detailed business plan, etc. and insurance would only pay out if you followed it. The insurance company would have to be aware of all the risks.

A detailed business plan? Have you ever read a business plan before? How could you possibly cover every decision that the management is going to have to make throughout the course of the venture? It's simply not feasible. Further, why would you guarantee the entire business when all you want to guarantee is the price of oil? You're adding in extras that will increase the cost of the guarantee (a guarantee that the insurance company would not want to make and the oil producer would not want). This scheme simply makes no sense and offers exactly zero advantages over a simple futures contract.

How about, for a start, the fact that the same institutions that bet on another company's success should not be allowed to hold the retirement savings of individuals?

Again, so people should not be allowed to invest their retirement savings? Every single investment is a bet of some sorts.

It's not accurate to say the Mars bar couldn't exist if the process were any different. A different process might even produce a better Mars bar.

This is exactly the point. If somebody comes up with a better process that creates a better product/service, people will start buying that! This is how innovation happens.

I don't consciously support the current process; hell, I'm not even aware of most of the process. That's a major flaw. Let's say I have an ******* neighbour and I wish swift death upon him. The next day I buy a Mars bar. What I don't know is that my neighbour is a plant manager for the local Mars manufacturing plant. If I knew that some of my money was going to pay his salary, I wouldn't buy that Mars bar. BUt I don't know that.

So maybe you should research your purchases better? How exactly would you propose fixing a problem like this? How does this have anything to do with capitalism?

This is very tame example. The larger the institutions, the more indirect the relationship, the more inefficient my decisions get. The most abstract, indirect, and convoluted systems are things like the stock market, investment firms, and the insurance industry (in its current state) and so they are horribly inefficient. That's why the "sweet spots" exist in these; huge amounts of money going to people that produce nothing of value.

Again, provide some examples. I have explained many times the value created by financial institutions. Insurance companies manage/spread risk. Investment firms allocate capital efficiently. Both are crucial to the economy.

DearSummer

Mar 31st, 2012, 07:22 PM

The financial system did not work like this until Reagan and his lot changed our system for the worse.
The financial markets in their truest form are there to allow companies to gain investment from the public so they can expand their business. Hard to argue with that.
However, this is not what goes on in our financial system today.

What goes on in our financial system today?

popcorneater

Mar 31st, 2012, 07:49 PM

Why complain when you can protect yourself and get your wealth out of the corrupt financial system, and put it in something that has no counter party risk? The US stock exchange/RRSP's/mutual funds etc are not the only game in town.

http://www.perthmintbullion.com/Images/gold_silver_bars.jpg

rommelrommel

Mar 31st, 2012, 08:02 PM

I'm a pretty staunch capitalist but there are some times when the free market fails pretty badly. If the reward greatly exceeds the risk, then people will do it. The free market basically dictates that if you can steal without getting caught, or punished more severly than you've gained, you should.

The barriers of entry to the financial product community are SO high that it is essentially a small club, and it's SO profitable that the members can protect their interests ruthlessly. As per the free market why would you not protect your earning abilty, right? So the outcome is things like the repackaged toxic mortgages, derivatives, etc that only serve to make the people in the club more wealthy.

To say that there's no place for govt regulation is wrong IMO. Government exists to represent the interests of the people and frankly while capitalism is the best system we've got the "free" market is anything but free. When you have a group of people using their wealth to consistently rig the rules of the game it's not really a free market anymore.

Plus every free market capitalist that took bailout money should spontaineously combust out of the wrongness of that. If no one in the "free market" is willing or able to bail you out of your bad decisions tough luck.

Mercury048

Mar 31st, 2012, 08:07 PM

Sigh, okay, one more...

A detailed business plan? Have you ever read a business plan before? How could you possibly cover every decision that the management is going to have to make throughout the course of the venture? It's simply not feasible. Further, why would you guarantee the entire business when all you want to guarantee is the price of oil? You're adding in extras that will increase the cost of the guarantee (a guarantee that the insurance company would not want to make and the oil producer would not want). This scheme simply makes no sense and offers exactly zero advantages over a simple futures contract.
Yes. Yes. You can't. Of course not. You don't have to guarantee the entire business. No, I'm not, and you're being purposely obtuse. It makes perfect sense and the advantage is that risk is contained and not passed around the entire economy.

Again, so people should not be allowed to invest their retirement savings? Every single investment is a bet of some sorts.

Investments should not be possible in the form they are in now. They do more harm than good.

This is exactly the point. If somebody comes up with a better process that creates a better product/service, people will start buying that! This is how innovation happens.

No. You think capitalism will do this, but it won't. My neighbour example only shows that lack of awareness/knowledge leads to inefficient decisions. Capitalism is based on the idea that people will "vote with their dollars" but a vote without a clue is worthless in determining the best candidate. (A major problem in politics as well).

A rival company may come up with a better tasting, cheaper candy. But they produce it by offshoring jobs, and creating tons of pollution. There is only so much research that a person can do. A company that is "worse" by almost everyone's standards can outperform a "better" company for many reasons.

The Mars example is actually an example of free market working reasonably well. That even this example has so many faults shows how lousy capitalism is.

Again, provide some examples.
Like I said, the OP provides the example. No one, no one under any reasonable system of measurement can be 1000 times as smart, as productive, or as deserving as a regular honest blue-collar worker. Yet there are people who earn 1000 times as much as a blue-collar worker. This is a clear inefficiency of the system; proof that it doesn't work.

I have explained many times the value created by financial institutions. Insurance companies manage/spread risk. Investment firms allocate capital efficiently. Both are crucial to the economy. Insurance companies do provide a useful service at their core, they're just wrapped up in layers of inefficiency. Investment firms do not allocate capital efficiently and yes I believe we would be better off without them.

JustBob

Mar 31st, 2012, 09:17 PM

A side note:

I watched the video about "The Three Myths of Capitalism" in the closed thread and wondered why that guy only seemed to be regurgitating libertarian talking points about economics, all of which being largely based on the fallacy that "if you leave the free markets alone, they will regulate themselves". Unfortunately for him, this only works in economics textbooks mostly without that pesky human intervention.

A quick search shows that "Dr. Miron is an outspoken libertarian" (Wiki page, thank you Captain Obvious!) and that while having Harvard University attached to your name might sound impressive, he's merely a lecturer there, not a professor with tenure. And his University profile shows:

Jeffrey Miron

Senior Lecturer on Economics
Ph.D. MIT
Primary Fields of Interest: Economics of libertarianism. (Thanks again Captain Obvious!)
Research Topics: Financial Crises, Global Warming, Alcohol and Drug Policy, Crime

One will note that his research topics show no overall cohesive area of study in the field of economics (well there is the generic "Financial Crisis" thing...). Has he done any notable research on macroeconomic issues and regulations which would at least bring some weight to his opinions on financial bailouts and the mortgage crisis? I coudn't find any...

He's also apparently written for and appeared on CNN as an "economics commentator".

To me he seems to be yet another example of what is wrong with the political discourse in America. Like all those "pundits", he will try his best to offer opinions on "insert area of expertise here", as long as he can make them fit around a pre-determined political ideology, which usually results in a lot of generic comments/propositions and very little thorough analysis. So a big mehhhhh to Dr. Miron...

Please carry on.

mbg

Mar 31st, 2012, 09:35 PM

Like I said, the OP provides the example. No one, no one under any reasonable system of measurement can be 1000 times as smart, as productive, or as deserving as a regular honest blue-collar worker. Yet there are people who earn 1000 times as much as a blue-collar worker. This is a clear inefficiency of the system; proof that it doesn't work.

Sure they can.

I'm not saying it happens a lot, but...

It's a lot easier to do what you're told than to know what to do. It's even harder (or requires relatively scarce knowledge) to know what to do in a competitive and regulated business environment.

It's one thing to have an idea or two about how to improve something at the office, but a completely different thing to be in charge of making a business function.

On top of that, business is greased with connections... and if you have them then they are worth a lot to whoever is hiring you. That's why so many of these clowns spend so much time networking and don't have any real friends (i.e. friends who would still talk to them if they didn't have any business value).

GWK

Apr 1st, 2012, 09:50 AM

People should read up on the business practices of Microsoft, Nike, Exxon, Shell, Monsanto, Ticketmaster and Clear Channel before saying how great capitalism is...

mbg

Apr 1st, 2012, 10:10 AM

People should read up on the business practices of Microsoft, Nike, Exxon, Shell, Monsanto, Ticketmaster and Clear Channel before saying how great capitalism is...

But what's the alternative you think is better?

Capitalism is just a way of controlling access to scarce resources. You have to deal with scarcity one way or another.

And remember that the population has exploded while capitalism has been the dominant theme, which makes management of scarcity even more important. In a way, capitalism has made itself necessary. Before capitalism was dominant, the world has so many resources and so relatively few people that scarcity wasn't a big issue and you just dealt with it by having a war once in awhile when the resources in your immediate vicinity were threatened.

Capitalism, in a way, has prevented such wars. Which means the population keeps expanding.

So, suggest a better alternative.

I have a feeling the people who dislike capitalism also have a somewhat-compatible view that the world is overpopulated. To those, criticizing capitalism is a backdoor way of saying the world should be depopulated. But to say that directly requires a lot of courage because you have to address the "how" of such a complicated issue.

BananaHunter

Apr 1st, 2012, 10:50 AM

ANYONE can point out issues with capitalism. What's actually meaningful is finding a better alternative. Remember that life is not about picking perfect solutions. It's often about choosing the lesser of two evils. Capitalism has its flaws, but alternative financial systems have proven to fail throughout history with even greater issues.

The most commonly cited issue with capitalism is income inequality. You know what? In any system there will be income inequality simply because people are different. If everyone was given $50 per day, some people would save half of it. Some people would go and spend $60 and borrow $10. Wealth distribution is not caused solely by income. Given any sufficiently large society, there's always a group of "above average" people who have skills that are desirable, and there's always a group of people who needs to sustain on social assistance. Do you seriously propose that everyone get paid the same? Then there's no incentive to work hard, and society will fail on the basis of lack of innovation.

setell

Apr 1st, 2012, 11:33 AM

Man a great topic for once! Will respond after I have more time to read the rest as I'm only half way through the first page! Nice to know that people here still like a good debate on a interesting topic vs these mindless stupid threads! :)

a-tree

Apr 1st, 2012, 01:04 PM

What if *gasp* you don't want for more money or quality of life for yourself, but you want less of a gap and more equality for the population as a whole when it comes to those things? I would be willing to take a lesser quality of life than I have now if it meant closing the massive gap we've grown. As a capitalist, I'm supposed to just strive to get more and more for myself. It seems that capitalism and compassion do not mix well.

Not even the most fervent supporters of the free markets can deny that the gap between the super-wealthy and the masses has grown substantially over time. What is the endgame of this process?

More equality and a smaller gap means exactly that. More wealth for the 99%. Closing the gap essentially means better quality of life for those that want the gap closed. It's not an either/or proposition. Who says capitalism and compassion are supposed to mix anyway? What is compassion? Your definition of it would be to pay people in excess of the market. Is that fair?

There's no denying that the gap has grown. So what? Why is that bad? If you want to be super rich then do the things that will make you super rich. As I said, capitalism already provides the society with equality of opportunity. Equality of condition is what each individual creates for himself, by himself.

anyasok

Apr 1st, 2012, 01:52 PM

Absolutely not. The "free market determines value" argument is completely circular and it bothers me that so few recognize this fact. The law and our concepts of property have set up a system in which money flows into certain positions, not because the people in those positions make anything of value, but because they have found, though skill of chance, the "sweet spot" in the system.

The free market does not reward contribution proportionately. There are so many examples of inefficiencies and completely absurd distributions of wealth produced by the free market that's it's clear it doesn't work as intended. I would point out some of these examples, but the response to any such example by pro-capitalists is always one of two:
1. They grudgingly admit that, yes, this is an inefficiency, and capitalism isn't 100% perfect, but it's still better than anything else.
or, more commonly,
2. The example isn't valid because money has flowed in a certain direction, which indicates that this was the correct way since it was done under the rules of the free market. This is the circular logic: It's right because the free market brought it about and the the rules of free market bring about the right result. DearSummer seems to be fond of this argument.

People acting in their own self-interest do not produce optimum results. The classic prisoner's dilemma comes to mind. Capitalism sucks. Communism failed not because it is inherently flawed but because it's more susceptible to political interference. Communism would work well if the government in charge is not stupid or corrupt to all hell, which unfortunately it has been in the countries where communism has been tried. History has not "proved" capitalism superior since nothing even approaching a controlled experiment has occurred in this area.

That said, I am not a communist. It goes too far in curtailing economic freedom for individuals. A mixed economy, with government-owned corporations in charge of natural monopolies and essential services, tight government control of large private corporations, and most micro-share-ownership (owning less than, say 1/10th of a corporation i.e. what you normally get with stocks) eliminated entirely would be my dream world. Individuals would have virtually complete economic freedom when dealing with each other.

Um, how about saving it up? It's called "growing a business". You know, you make money, which allows you to expand you business with more staff, new products, etc., you make more money, repeat. Asking the public for money, with a company having thousands or even millions of part-"owners" - many of whom don't even know they're owners because they didn't even buy the company stock directly but some packaged product which in some roundabout way includes it - is just idiotic. If a company really needs thousands of people contributing to it to function, then it shouldn't function. That is fair market: you earn your money, with every cent coming from a real exchange of goods or services, not some gambler giving you money in exchange for boxes of pixie dust or jars of unicorn piss, which he hopes he can sell at a higher price later.
+1
Great post

pablonutribar

Apr 1st, 2012, 02:12 PM

More equality and a smaller gap means exactly that. More wealth for the 99%. Closing the gap essentially means better quality of life for those that want the gap closed. It's not an either/or proposition. Who says capitalism and compassion are supposed to mix anyway? What is compassion? Your definition of it would be to pay people in excess of the market. Is that fair?

There's no denying that the gap has grown. So what? Why is that bad? If you want to be super rich then do the things that will make you super rich. As I said, capitalism already provides the society with equality of opportunity. Equality of condition is what each individual creates for himself, by himself.[/B]

:facepalm:

Please explain to me how the child of a poorly educated single mother and the child of Bill Gates have equal opportunity. The societies with the greatest social mobility are the Scandinavian socialist countries. Your line of reasoning - as inspirational as you may think it is - is NOT supported by reality.

Kaz

Apr 1st, 2012, 02:48 PM

I find it incredible that the people who run the medical insurance industry in the States are worth hundreds of millions or billions, yet a very large % of people can`t afford insurance.
Or people can`t qualify for a variety of reasons.
I don`t have an issue with companies making profits, but when a bigger profit is made at the expense of society at large, how is that prouctive

GWK

Apr 1st, 2012, 02:53 PM

I am not anti-capitalist but people shoud know the whole story..here is some good reading material..

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTXIc69YTXC2lVVMIYu7ukNbke07UiLB IajHuYx9-D7y3El1Osv

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGLoeVNvEXAlpmFqjqlF1MRmkEN2Ynk SHX1iVYR8hVZYBRsuAt

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtVZtvTE8wQURguKc1TxzX07FehHAAb LoyQPKRY8EGytcn3POY_g

anyasok

Apr 1st, 2012, 02:59 PM

If you value a Mars bar, you are right in that you indirectly support more than just the Mars bar itself. You support the whole process it took to make it, including borrowing the money it took to create the plant, pay employees, buy materials, etc. However, without all of things that go into making a Mars bar, it couldn't exist. Hence, capitalism is doing exactly what it is designed to do: rewarding those that deliver the products/services you value.

So you're saying no mutual funds, pension plans, etc.? No investment advice?

That would just raise the price of borrowing and make the economy less efficient. What purpose would such a rule serve?
You have a catastrophic flaw in your arguments. When people buy a Mars bar, they don't really THINK about the things you said, what they support or what their value - they merely buy what they want without looking at all of these things. If we had a system with no money, the people would just walk into a store and get a Mars bar and that would be it.

It is indeed circular reasoning: capitalism exists and just because there is a product on the shelve and you buy it, that means capitalism is the only system that can exist and therefore it's superior to all other system especially if people buy things. People buy them out of NECESSITY, not because they give a damn about capitalism or anything like that.

It's the same as saying "You are voting for NDP who still have solutions within the capitalistic framework and ergo you are a capitalist and support the system by voting for people who maintain it". No, if I were to vote, i would do so to choose the LESSER of all EVILS, not because I LIKE the EVIL that I am voting for.

Alternatively, its the same as choosing between lethal injection and an electric chair - same result, but different ways of getting there.

Yes, true free-market without government interference as you advocate for is way better than what we have at the moment, but it is not a panacea or a perfect solution. To reach a solution, capitalism needs to be abolished as it outlived its usefulness in the past and now needs to be supplanted by something far superior and egalitarian.

Arguing for free-market at every step of the way and not entertaining other possibilities makes you look like a clown unfortunately.

peanutz

Apr 1st, 2012, 03:04 PM

Mercury048 has definitely written up some great posts.

I am also not anti-capitalist but the version we have now could be tweaked and improved for the reasons others have already articulated far better than I could.

anyasok

Apr 1st, 2012, 03:06 PM

But what's the alternative you think is better?

Capitalism is just a way of controlling access to scarce resources. You have to deal with scarcity one way or another.

And remember that the population has exploded while capitalism has been the dominant theme, which makes management of scarcity even more important. In a way, capitalism has made itself necessary. Before capitalism was dominant, the world has so many resources and so relatively few people that scarcity wasn't a big issue and you just dealt with it by having a war once in awhile when the resources in your immediate vicinity were threatened.

Capitalism, in a way, has prevented such wars. Which means the population keeps expanding.

So, suggest a better alternative.

I have a feeling the people who dislike capitalism also have a somewhat-compatible view that the world is overpopulated. To those, criticizing capitalism is a backdoor way of saying the world should be depopulated. But to say that directly requires a lot of courage because you have to address the "how" of such a complicated issue.
Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement - the only viable alternative.

anyasok

Apr 1st, 2012, 03:07 PM

DearSummer

Apr 1st, 2012, 03:19 PM

You have a catastrophic flaw in your arguments. When people buy a Mars bar, they don't really THINK about the things you said, what they support or what their value - they merely buy what they want without looking at all of these things.

They value the Mars bar itself. How it became available to them for the price is of little consequence to most people. If it does matter to them, they will research it. The point is that capitalism is doing exactly what it is designed to do, and that is reward those that create goods/services that others want.

If we had a system with no money, the people would just walk into a store and get a Mars bar and that would be it.

Except there would be no Mars bar because why would somebody work to create it for nothing? :facepalm:

It is indeed circular reasoning: capitalism exists and just because there is a product on the shelve and you buy it, that means capitalism is the only system that can exist and therefore it's superior to all other system especially if people buy things. People buy them out of NECESSITY, not because they give a damn about capitalism or anything like that.

The point is that people buy Mars bars instead of Snickers. Capitalism is about competition and creating the best products/services. When people buy something and not something else, they are voting for the products/services that matter to them. That is how our economy is shaped and caters to changing consumer preferences.

It's the same as saying "You are voting for NDP who still have solutions within the capitalistic framework and ergo you are a capitalist and support the system by voting for people who maintain it". No, if I were to vote, i would do so to choose the LESSER of all EVILS, not because I LIKE the EVIL that I am voting for.

You are free not to purchase any chocolate bar if you don't want one...

Alternatively, its the same as choosing between lethal injection and an electric chair - same result, but different ways of getting there.

??? In a free market system you don't have to buy anything.

Yes, true free-market without government interference as you advocate for is way better than what we have at the moment, but it is not a panacea or a perfect solution. To reach a solution, capitalism needs to be abolished as it outlived its usefulness in the past and now needs to be supplanted by something far superior and egalitarian.

Arguing for free-market at every step of the way and not entertaining other possibilities makes you look like a clown unfortunately.

I am open to other possibilities. Let me know what system is superior to capitalism. People who are anti-capitalism seem to believe their is some wonderful, utopian alternative out there. It doesn't exist. We have to choose the best option available to us.

The Venus Project is a joke. It could never be implemented.

anyasok

Apr 1st, 2012, 04:01 PM

They value the Mars bar itself. How it became available to them for the price is of little consequence to most people. If it does matter to them, they will research it. The point is that capitalism is doing exactly what it is designed to do, and that is reward those that create goods/services that others want.
You don't seem to get it :facepalm:
The fact that it is of little consequence of how it became available and what goes on behind the scenes is precisely the problem of capitalism. Within capitalism, if I swindle everyone out of their investment, offshore all of my jobs to China where I manhandle the workers and pay them pittance while overworking them 24/7 (effectively killing the local job positions), trample the competition who go bankrupt and to the streets but create the tastiest Mars bar then that's fine and dandy right because I created a product that people buy ignorantly just because it tastes good and I get rich on the backs of everyone despite all the behind the scenes shenanigans?!

Except there would be no Mars bar because why would somebody work to create it for nothing?
The only reason why people are motivated by money is because the system is setup in such as a way that it rewards access to the things they want/need only through that medium. It's the same problem as before. No one truly wants to rely on money. Money is not the root of all evil, it is the capitalistic system that is the root of all evil. Money is all they ever knew and no one offers them any alternatives because the elites are not interested in having this money-driven capitalistic cartel dismantled and so people continue to rely on money and you keep saying that otherwise there would be nothing.

If we had a different system in place, people would be motivated by everything else other than money for the betterment of themselves and the society they live in.

The point is that people buy Mars bars instead of Snickers. Capitalism is about competition and creating the best products/services. When people buy something and not something else, they are voting for the products/services that matter to them. That is how our economy is shaped and caters to changing consumer preferences.
I already explained why it is not so. If you keep looking at things at face-value, then that only shows how naive you are about the system.

In a free market system you don't have to buy anything
Oh really? You don't have to buy food? You don't have to buy a roof to live under? You don't have to buy clothes? You don't have to work for all these things to make someone else rich? REALLY?!
The word "free" is the biggest sham in the history of the mankind. You are not "free" to choose an occupation nor are you "free" to not work. The only thing you are free to do (if you are not rich, won the lottery or got huge sums of money that generate interest forever) is choose between what type of slavery you will fall under. Hopefully through other indoctrinating institutions of slavery like school you will be able to get a job in this "free-market" system that will, due to the invisible forces of the market put you an enslaving position of decent pay. This is not freedom. This is worst than the slavery of the dark ages - it is simply concealed now better masquerading shamefully as "jobs", "benefits", "vacations" and "working conditions". I spit in the face of such phony freedom.

I am open to other possibilities. Let me know what system is superior to capitalism. People who are anti-capitalism seem to believe their is some wonderful, utopian alternative out there. It doesn't exist. We have to choose the best option available to us.

The Venus Project is a joke. It could never be implemented.
You never explained why the Venus Project would never work and yet you advocate for the most detrimental system out there - capitalism. Look, it might have been an alright system in the past that led us to where it is today, but with the way it is governed by a mix of plutocracy and government laxity/favoritism, it is a recipe that will implode in the faces perhaps wiping out all of the achievements of this miserable species off the face of the planet. It's time to move on to something else instead of dwelling on the past.

mbg

Apr 1st, 2012, 04:27 PM

Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement - the only viable alternative.

Anything that claims to be beyond politics shouldn't be taken seriously. Politics are a fact of human life.

mbg

Apr 1st, 2012, 04:34 PM

You have a catastrophic flaw in your arguments. When people buy a Mars bar, they don't really THINK about the things you said, what they support or what their value - they merely buy what they want without looking at all of these things. If we had a system with no money, the people would just walk into a store and get a Mars bar and that would be it.

It is indeed circular reasoning: capitalism exists and just because there is a product on the shelve and you buy it, that means capitalism is the only system that can exist and therefore it's superior to all other system especially if people buy things. People buy them out of NECESSITY, not because they give a damn about capitalism or anything like that.

But if what people wanted was too expensive, they would either find an alternative, or try to steal it. Stealing prevents the system from functioning, so we try to control it.

You can bet there are people who choose the no-name brand over the brand name because it's cheaper. That's an example of what you say people don't think about above. But, sure, if cost isn't a concern then people will probably form a habit and keep buying the same thing. That's the goal of marketing for many products -- make it habitual, make it easy to find, and make it affordable.

If you give in to people who want to destroy a system just because it's not perfect, you'll probably go into a tailspin. Because those people will never find a perfect system and they'll forever be wanting to destroy what they've just created. Or, they'll find themselves in a good position materially and want to preserve it even when it's not viable for most others. The "harsh realities" in capitalism allow for that kind of renewal (bankruptcy, etc) while keeping the overall structure intact. It's not perfect, but no system ever will be.

If you want a perfect system, you have to be willing to kill people who get in the way to have any hope of achieving it.

anyasok

Apr 1st, 2012, 04:44 PM

Anything that claims to be beyond politics shouldn't be taken seriously. Politics are a fact of human life.
The system governing essential access to life should never be managed by politicians. The only facts of human life (at least for the moment barring future technological breakthroughs) are death and resources. Everything else is not a fact of life and remains in the realm of human fallacy.

anyasok

Apr 1st, 2012, 04:49 PM

But if what people wanted was too expensive, they would either find an alternative, or try to steal it. Stealing prevents the system from functioning, so we try to control it.

You can bet there are people who choose the no-name brand over the brand name because it's cheaper. That's an example of what you say people don't think about above. But, sure, if cost isn't a concern then people will probably form a habit and keep buying the same thing. That's the goal of marketing for many products -- make it habitual, make it easy to find, and make it affordable.

If you give in to people who want to destroy a system just because it's not perfect, you'll probably go into a tailspin. Because those people will never find a perfect system and they'll forever be wanting to destroy what they've just created. Or, they'll find themselves in a good position materially and want to preserve it even when it's not viable for most others. The "harsh realities" in capitalism allow for that kind of renewal (bankruptcy, etc) while keeping the overall structure intact. It's not perfect, but no system ever will be.

If you want a perfect system, you have to be willing to kill people who get in the way to have any hope of achieving it.
Mdb, 56 million people die every year due to preventable causes. Now you could say nature is balancing itself out in terms of birth/death ration, but that's not a point in favor of capitalism. If scientists were really allowed to push the frontier without being constrained by finding a job, securing funding and their master's agenda (i.e. make weapons of mass destruction or another military product), we could have found a way to leave the confines of Earth and terraform other planets, but no one does so because there is NO money for any of this and everyone cares about their little lives here on Earth which will be destroyed one day anyways. If something like the Venus Project could be implemented on every single future planet, life could be infinitely better.

I suggest you read "Looking Forward" by Jacque Fresco. Hell, even the events in the "Culture" series are not out of the question with sufficient technological resources thrown to tackle all the problems!

zz000ter

Apr 1st, 2012, 04:56 PM

The financial markets serve the purpose of putting capital to its most efficient use. That is probably the most important aspect of capitalism and hence innovation. It's because they don't do something "visible" that the average person can identify with (like performing life-saving heart surgeries) that they are often painted in a negative light.

You are being idealistic.
This is the theoretical ideal
Sadly today speculation and "gambling" take priority.

As for corporations - they are inherently sociopathic entities.

Communism and a centrally planned economy is inherently better from a theoretical perspective.
The only problem is that there is too much power concentration which leads to corruption at the "rich end" and laziness at the "poor end".

Two concepts I despise in capitalism = Inflation and Interest rates.
Both are fake concepts used to create the illusion of growth and reinforcing
human greed and the desire to have something NOW as opposed to later - which leads to abuse of the environment.

.

mbg

Apr 1st, 2012, 05:19 PM

The system governing essential access to life should never be managed by politicians. The only facts of human life (at least for the moment barring future technological breakthroughs) are death and resources. Everything else is not a fact of life and remains in the realm of human fallacy.

Are you a teenager?

Every human situation involves politics. It's not just politicians that use politics.

You know most hippie communes failed because of political conflicts, right?

anyasok

Apr 1st, 2012, 05:29 PM

Are you a teenager?

Every human situation involves politics. It's not just politicians that use politics.

You know most hippie communes failed because of political conflicts, right?
I am not a teenager. Are you?
Society should be structured under scientific paradigms using what works for the best of society and the environment. Politics introduces chaos into the system because politicians cannot agree on anything due to the fact that they don't even understand what it is that has to be done. All that they are concerned about is being reelected and lowering taxes.

Politics doesn't do anything. Humans are intrinsically incapable of managing the system and society precisely because everything with them revolves around political conflict. It's the most pathetic species on the face of the planet due to it's faults. Animals do not suffer from that perennial predicament.

Politics ruined communism (and would inevitably ruin pure strains of socialism as well) and they ruin capitalism as well. I don't care how deeply ingrained they are in human affairs. Capitalism is intrinsically faulty and it had proven that it has no redeeming qualities over the years.

mbg

Apr 1st, 2012, 05:46 PM

I am not a teenager. Are you?
Society should be structured under scientific paradigms using what works for the best of society and the environment. Politics introduces chaos into the system because politicians cannot agree on anything due to the fact that they don't even understand what it is that has to be done. All that they are concerned about is being reelected and lowering taxes.

Science is political, too. Because scientists are humans and don't like to see their life's work thrown in the garbage when it turned out they were wrong.

If society can be structured under scientific paradigms then society can be structured as a pure free market with purely rational actors. But it can't, because people aren't purely rational. Which is why your structure won't work, either.

Politics doesn't do anything. Humans are intrinsically incapable of managing the system and society precisely because everything with them revolves around political conflict. It's the most pathetic species on the face of the planet due to it's faults. Animals do not suffer from that perennial predicament.

Now we're getting to the main point:

people: bad; animals: good
nature: innocent; humans: guilty

Despite the fact that, on some level, humans are animals, and are also a part of nature.

Is Gaia in this somewhere, too?

So how do you see a way out of this? Put dogs in charge of the world? Watership Down was fiction, you know.

It sounds like we need a scientific paradigm to justify who in society we should get rid of and who will be allowed to live. I can think of one group that is commonly assumed to have too much power in society, and control too much money in proportion to their numbers. We could start by solving that problem, I guess.

smartfood

Apr 1st, 2012, 05:47 PM

This is a good article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/streetwise/why-i-gave-up-my-six-figure-salary-and-quit-bay-street/article2372106/

zz000ter

Apr 1st, 2012, 06:17 PM

Science is political, too. Because scientists are humans and don't like to see their life's work thrown in the garbage when it turned out they were wrong.

Please explain your comment.

Failed scientific theories are regularly thrown into the trash.
It does not matter what the scientist thinks about his life's work

mbg

Apr 1st, 2012, 07:06 PM

Please explain your comment.

Failed scientific theories are regularly thrown into the trash.
It does not matter what the scientist thinks about his life's work

You're talking about a higher level, but along the way and until that point is reached, there is tension and resistance.

Look at any academic environment. Some of the most childish arguments take place in academia, often between people who see themselves as men of science.

Why? Because people are involved, and people want to push their agenda, especially when there are grey areas and unresolved questions (there are many in science).

Don't think you think capitalism keeps this in check somewhat? When there's no more money, you have to give up the idea.

Why have we stopped studying whether homosexuality is caused by a parasite or bacteria, for example? Do you think we'll go back to it? Or are we going to meet resistance from every level that wants to see it as nothing abnormal and is afraid of labelling it as something in need of a cure?

In Cuba, they reasoned that, with the embargo, they couldn't afford an AIDS epidemic, so they decided to start locking up gay men. Makes sense if you don't have the money, no?

Researchers had already observed a few peculiarities about rodents with T. gondii that bolstered Flegr’s theory. The infected rodents were much more active in running wheels than uninfected rodents were, suggesting that they would be more-attractive targets for cats, which are drawn to fast-moving objects. They also were less wary of predators in exposed spaces. Little, however, was known about how the latent infection might influence humans, because we and other large mammals were widely presumed to be accidental hosts, or, as scientists are fond of putting it, a “dead end” for the parasite. But even if we were never part of the parasite’s life cycle, Flegr reasoned, mammals from mouse to man share the vast majority of their genes, so we might, in a case of mistaken identity, still be vulnerable to manipulations by the parasite.

The subjects who tested positive for the parasite had significantly delayed reaction times. Flegr was especially surprised to learn, though, that the protozoan appeared to cause many sex-specific changes in personality. Compared with uninfected men, males who had the parasite were more introverted, suspicious, oblivious to other people’s opinions of them, and inclined to disregard rules. Infected women, on the other hand, presented in exactly the opposite way: they were more outgoing, trusting, image-conscious, and rule-abiding than uninfected women.

source: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/how-your-cat-is-making-you-crazy/8873/

DearSummer

Apr 1st, 2012, 07:28 PM

CDNPatriot

Apr 1st, 2012, 08:15 PM

So how exactly can science manage a society? :facepalm:

Easy, much better than an importer who exports Canadian jobs everyday would be able to.:lol::confused::lol:

a-tree

Apr 1st, 2012, 08:39 PM

:facepalm:

Please explain to me how the child of a poorly educated single mother and the child of Bill Gates have equal opportunity. The societies with the greatest social mobility are the Scandinavian socialist countries. Your line of reasoning - as inspirational as you may think it is - is NOT supported by reality.

If only the child of Bill Gates can become successful, you're essentially denying the lives of people who live the 'rags to riches' stories. There are too many to name so I won't bother. My point is that the society provides equality of opportunity. Being born into a billionaire family is a matter of equality of condition, and has nothing to do with capitalism or what the government should do.

anyasok

Apr 1st, 2012, 10:17 PM

Science is political, too. Because scientists are humans and don't like to see their life's work thrown in the garbage when it turned out they were wrong.

If society can be structured under scientific paradigms then society can be structured as a pure free market with purely rational actors. But it can't, because people aren't purely rational. Which is why your structure won't work, either.
Science is objective regardless of what the scientists themselves think. Politics is subjective and the decisions are made impulsively, under duress, to turn a profit, to curry a favor, etc

Science on the other hand would do what is necessary. No one is arguing about the results of experiments in the LHC for instance even though they argue about the interpretations of these results but eventually as the technology gets more sophisticated, the results get more accurate and then whatever doubt scientists had about this or that result dissipate quickly because now results show unequivocally the way thing truly are and there are no more doubts in anyone's mind.

Compare that to politics where the interpretations are all skewed and misaligned and/or modified to meet one's agenda, the results are always debated but never resolved because there people don't have the know-how or guts to do what is necessary (even though they make so many decisions that decide whether the actual scientists would have the money to pursue what's needed) so if a certain decision by politicians creates stratification/poverty/etc that's fine by them cause that's "par for the course" and they continue trundling along making more decisions on that trampled and dirtied up ground where corpses are lying and the aftershock is still pervasive.

You cannot compare science to politics. Science CAN and DID bring us to the point where we are today, NOT religion, NOT politics, NOT capitalism. Politics and religion do nothing but interfere with the work of science and capitalism constrains the work of scientists and directs them to work on other things which turn a profit (wars, oil, speculation, etc), benefit the government and to hell with the environment, to hell with the people, to hell with the planet, let them all rot in hell under the free-market and let the species be wiped out in the name of profit.

Capitalism is an abomination of a system that is no longer needed. Its nothing but a big aberration of societal needs/wants. It serves the rich and kills the rest.

Science is now living in the shadow of capitalism that doesn't let it fully reveal itself and propel us to the next levels. You know why we still use oil? Still no flying cars? Still none of the sci-fi pictures we've seen from the 60's materialize? Because capitalism prevents that from happening because none of that has profit when you can ravage the Earth infinitely for more and more profit of what's already there so that the elite keep getting richer from that.

And for that, capitalism should die a slow and painful death.

DearSummer

Apr 1st, 2012, 10:18 PM

Science is objective regardless of what the scientists themselves think. Politics is subjective and the decisions are made impulsively, under duress, to turn a profit, to curry a favor, etc

Science on the other hand would do what is necessary. No one is arguing about the results of experiments in the LHC for instance even though they argue about the interpretations of these results but eventually as the technology gets more sophisticated, the results get more accurate and then whatever doubt scientists had about this or that results dissipate quickly because now results show unequivocally the way thing truly are and there is no more doubt in anyone's mind.

Compare that to politics where the interpretations are all skewed and misaligned and/or modified to meet one's agenda, the results are always debated but never resolved because there people don't have the know-how or guts to do what is necessary (even though they make so many decisions that decide whether the actual scientists would have the money to pursue what's needed) so if a certain decision by politicians creates stratification/poverty/etc that's fine by them cause that's "par for the course" and they continue trundling along making more decisions on that trampled and dirtied up ground where corpses are lying and the aftershock is still pervasive.

You cannot compare science to politics. Science CAN and DID bring us to the point where we are today, NOT religion, NOT politics, NOT capitalism. Politics and religion do nothing but interfere with the work of science and capitalism constrains the work of scientists and directs them to work on other things which turn a profit (wars, oil, speculation, etc), benefit the government and to hell with the environment, to hell with the people, to hell with the planet, let them all rot in hell under the free-market and let the species be wiped out in the name of profit.

Capitalism is an abomination of a system that is no longer needed. Its nothing but a big aberration of societal needs/wants. It serves the rich and kills the rest.

How can you manage a society using science?

anyasok

Apr 1st, 2012, 10:25 PM

How can you manage a society using science?
You already called it a joke (assuming you read any of that) so why bother me with these questions? It's all there on the websites, tons and tons of material to delve into.

Here, a book written by Fresco in the 60's:
http://thevenusproject.com/downloads/ebooks/Looking-Forward-v2.pdf

Or a more recent book about how that future civilization might function:
http://www.mediafire.com/?pmx55rb6v2b1esj

olssy

Apr 2nd, 2012, 01:11 PM

If scientists ran the country it would be a dictatorship and the head scientists would become corrupt with power. Applying scientific principles to politics might be a better way to go...

kenchau66

Apr 2nd, 2012, 04:39 PM

the issue is not whether capitalism if wrong, the issue is whether the structure of the financial industry is "wrong".

sylpherware

Apr 2nd, 2012, 04:46 PM

It's just greed feeding on greed. People look for bankers to make themselves richer, and, in turn, bankers profit off of those actions.

anyasok

Apr 2nd, 2012, 04:54 PM

If scientists ran the country it would be a dictatorship and the head scientists would become corrupt with power. Applying scientific principles to politics might be a better way to go...
Ultimately, machines should run everything, not humans precisely due to the fallacies they are susceptible too. I dont see how applying scientific principles to a decidedly unscientific enterprise would yield any results though..

kenchau66

Apr 2nd, 2012, 04:58 PM

Ultimately, machines should run everything, not humans precisely due to the fallacies they are susceptible too. I dont see how applying scientific principles to a decidedly unscientific enterprise would yield any results though..

humans create machines, which then in turn can be susceptible to error.

ITT: bunch of socialists who want everything handed to them

Capitalism is one of the best things that ever happened to North America. Greed is good, you tools

DearSummer

Apr 2nd, 2012, 04:58 PM

ultimately, machines should run everything, not humans precisely due to the fallacies they are susceptible too. I dont see how applying scientific principles to a decidedly unscientific enterprise would yield any results though..

lol, let me know when there is a machine capable of organizing all of society.

kasianman

Apr 2nd, 2012, 05:04 PM

Oh really? You don't have to buy food? You don't have to buy a roof to live under? You don't have to buy clothes? You don't have to work for all these things to make someone else rich? REALLY?!
The word "free" is the biggest sham in the history of the mankind. You are not "free" to choose an occupation nor are you "free" to not work. The only thing you are free to do (if you are not rich, won the lottery or got huge sums of money that generate interest forever) is choose between what type of slavery you will fall under. Hopefully through other indoctrinating institutions of slavery like school you will be able to get a job in this "free-market" system that will, due to the invisible forces of the market put you an enslaving position of decent pay. This is not freedom. This is worst than the slavery of the dark ages - it is simply concealed now better masquerading shamefully as "jobs", "benefits", "vacations" and "working conditions". I spit in the face of such phony freedom.

+1
Modern world slavery where part of our life purpose is to serve the rich and make them richer/comfortable.

kenchau66

Apr 2nd, 2012, 05:08 PM

+1
Modern world slavery where part of our life purpose is to serve the rich and make them richer/comfortable.

so both of you want 3x meals a day, shelter, clothing, internet etc. without having to work? LOL

.....communists

Agafaba

Apr 2nd, 2012, 05:30 PM

so both of you want 3x meals a day, shelter, clothing, internet etc. without having to work? LOL

.....communists

You must be fat, because thats not how communism works in the slightest.

kenchau66

Apr 2nd, 2012, 05:37 PM

You must be fat, because thats not how communism works in the slightest.

way to address my argument, dufus

Xeros

Apr 2nd, 2012, 06:13 PM

The million dollar question: how do we achieve a better distribution of wealth without impacting the amount of overall wealth?

Market caps!

Build a business to a certain agreed upon size, at which point you can either stay at that limit, or split into two separate entities.

This will prevent companies from getting so large that the collapse of one company brings down the entire system.

My idea is pretty primitive and I'm not an economist, so go ahead pick at this idea, it can evolve.

kenchau66

Apr 2nd, 2012, 06:17 PM

Market caps!

Build a business to a certain agreed upon size, at which point you can either stay at that limit, or split into two separate entities.

This will prevent companies from getting so large that the collapse of one company brings down the entire system.

My idea is pretty primitive and I'm not an economist, so go ahead pick at this idea, it can evolve.

the single entity will then need double of everything, accounting, finance, marketing etc. departments, slap on a premium on the products/services the single entity was producing, you like that?

ITT: Occupy Wall street Hippies

have a look at Peter Schiff's occupy wall street video on youtube as the top 1% rep, maybe you'll learn something

Xeros

Apr 2nd, 2012, 06:44 PM

olssy

Apr 2nd, 2012, 06:45 PM

Market caps!

Build a business to a certain agreed upon size, at which point you can either stay at that limit, or split into two separate entities.

This will prevent companies from getting so large that the collapse of one company brings down the entire system.

My idea is pretty primitive and I'm not an economist, so go ahead pick at this idea, it can evolve.

Cool idea! Not sure it would work as I am no economist either. Even if theoretically they would need to double accounting, finance, marketing etc. it would then create more jobs or would split the other departments off into separate companies... But would it really solve the problem as the owners of the split off companies would still be the same...

Xeros

Apr 2nd, 2012, 06:51 PM

Cool idea! Not sure it would work as I am no economist either. Even if theoretically they would need to double accounting, finance, marketing etc. it would then create more jobs or would split the other departments off into separate companies... But would it really solve the problem as the owners of the split off companies would still be the same...

I think you would have to split the ownership, it'll be easier to do if it's a public company with shares.

I suppose if it's a private company, there would be no limits, but then again where can you get enough funding if you're a private company? This would be contentious and will need further thought.

kenchau66

Apr 2nd, 2012, 06:51 PM

It wouldn't be a single entity anymore when it is forced to split. It'll be two separate entities, now competing with each other.

The basis of this idea is that instead of having Tim Horton's being only place you can get coffee, you'll have a bunch of different coffee shops each offering similar products, hence competition, and drive for more efficiency, you know, capitalism at work.

This also solves the problem of if something happened at Tim Horton's you wouldn't lose all your coffee shops and perhaps the problem of someone sitting at the top collecting way more than they should.

weak reading comprehension much?

anyasok

Apr 2nd, 2012, 08:41 PM

the single entity will then need double of everything, accounting, finance, marketing etc. departments, slap on a premium on the products/services the single entity was producing, you like that?

ITT: Occupy Wall street Hippies

have a look at Peter Schiff's occupy wall street video on youtube as the top 1% rep, maybe you'll learn something
I am familiar with Schiff, Celeste and everyone else that is an ardent supporter of capitalism. While I can definitely sympathize with some of his arguments from that video (namely, that we have fascism, corporatism, crony-capitalism, etc), it's still a far-cry from a solution. To have a solution you need to eradicate the source of the problem: money and then build the rest of your social system from there.

For reference, this is the latest video of his from Occupy. My problem with Occupy is that majority were not part of the Zeitgeist movement where solutions already exists and I wish I could see someone argue with him over these points instead of the stupidity of the people I see in that video who cannot possibly offer Schiff anything worthwhile to comment on that he hasn't done within the first couple of minutes. Based on that video alone, the Occupy movement is a joke. It had a lot of strength with supporters of Zeitgeist to offer their 2 cents and I am sure Peter would be hard-pressed to argue against these issues and their proposed solutions if someone engaged him with these questions instead of coming up to him with absolute nonsense that he easily debunks with flying colors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahMGoB01qiA

Yes, capitalism in the sense he is referring to is better than what we have right now, absolutely and I think Schiff is the closest you can get to a rational justification of capitalism of how it really ought to have been since the beginning without government involvement - the world would be a bit of a better place for it. I do dislike his pro-capitalism stance that doesn't acknowledge either communism/socialism - that's tunnel-vision from such a smart guy.

I would definitely vote for such independent thinkers as himself, Ron Paul and certain other individuals - they're infinitely better than what we have right now.

Would that change anything drastically enough though? It would not.

peanutz

Apr 2nd, 2012, 09:36 PM

anyasok

Apr 2nd, 2012, 10:10 PM

anyasok, I agree that we are slaves to society. In fact, I use that term all the time. It's only the truth.
Peanutz, we will be slaves regardless of whether we are in the plutocracy we are in right now or in the free-market capitalism that Paul & Schiff advocate. I can't argue with the fact that we'll be better off if we are under pure capitalism and not the government sponsored nightmare we are in today and better yet, under pure communism/socialism which were never truly attempted in the past (and that's where I disagree a lot with Schiff) but the ultimate solution would have to come from taking drastic measures to completely rebuild the society from the bottom because everything else would be merely patching the system that is bursting at the seams and leaking out of every hole.

Btw, Schiff's net worth is $70 million. Not quiet up there with Wallstreet traders, but he is still quiet incapable of fully comprehending the plight of the common folks and he demonstrated that quite clearly in that video where he refused to acknowledge certain intrinsic faults with capitalism that cannot be overlooked because they are built in core of the system regardless of its "purity" or "strain".

Honestly, all of this "pro-capitalism" bunkum pales in comparison with something like this (and yes, i approve lotteries and play them myself but if a system allows something like this to happen, or the $640 million Megamillions draws to occur while the rest of the population is living in poverty and/or dying off, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system that lets that happen. You wouldn't have that with communism/socialism, that's for sure).

I admit it that lottery is another scam to siphon off money from taxpayers (even if its a "voluntary tax") to any single individual who just happened to be lucky enough to get the collective pool of all that money for himself. While the chances are astronomical, someone always wins at some point and the jackpost resets while the public remains resentful of the winners. They should absolutely be banned as they contribute to inequality and rip egalitarian principles to pure shreds.

http://i.thestar.com/images/56/d5/b8d5102f4ef7b12a188476fe54ef.jpg

Troodon

Apr 3rd, 2012, 03:24 AM

Can someone provide evidence that speculators such as hedge funds actually improve market efficiency? A lot of theories in ECON 101 doesn't apply to real-world markets.

From what I've found...

It is undeniable that sophisticated professional investors play a more dominant
role in financial markets than they used to. A more difficult question is
whether this form of progress will ultimately help to make markets more efficient.
The analysis of this paper suggests an ambiguous answer: Because of the
externalities associated with crowding and leverage, there is no clear theoretical
presumption that—absent any policy intervention—the rise of sophisticated
investors should necessarily be beneficial to market efficiency, even over a very
long horizon. It will be interesting to see what the future brings.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/stein/files/presidential-address-jf-final.pdf

Region: What about hedge funds, collateralized debt obligations and other newer financial technologies—do they serve a useful purpose in mitigating market risk, or do they heighten it?

Fama: I don’t know. People talk on both sides of that issue. The problem is that we don’t have very good hedge fund data and the data we have only goes back about 10 years. That’s just not enough to come to any conclusions on these issues. So I don’t know if it’s going to take another half century before we really know. You’re talking about returns with such high volatility that it really is going to take that long.

This is a standard part of a talk that I give to investment professionals: People like to tell stories about short periods of data, but the reality is that you can’t measure the market premium over periods shorter than an investment lifetime. The 5 percent stock market premium over bills takes about 35 years before it becomes two standard errors from zero.
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=1134

In view of the critical role that efficient credit provision plays in economic growth and development, the benefits to the global economy of getting the underpinnings of a stable, efficient financial system in place are substantial. At the same time, we also know that these important markets are susceptible to certain “market failures,” such as information asymmetries, incentive conflicts, moral hazard and agency problems. By at times distorting incentives to manage risk, these market imperfections can alter credit decisions and lead to a higher overall level of risk-taking than may be optimal for the economy as a whole.
http://www.ny.frb.org/newsevents/speeches/2006/gei060914.html

Troodon

Apr 3rd, 2012, 03:29 AM

the issue is not whether capitalism if wrong, the issue is whether the structure of the financial industry is "wrong".

It's wrong because tax payers subsidize the risk taking for too-big-to-fail institutions.

Troodon

Apr 3rd, 2012, 03:34 AM

The million dollar question: how do we achieve a better distribution of wealth without impacting the amount of overall wealth?

Why do we care about the total wealth if it's not being distributed properly? If the majority of the wealth increase in concentrated in the hands of the top 0.1% then for 99.9% of the people the wealth increase is irrelevant.

Xeros

Apr 3rd, 2012, 09:27 AM

weak reading comprehension much?

No. It's more the lack of clarity in your thread.

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 10:19 AM

Why do we care about the total wealth if it's not being distributed properly? If the majority of the wealth increase in concentrated in the hands of the top 0.1% then for 99.9% of the people the wealth increase is irrelevant.

Middle and lower class have benefited from the increased wealth as well...

kasianman

Apr 3rd, 2012, 10:28 AM

anyasok, I agree that we are slaves to society. In fact, I use that term all the time. It's only the truth.

Having said that, it's not that bad. We're not in the worst predicament in all of history. Although it does concern me that things could get worse as the gap between the rich and the rest of humanity keeps widening...

We're slaves to corporations/rich/nobility/owners rather than the society.
That's why I find it funny that slaves are fighting against slave advocate groups (unions).
But... I agree that the modern type of slavery is not as bad as slavery that had incurred in the past.

Middle and lower class have benefited from the increased wealth as well...

Then how come the middle class is disappearing, and there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor (lower/working class)?

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:06 AM

Then how come the middle class is disappearing, and there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor (lower/working class)?

A widening gap does not mean that everybody isn't benefiting from increased wealth. The wealthy may be benefiting more but we are all benefiting. Socialists have this weird perceptions where they think somebody else getting rich hurts them.

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:14 AM

But... I agree that the modern type of slavery is not as bad as slavery that had incurred in the past.
What are you talking about? Just because its hidden doesn't mean it's any better. In fact, it's worse nowadays and more nefarious.

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:20 AM

A widening gap does not mean that everybody isn't benefiting from increased wealth. The wealthy may be benefiting more but we are all benefiting. Socialists have this weird perceptions where they think somebody else getting rich hurts them.
How are we benefitting? By having an iphone available but no jobs, benefits, opportunity, education, money while the other camp has everything?
Sure we benefit because we get all the scraps, thank you dear DearSummer for letting us have something in return for all the wealth they generate.

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:22 AM

How are we benefitting? By having an iphone available but no jobs, benefits, opportunity, education, money while the other camp has everything?
Sure we benefit because we get all the scraps, thank you dear DearSummer for letting us have something in return for all the wealth they generate.

Wages are increasing. Employment is increasing. Education is as accessible as it's ever been. Benefits are as good as they have ever been. You need some perspective.

kasianman

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:41 AM

Wages are increasing. Employment is increasing. Education is as accessible as it's ever been. Benefits are as good as they have ever been. You need some perspective.

Then how come the middle class is disappearing, increase in the number of poor (conversion from middle class to poor as well), and widening gap between the poor and the rich?

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:44 AM

Wages are increasing. Employment is increasing. Education is as accessible as it's ever been. Benefits are as good as they have ever been. You need some perspective.
I dont need a perspective because none of these things are anywhere near as good as you said they are. You need some reality check unfortunately. Your optimism is unwarranted and completely inaccurate.

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:53 AM

Then how come the middle class is disappearing, increase in the number of poor (conversion from middle class to poor as well), and widening gap between the poor and the rich?
Don't bother. He has his capitalistic blinkers on and sees nothing else but his own misguided truth.

Xeros

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:59 AM

Wages are increasing. Employment is increasing. Education is as accessible as it's ever been. Benefits are as good as they have ever been. You need some perspective.

Wages are not "increasing"... given that the costs of things rise faster. So in effect, buying power has decreased tremendously.

Employment hasn't increased, as the unemployment numbers are in the 7-8% figures in NA and 10.5% in the Euro zone. Consider the fact that this number isn't even representative of those without jobs, since it only counts for those looking for jobs within a specified time period. Also, this so called employment is not of the full time variety as many jobs are being replaced with part-time workers.

Education costs are getting higher and exceeding many people's ability to afford it. Benefits are being cut due to austerity measures all over the place.

Perspective indeed.

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 01:04 PM

Wages are not "increasing"... given that the costs of things rise faster. So in effect, buying power has decreased tremendously.

Employment hasn't increased, as the unemployment numbers are in the 7-8% figures in NA and 10.5% in the Euro zone. Consider the fact that this number isn't even representative of those without jobs, since it only counts for those looking for jobs within a specified time period. Also, this so called employment is not of the full time variety as many jobs are being replaced with part-time workers.

Education costs are getting higher and exceeding many people's ability to afford it. Benefits are being cut due to austerity measures all over the place.

Perspective indeed.
You would think he'd know all that and more given the fact that it's all over the news for a long time now and so many articles had been written about it and it's obviously the way things are given the Occupy, given the "career" forum posting here, and given the overall perceivable state of things.. but no... some people just prefer to ignore the glaring evidence and live in their own rosy dream-world where capitalism is the most humane, efficient system out there.

I dont understand people who refuse to look at the evidence, praise the system that caused all that to happen and then refuse to weigh any alternatives to that system.

It's blase ignorance.

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 02:13 PM

Wages are not "increasing"... given that the costs of things rise faster. So in effect, buying power has decreased tremendously.

Incorrect. See here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm and here: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/

Employment hasn't increased, as the unemployment numbers are in the 7-8% figures in NA and 10.5% in the Euro zone. Consider the fact that this number isn't even representative of those without jobs, since it only counts for those looking for jobs within a specified time period. Also, this so called employment is not of the full time variety as many jobs are being replaced with part-time workers.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate

From a historical perspective we are still doing great despite the recession.

Education costs are getting higher and exceeding many people's ability to afford it. Benefits are being cut due to austerity measures all over the place.

Perspective indeed.

Education is getting more expensive because of the government's involvement in student loans. Still, it is more accessible than ever:

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/auto/diagramme-chart/stg2/c_5_29_2_1_eng.png?20110325120948537
http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=29

kasianman

Apr 3rd, 2012, 02:40 PM

Just out of curiosity DearSummer, are you Peter Schiff's follower?
Because he has his own idea of capitalism and it isn't all "right".

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 02:52 PM

Just out of curiosity DearSummer, are you Peter Schiff's follower?
Because he has his own idea of capitalism and it isn't all "right".
Peter Schiff is WAY more doom and gloom than DearSummer can ever be. While he may be his follower in terms of being a proponent of "pure capitalism", at least Schiff has a sense of perspective as he said in that video "you haven't seen nothing yet" when he was asked about the current state of the plutocratic wallstreet country that is the us.

Peter would never say that education is more accessible than ever, that wages are rising, that benefits are at their peak, etc despite him being "vectored" solely towards capitalism working its "magic" without government interference and his perspective is rational, perhaps not so much for capitalism, but at least towards the present state of affairs! He is not delusional...

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 03:10 PM

Just out of curiosity DearSummer, are you Peter Schiff's follower?
Because he has his own idea of capitalism and it isn't all "right".

What do you mean by follower? I watch some of his antics on Youtube, the Occupy 1% video is a favourite of mine. I think he's right on a lot of things (government-involvement in student loans causing tuition inflation) and wrong on some others.

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 05:42 PM

What do you mean by follower? I watch some of his antics on Youtube, the Occupy 1% video is a favourite of mine. I think he's right on a lot of things (government-involvement in student loans causing tuition inflation) and wrong on some others.

Dearsummer you are not going to learn economics on Youtube. If you are this interested why not take an economics course at night rather than spending so much time here posting your drivel.

a-tree

Apr 3rd, 2012, 06:16 PM

Dearsummer you are not going to learn economics on Youtube. If you are this interested why not take an economics course at night rather than spending so much time here posting your drivel.

Your sig is quite funny. Wouldn't it be easier and more cost friendly to improve company organization and coordination than having a union and raising prices for everyone? There's no argument for unions. Unions harm everyone except the members (and sometimes the members too). That's just a simple truth you can't argue.

Agafaba

Apr 3rd, 2012, 06:20 PM

Your sig is quite funny. Wouldn't it be easier and more cost friendly to improve company organization and coordination than having a union and raising prices for everyone? There's no argument for unions. Unions harm everyone except the members (and sometimes the members too). That's just a simple truth you can't argue.

The real question is how often do unions form where there was none before in happy well taken care of workplaces. Unions are only needed because you cant always trust the company to have your best interests in mind.

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 06:23 PM

The real question is how often do unions form where there was none before in happy well taken care of workplaces. Unions are only needed because you cant always trust the company to have your best interests in mind.

Businesses have to bid for labour. You are paid what your labour is worth in a free market system.

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 06:37 PM

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 06:38 PM

Businesses have to bid for labour. You are paid what your labour is worth in a free market system.

Brilliant!!!

Check my signature. Do you really think that the pilot was worth only 16k?

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 06:43 PM

Brilliant!!!

Check my signature. Do you really think that the pilot was worth only 16k?

If that is the prevailing wage rate for pilots in a free market system...yes.

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 06:43 PM

If that is the prevailing wage rate for pilots in a free market system...yes.

Hope you fly on one of those non unionized planes.

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 06:46 PM

Hope you fly on one of those non unionized planes.

Flying is far safer than driving from what I hear. I suppose we should make sure every driver on the road is unionized and making above market rate so they aren't distracted!

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 06:50 PM

Flying is far safer than driving from what I hear. I suppose we should make sure every driver on the road is unionized and making above market rate so they aren't distracted!

Again your low cognitive abilities have been demonstrated. You didn't read the article and are just relying on conjecture. The fact is that an outsourced company Colgan Air who flies under the Continental label uses contract and low paid pilots. They assigned someone from Seattle to fly 12 hours and 3 stops to Newark so she can make a little of bit of money flying that plane from Newark to Buffalo. 16k a year and she used to work at a mom and pop doughnut shop to make extra money to survive. She was sick, yawning and didn't notice that they were about to stall the plane. The rest is tragic.

Nothing to do with a driver who happens to be unionized.

Got it? No? Still confused? You need a new hobby bud...

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:00 PM

Businesses have to bid for labour. You are paid what your labour is worth in a free market system.
Who the hell decides what labor is worth? The free-market? Leaving the decision to an impersonal entity that has no stake in anything is absurd!
I don't care if people have education or not or whether the market values them lowly, highly or not at all - it is inhumane to have a system that enslaves people for low wages (because that's what it values them at), makes them slaves and then gives them nothing because of supply and demand price conditions that again the free-market system is responsible for!

If you are pro-capitalism bud, then you are pro-slavery, pro-death and pro-poverty - period.

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:03 PM

Who the hell decides what labor is worth? The free-market? Leaving the decision to an impersonal entity that has no stake in anything is absurd!
I don't care if people have education or not or whether the market values them lowly, highly or not at all - it is inhumane to have a system that enslaves people for low wages (because that's what it values them at), makes them slaves and then gives them nothing because of supply and demand price conditions that again the free-market system is responsible for!

If you are pro-capitalism bud, then you are pro-slavery, pro-death and pro-poverty - period.

What does slavery have to do with the free market? The free market is based on the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. There is not slavery in a free market system.

As I have demonstrated to you repeatedly, capitalism has been by far the most effective system at raising the standard of living of average people across the globe.

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:11 PM

What does slavery have to do with the free market? The free market is based on the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. There is not slavery in a free market system.

As I have demonstrated to you repeatedly, capitalism has been by far the most effective system at raising the standard of living of average people across the globe.
The only thing you demonstrated so far is how ignorant you are about the realities out there.

Slavery has everything to do with the free market! That's what Schiff, you and others like you don't understand. The only freedom that exists in capitalism is what type of slavery you will work under (unless you attained your wealth already and don't need to worry about your immediate need and can focus on the most luxurious wants).

When someone from the audience asked Schiff about work conditions and low wages, he replied to him just like you would - "you have freedom to choose. no one is forcing you to stay there". NO he doesn't have any freedom to choose! If all or the majority of jobs (whether they require education or not is irrelevant) are like that and he needs money to survive, then what kind of freedom is that?! It's the freedom between choosing life-sentence (work) or electric chair (homelessness) and of course most people would choose to cave in to the slavery and work to have at least something rather than zero - so what?! Does that justify capitalism as the most "effective system at raising the standard of living of average people"? Do you even understand what you have just said?

Yes, you are "free" to choose between what work (slavery) you would fall under at what rates (based on the slave rates the free-market establishes) and if you quit then you become an "economic slave" since you can't survive without money. Where is the logic in slavery not being related to capitalism and the free-market when the connection between them is staring you right at the face and beckoning you to pay attention!

Capitalism is the worst type of system out there (in fact Churchill admitted it too) and the only reason why it is considered to be the "lesser of all evils" is because no one truly attempted any other system without it being corrupted to the bone-marrow by government/corporations self-interest that does not include the society at large.

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:18 PM

The only thing you demonstrated so far is how ignorant you are about the realities out there.

Slavery has everything to do with the free market! That's what Schiff, you and others like you don't understand. The only freedom that exists in capitalism is what type of slavery you will work under (unless you attained your wealth already and don't need to worry about your immediate need and can focus on the most luxurious wants).

When someone from the audience asked Schiff about work conditions and low wages, he replied to him just like you would - "you have freedom to choose. no one is forcing you to stay there". NO he doesn't have any freedom to choose! If all or the majority of jobs (whether they require education or not is irrelevant) are like that and he needs money to survive, then what kind of freedom is that?! It's the freedom between choosing life-sentence (work) or electric chair (homelessness) and of course most people would choose to cave in to the slavery and work to have at least something rather than zero - so what?! Does that justify capitalism as the most "effective system at raising the standard of living of average people"? Do you even understand what you have just said?

You mean people need to work in exchange for other people to work to provide them with goods and services? What insanity! We should just somehow conjure goods & services out of thin air! :confused:

Capitalism is the worst type of system out there (in fact Churchill admitted it too) and the only reason why it is considered to be the "lesser of all evils" is because no one truly attempted any other system without it being corrupted to the bone-marrow by government/corporations self-interest that does not include the society at large.

Let me know when you find some benevolent being who can organize society for us. Until then, capitalism is unquestionably the best system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:24 PM

I give up DearSummer, you're dyed-in-the-wool capitalist and are not addressing any of my concerns and simply trudging on with your capitalist propaganda.

While I don't think that socialism/communism are the solution to everything (that would fall under the Venus Project), they are both infinitely better than capitalism and were never truly attempted before by any government that is not tainted with greed and corruption. Capitalism is going to transform into the worst version of communism that everyone hates if things keep heading in that direction, if not worse.

Get ready to cash in your food stamps mate.

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:36 PM

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:40 PM

LOL did you know that Schiff did a study where he scored countries according to his ideology? Guess which country got the highest score based on low taxes, small government and big military?

Pakistan! LOL

There was an article on him in the New York Times where he was asked what he tought of Pakistan and he didn't give a straight answer. They also asked him whether he would invest in Pakistan as they are the closest country to what he preaches. And he didn't give a straight answer again.

You mean people need to work in exchange for other people to work to provide them with goods and services? What insanity! We should just somehow conjure goods & services out of thin air! :confused:

Let me know when you find some benevolent being who can organize society for us. Until then, capitalism is unquestionably the best system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

a-tree

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:41 PM

Next time you take a flight, I hope you take a flight where the pilots are not unionized, are making 16k a year, are both sick because they are afraid to call in sick and are flying a plane after a 12 hour 3 stop flight from across the United States. As you approach the airport they are so tired and begin yawning and are distracted and then you will realize as you are taking the death plunge that hey, unions are not so bad after all as the private sector doesn't care about my health and safety.

How about I just take my flight with an airline that takes passenger safety seriously and has policies in place to ensure that pilots are well rested before a flight? That probably works too.

The real question is how often do unions form where there was none before in happy well taken care of workplaces. Unions are only needed because you cant always trust the company to have your best interests in mind.

At the expense of whom? Everyone else? An extra penny that goes to a union worker is an extra penny taken away from everyone else. That's what you call fair? There's no such thing as a fair price or a fair wage. There is only price and wage. That's it. If an airline offers $16k for its pilots and someone takes it, that becomes the 'fair' price, because that's the wage you consciously, willfully accepted. Just because you earn $16k while everyone earns $100k because you have no other marketable skill doesn't make you into a victim of capitalism. You simply acquire new skills that will pay you more and move on. Capitalism is king. Capitalism is perfect. Only those unwilling to take responsibility for their lives whine about the world outside their slavish minds.

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:41 PM

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:44 PM

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:47 PM

You realize that was Milton Friedman in the video, right? :confused:

Milton Friedman is passe. You are revealing your education now Dearsummer. If you graduated high school you didn't even take business/economics. Talking eagerly about Friedman is like going to a music forum and posting over and over your new found love for Milli Vanilli.

I remember in 2002 on those investment shows how Schiff predicted years of major recession like we have never seen before. The market kept going higher and higher and year after year 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 he was predicting a crash. Then he changed his tune near 2008 and guess what happened? LOL
http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20090213

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:48 PM

Yeah, talk to Valujet disaster victims on relying on corporations to look after health and safety over profits.

I'll allow Milton to educate you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg

a-tree

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:49 PM

Yeah, talk to Valujet disaster victims on relying on corporations to look after health and safety over profits.

Are you honestly still blaming this incident on non-unionized pilots? This stuff happens. If your points had any shred of truth plane crashes would only happen with pilots that make $16k a year.

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:50 PM

Are you honestly still blaming this incident on non-unionized pilots? This stuff happens. If your points had any shred of truth plane crashes would only happen with pilots that make $16k a year.

What we also need is to pay brain surgeons 16k a year and then hopefully you and your loved ones will be privileged enough to use their services.

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:52 PM

What we also need is to pay brain surgeons 16k a year and then hopefully you and your loved ones will be privileged enough to use their services.

You seem to live in this dream world where somebody picks what everybody else's salary is. That is not how the free market works.

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:54 PM

You seem to live in this dream world where somebody picks what everybody else's salary is. That is not how the free market works.

Hmmmm I'm only imitating the master himself Dearsummer. How many professions and occupations have you reassessed? If you deny it I recommend you refresh your memory. Just look at your topics that you created with the angry man face outraged the high pay.

;)

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 07:55 PM

Are you honestly still blaming this incident on non-unionized pilots? This stuff happens. If your points had any shred of truth plane crashes would only happen with pilots that make $16k a year.

sure it does... that's why we need to stick you and your loved one's on these planes.

http://www.midtod.com/98autumn/airline.phtml

DANGER IN THE SKIES
The shocking truth about airplane safety, and how a former U.S. Inspector General, "Maximum Mary" Schiavo from the Midwest, took on powerful airline interests

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 08:13 PM

You seem to live in this dream world where somebody picks what everybody else's salary is. That is not how the free market works.

Capitalism is like real estate market.

House = $1000 cost (if not less)

Free market through supply and demand jacks it all up by a factor of 699,900 (in Vancouver where houses are often priced at the $700,000 mark), banks mortgage you to death while government taxes you to death and you get the slavery package complete.

That's how capitalism determines who gets what: by the whims of supply and demand and general market forces that seem to love to catch patterns of behavior and through their volume put arbitrary prices on them (same can be applied to to any capitalistic aspect, not just real estate).

Pathetic.

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 08:16 PM

Capitalism is like real estate market.

House = $1000 cost (if not less)

Free market through supply and demand jacks it all up by a factor of 699,900 (in Vancouver where houses are often priced at the $700,000 mark), banks mortgage you to death while government taxes you to death and you get the slavery package complete.

That's how capitalism determines who gets what: by the whims of supply and demand and general market forces that seem to love to catch patterns of behavior and through their volume put arbitrary prices on them (same can be applied to to any capitalistic aspect, not just real estate).

Pathetic.

Haha wtf?

Why don't you go into business selling houses for $2,000? Since they only cost $1,000, you'll be rich in no time!

a-tree

Apr 3rd, 2012, 08:16 PM

What we also need is to pay brain surgeons 16k a year and then hopefully you and your loved ones will be privileged enough to use their services.

You might as well say that anything made in China kills people because they work under appalling wages and conditions.

stuntman

Apr 3rd, 2012, 08:27 PM

Are you honestly still blaming this incident on non-unionized pilots? This stuff happens. If your points had any shred of truth plane crashes would only happen with pilots that make $16k a year.

I was likely a contributing factor. Any person doing a highly technical job that requires concentration needs to be rested, alert and focused.
Pilots that are paid so poorly paid often/generally:

-work extra hours at another job
-work extended hours
-do not have the financial means to pay someone to take care of other items in their lives
-do not have the luxuries that allow them to rest and relax with the same ease/to the same extent as people that are paid more.
-have to do extensive travel to get to work because they can't afford a residence closer to their main hub because that hub changes and moving/second residence is expensive

A determined cause of the crash was pilot error and the pilots being unfamiliar with the plane.
Many pilots make mistakes. Many more pilots make mistakes when they are overtired, stressed and unfamiliar with their plane.
As a group the pilots making the least have higher levels for all three of those traits. Those that are not in unions make the least in this case.

Didn't you read the @%$@$ articles on it before making the quoted statement?

stuntman

Apr 3rd, 2012, 08:28 PM

You might as well say that anything made in China kills people because they work under appalling wages and conditions.

rubber duckies don't kill people.
crashing airplanes kill people.

Troodon

Apr 3rd, 2012, 08:43 PM

If you're a utilitarian then you'd believe in income redistribution because the poor have a higher marginal utility for money than the rich.

If you aren't a utilitarian then what's the big fuss over "economic efficiency"?

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 08:51 PM

Haha wtf?

Why don't you go into business selling houses for $2,000? Since they only cost $1,000, you'll be rich in no time!
I would never work in an industry like real estate since it's one of the major thorns of capitalism that is causing all the inequality and suffering.

Do you understand the that whole profession of "selling" is completely bogus? The whole idea of money, buying/selling was brought about by this free-market you seem love so much, by its arbitrary force that "gives everyone what they deserve" (pure hockey) and distributes resources appropriately.

There should be no cost on anything at all - period. Human beings came up with money as a way of measuring value in something that they couldn't possibly measure accurately since it doesn't exist!

Money is not real DearSummer. Only resources are real. When you look at the components that go into making a house or into the house as whole, you see an entity that exists in nature, that can be pieced together into a single unit. When you look at money, it doesn't exist as a resource, it's backed by nothing and it hinges on collective faith that is artificially controlled by banks and the government to make you a slave.

Whether its $1000 or $700,000 is irrelevant. It's cost should be 0 if anything. There is no such thing as getting richer/poorer in the real world. There are only resources and life and humans birthright to these resources and their smart allocation without the use of any medium is the only rational use of the human mind.

Capitalism distorts all of these values and creates 99% of sectors/jobs that are completely unnecessary and were conjured up out of thin air (just like money) just to have an option for the rich people to accumulate more and more of that artificial entity to hold the world in bondage and hog all the resources.

It's truly a diabolical system controlled by the worst kinds of men.

DearSummer

Apr 3rd, 2012, 08:56 PM

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 09:02 PM

Dearsummer please read his post. Your gobbledegook makes no sense.

PS Please read my response on the Air Canada thread you created. I basically provided you with evidence that negates all of your points on airline deregulation. I'm still awaiting a response. And no that off topic response you provided is just more gobbledegook.

Money represents resources. It's an evolution of barter (trading one resource for another). Money is not real, but the resources it represents are.

Why don't you build me a house for free? Where should houses come from?

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 09:03 PM

Money represents resources. It's an evolution of barter (trading one resource for another). Money is not real, but the resources it represents are.

Why don't you build me a house for free? Where should houses come from?
Instead of addressing individual questions, how about you read the literature I provided you in other threads multiple times? You keep asking questions but never seem to read what I suggest so that you could understand how everything falls into place so that theses sort of questions never actually pop up once the framework is sufficiently clear.

Specifically, there was a thread where I provided you with links to two books talking about the subject. The issue of housing which is the subject of your question was addressed there as well from multiple angles.

I don't want to explain to you anything if you don't bother to read any of the literature I'm referring you to so that you could get the whole picture instead of bits and pieces of it as you are trying to do now

Agafaba

Apr 3rd, 2012, 09:09 PM

How about I just take my flight with an airline that takes passenger safety seriously and has policies in place to ensure that pilots are well rested before a flight? That probably works too.

At the expense of whom? Everyone else? An extra penny that goes to a union worker is an extra penny taken away from everyone else. That's what you call fair? There's no such thing as a fair price or a fair wage. There is only price and wage. That's it. If an airline offers $16k for its pilots and someone takes it, that becomes the 'fair' price, because that's the wage you consciously, willfully accepted. Just because you earn $16k while everyone earns $100k because you have no other marketable skill doesn't make you into a victim of capitalism. You simply acquire new skills that will pay you more and move on. Capitalism is king. Capitalism is perfect. Only those unwilling to take responsibility for their lives whine about the world outside their slavish minds.

Its also the workers right to choose to spend a fraction of their money on someone who will look after their best interests, especially if they have already invested a lot of time and money into learning skills to allow they to work (as is the case with pilots). Unemployment is 8% (They only count people looking remember, so your competing against 8% of the population for jobs) in Ontario, and your saying that someone should just quit their job if they dont like the working conditions instead of fighting to improve them? Where do you suppose they should go?

Well damn, capitalism is perfection incarnate? We should start a religion around capitalism, and as a bonus its economical as with enough members we could receive tax breaks bringing us ever closer to our lord and savior the free market.

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 09:13 PM

How about I just take my flight with an airline that takes passenger safety seriously and has policies in place to ensure that pilots are well rested before a flight? That probably works too.

Yeah, but what if you are the poor soul like in that article where you are sleeping in your home with your family and the unsafe plane with the tired, sick, low paid pilot who isn't well trained slams into your home killing you and your family.

I guess you will be worth the slippage.

Needinghelp

Apr 3rd, 2012, 09:28 PM

Instead of addressing individual questions, how about you read the literature I provided you in other threads multiple times? You keep asking questions but never seem to read what I suggest so that you could understand how everything falls into place so that theses sort of questions never actually pop up once the framework is sufficiently clear.

Specifically, there was a thread where I provided you with links to two books talking about the subject. The issue of housing which is the subject of your question was addressed there as well from multiple angles.

I don't want to explain to you anything if you don't bother to read any of the literature I'm referring you to so that you could get the whole picture instead of bits and pieces of it as you are trying to do now

I learned a long time ago that arguing and presenting facts to DearSummer is like talking to a brickwall - he is simply trapped in his own little warped reality and he will continue to ignore facts and logic. He's completely content with the fact that there is such a massive gap in wealth... Such a small percentage of people own all of the world's wealth (hence 1% vs 99%). The problem is that there is too much financial de-regulation and corporations did whatever the hell they wanted just to screw people over so that they could make a quick buck. Watch the film/documentary called Inside Job, it explains this whole financial crisis and the housing bubble very accurately and in an informative fashion:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

stuntman

Apr 3rd, 2012, 09:36 PM

How about I just take my flight with an airline that takes passenger safety seriously and has policies in place to ensure that pilots are well rested before a flight? That probably works too.

A lot of people are not aware of the poor conditions the pilots are in, they just book a flight. The airline industry is spotty with bad pilot working conditions go.

+those pilots died while trying to do their job. Your method would not save those workers unless everyone did it and that is not about to happen.

Yeah, but what if you are the poor soul like in that article where you are sleeping in your home with your family and the unsafe plane with the tired, sick, low paid pilot who isn't well trained slams into your home killing you and your family.

I guess you will be worth the slippage.

:facepalm: are you and DS the same person?.....go cdn!

anyasok

Apr 3rd, 2012, 09:44 PM

I learned a long time ago that arguing and presenting facts to DearSummer is like talking to a brickwall - he is simply trapped in his own little warped reality and he will continue to ignore facts and logic. He's completely content with the fact that there is such a massive gap in wealth... Such a small percentage of people own all of the world's wealth (hence 1% vs 99%). The problem is that there is too much financial de-regulation and corporations did whatever the hell they wanted just to screw people over so that they could make a quick buck. Watch the film/documentary called Inside Job, it explains this whole financial crisis and the housing bubble very accurately and in an informative fashion:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/

All DearSummer is ... if I can sum him up in a nutshell... He's essentially a conservative-loving, zionist ***** -kissing, muslim hating, illuminati fanboying, state terrorist supporting, fact-denying, brick-walling sunuva biatch. Just ignore him and move on. You'll maintain your sanity just by moving onto serious and actually debatable posts.
I watched "Insider Job", I loved it :)

Just curious, there was a new movie released by Venus Project just the past month. What would you think about it? Forget about DearSummer... just tell me what you think since you seem to be reasonable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KphWsnhZ4Ag#!

PPiL

Apr 3rd, 2012, 09:54 PM

I would never work in an industry like real estate since it's one of the major thorns of capitalism that is causing all the inequality and suffering.

Do you understand the that whole profession of "selling" is completely bogus? The whole idea of money, buying/selling was brought about by this free-market you seem love so much, by its arbitrary force that "gives everyone what they deserve" (pure hockey) and distributes resources appropriately.

There should be no cost on anything at all - period. Human beings came up with money as a way of measuring value in something that they couldn't possibly measure accurately since it doesn't exist!

Money is not real DearSummer. Only resources are real. When you look at the components that go into making a house or into the house as whole, you see an entity that exists in nature, that can be pieced together into a single unit. When you look at money, it doesn't exist as a resource, it's backed by nothing and it hinges on collective faith that is artificially controlled by banks and the government to make you a slave.

Whether its $1000 or $700,000 is irrelevant. It's cost should be 0 if anything. There is no such thing as getting richer/poorer in the real world. There are only resources and life and humans birthright to these resources and their smart allocation without the use of any medium is the only rational use of the human mind.

Capitalism distorts all of these values and creates 99% of sectors/jobs that are completely unnecessary and were conjured up out of thin air (just like money) just to have an option for the rich people to accumulate more and more of that artificial entity to hold the world in bondage and hog all the resources.

It's truly a diabolical system controlled by the worst kinds of men.

Sure DearSummer is debating with the extreme theoretical capitalism system in mind, but you also seem to ignore some of the positive of the system.

Houses/condos in Vancouver went up that much because there must be like 5 times more people who want to live there than there is actual place to live. It's only the law of supply and demand. How would you allocate the houses and condos? Lottery? To friends? What would be a more "fair" way to allocate them?

Who do you think should make those decisions? Who has the right opinion on which job is useless or not, and how much they are worth?

It's the same thing with airline pilots. No big mean rich guy came in one day and cut all salaries by 75%. At one point airline pilots were making a good living so many people studied to do that job until at one point there were too many pilots for the job offered, so pilots who didn't have a job were ready to take worst job conditions than not work at all. It didn't go from 50k to 16k in a year, it went from 50k to 50k but I'll do longer hours, to 49k with the same hours, to 49k with even longer hours, etc. It looks really bad now, but people had the time to react back in the days, but they didn't and here's where we are…

As for the usefulness of money, it serves as a practical way of trading with people, nothing more, and it never really had the pretention of doing anything else.

I think the problem is much more related to human nature than to the system. Whatever the system, you would find greed in most people, some are successful at it, others not…

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 10:21 PM

+ 2 for Venus Project and Inside Job

I watched "Insider Job", I loved it :)

Just curious, there was a new movie released by Venus Project just the past month. What would you think about it? Forget about DearSummer... just tell me what you think since you seem to be reasonable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KphWsnhZ4Ag#!

CDNPatriot

Apr 3rd, 2012, 10:23 PM

:facepalm: are you and DS the same person?.....go cdn!

That has to be the biggest insult I ever received on RFD. You got me good there stuntman. For once I'm speechless.... again good one!

a-tree

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:00 PM

I was likely a contributing factor. Any person doing a highly technical job that requires concentration needs to be rested, alert and focused.
Pilots that are paid so poorly paid often/generally:

-work extra hours at another job
-work extended hours
-do not have the financial means to pay someone to take care of other items in their lives
-do not have the luxuries that allow them to rest and relax with the same ease/to the same extent as people that are paid more.
-have to do extensive travel to get to work because they can't afford a residence closer to their main hub because that hub changes and moving/second residence is expensive

A determined cause of the crash was pilot error and the pilots being unfamiliar with the plane.
Many pilots make mistakes. Many more pilots make mistakes when they are overtired, stressed and unfamiliar with their plane.
As a group the pilots making the least have higher levels for all three of those traits. Those that are not in unions make the least in this case.

Didn't you read the @%$@$ articles on it before making the quoted statement?

Listen. I get that these pilots work extra hours and are tired. So why not just implement policies that ensure that they are well rested before they go on a flight? Why not say "if you're flying today, you needed to have slept at least 8 hours".

It's true rubber duckies don't kill people. But that's exactly my point. Even without unions those rubber duckies are made perfectly.

a-tree

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:01 PM

Its also the workers right to choose to spend a fraction of their money on someone who will look after their best interests, especially if they have already invested a lot of time and money into learning skills to allow they to work (as is the case with pilots). Unemployment is 8% (They only count people looking remember, so your competing against 8% of the population for jobs) in Ontario, and your saying that someone should just quit their job if they dont like the working conditions instead of fighting to improve them? Where do you suppose they should go?

Well damn, capitalism is perfection incarnate? We should start a religion around capitalism, and as a bonus its economical as with enough members we could receive tax breaks bringing us ever closer to our lord and savior the free market.

This isn't an argument about labour rights. It's a question of whether unions actually saved lives in a plane crash, which they didn't.

a-tree

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:01 PM

Yeah, but what if you are the poor soul like in that article where you are sleeping in your home with your family and the unsafe plane with the tired, sick, low paid pilot who isn't well trained slams into your home killing you and your family.

I guess you will be worth the slippage.

What does being underpaid and well trained have to do with anything? Does being in a union give you training you wouldn't otherwise get?

a-tree

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:03 PM

A lot of people are not aware of the poor conditions the pilots are in, they just book a flight. The airline industry is spotty with bad pilot working conditions go.

+those pilots died while trying to do their job. Your method would not save those workers unless everyone did it and that is not about to happen.

So.............your logic is that being in a union ensures all pilots are well rested and therefore no accidents will ever happen to unionized pilots? How clever of you!!

stuntman

Apr 3rd, 2012, 11:45 PM

Listen. I get that these pilots work extra hours and are tired. So why not just implement policies that ensure that they are well rested before they go on a flight? Why not say "if you're flying today, you needed to have slept at least 8 hours".

It's true rubber duckies don't kill people. But that's exactly my point. Even without unions those rubber duckies are made perfectly.

They do have some rules like that....they are not adequate. Pilots complain about fatigue on a regular basis but they can do little about it aside from putting their career at great risk.

AND

How could you possibly compare the skill and responsibility required to make a rubber duck with that of flying an airplane???

Of course if you are talking about the people the built and designed the machinery to make the rubber duckies then that takes some skill....I be those guys get paid more than $16K...they still don't end up killing people....wait...except for all those chemicals they put in them....they DO kill people.....so the ducks are killing people to (don't you read books?)

so we have ducks and planes killing people......what is your point? (aside from faulty that is).

What does being underpaid and well trained have to do with anything? Does being in a union give you training you wouldn't otherwise get?

Yes. If that is what the union wants and bargains for.

So.............your logic is that being in a union ensures all pilots are well rested and therefore no accidents will ever happen to unionized pilots? How clever of you!!

No.
Show me where I ever stated that no accidents would ever occur again.
Did I say rest was the only factor here? No.
How could you ever come to that statement you made....oh wait...I can think of a few reasons for the lack of thought there :facepalm:

My position is that a pilot that is a member of a union will benefit from union bargaining that could/would improve the pay and safety conditions under which they work. Increased pay, safety measures (incl training) = fewer accidents.
(Government interference aside)

a-tree

Apr 4th, 2012, 01:13 AM

They do have some rules like that....they are not adequate. Pilots complain about fatigue on a regular basis but they can do little about it aside from putting their career at great risk.

AND

How could you possibly compare the skill and responsibility required to make a rubber duck with that of flying an airplane???

Of course if you are talking about the people the built and designed the machinery to make the rubber duckies then that takes some skill....I be those guys get paid more than $16K...they still don't end up killing people....wait...except for all those chemicals they put in them....they DO kill people.....so the ducks are killing people to (don't you read books?)

so we have ducks and planes killing people......what is your point? (aside from faulty that is).

Yes. If that is what the union wants and bargains for.

No.
Show me where I ever stated that no accidents would ever occur again.
Did I say rest was the only factor here? No.
How could you ever come to that statement you made....oh wait...I can think of a few reasons for the lack of thought there :facepalm:

My position is that a pilot that is a member of a union will benefit from union bargaining that could/would improve the pay and safety conditions under which they work. Increased pay, safety measures (incl training) = fewer accidents.
(Government interference aside)

See, the implied points that you and your bum buddies have made is that if pilots are unionized, there would be fewer plane crashes. Which generalizes into saying that unions improve quality of the goods or services offered. This discussion really isn't about accidents and higher wages. It's about whether unions indeed raise productivity and quality. And as I have said, no rubber duckie made in China has ever killed someone, or to put it in words you might understand, the rubber duckies made there are no better or worse than rubber duckies made here. And there are no unions there. Do you follow me now. Non unionized pilots do not crash planes. Fatigued pilots do. And pilots can be fatigued whether unionized or not.

You three have obviously never ever in your life taken a course in economics or even tried to understand the other side of the discussion as to why everyone says unions are bad. The only advocates of unions are union members themselves. On the whole, unions drag the economy down through higher prices, which is what inefficient allocation of resources is. Capitalism is king. Seriously stop replying with any more non sense of $16k pilots crashing planes. Just take five minutes of your life and actually try to understand the discussion. Why does Milton Friedman think unions are bad? Why does everyone else think so? Don't just react with 'OH NO THE GREEDY CORPORATIONS. THEY'S SO RICH WHILE WE GETTING SHORT SHAFTED'. Enough with this useless thread. Capitalism is king. Period. Anything that impedes efficient allocation of resources need to be cut off and shredded into nothingness from society. Starting with unions.

Agafaba

Apr 4th, 2012, 01:48 AM

This isn't an argument about labour rights. It's a question of whether unions actually saved lives in a plane crash, which they didn't.

It would have prevented that particular crash, prevention is 100% more effective than trying to save someone after the fact.

a-tree

Apr 4th, 2012, 02:28 AM

It would have prevented that particular crash, prevention is 100% more effective than trying to save someone after the fact.

But unionized pilots fatigue and crash too. So no. You can't say it would have prevented that particular crash.

Agafaba

Apr 4th, 2012, 04:00 AM

But unionized pilots fatigue and crash too. So no. You can't say it would have prevented that particular crash.

Except that the case he has in his signature isnt simply a pilot who was tired that day, it was a company with poor wages and high demands forcing him to work too much. anyone can crash a plane, should they lower their standards seeing as its inevitable anyway. Between cheaper labor and reduced safety regulations I am sure they could make a killing compared to now and only increase their accidents by 2-3%.

stuntman

Apr 4th, 2012, 08:30 AM

See, the implied points that you and your bum buddies have made is that if pilots are unionized, there would be fewer plane crashes. Which generalizes into saying that unions improve quality of the goods or services offered. This discussion really isn't about accidents and higher wages. It's about whether unions indeed raise productivity and quality. And as I have said, no rubber duckie made in China has ever killed someone, or to put it in words you might understand, the rubber duckies made there are no better or worse than rubber duckies made here. And there are no unions there. Do you follow me now. Non unionized pilots do not crash planes. Fatigued pilots do. And pilots can be fatigued whether unionized or not.

You three have obviously never ever in your life taken a course in economics or even tried to understand the other side of the discussion as to why everyone says unions are bad. The only advocates of unions are union members themselves. On the whole, unions drag the economy down through higher prices, which is what inefficient allocation of resources is. Capitalism is king. Seriously stop replying with any more non sense of $16k pilots crashing planes. Just take five minutes of your life and actually try to understand the discussion. Why does Milton Friedman think unions are bad? Why does everyone else think so? Don't just react with 'OH NO THE GREEDY CORPORATIONS. THEY'S SO RICH WHILE WE GETTING SHORT SHAFTED'. Enough with this useless thread. Capitalism is king. Period. Anything that impedes efficient allocation of resources need to be cut off and shredded into nothingness from society. Starting with unions.

Low end styles there a-tree. Stay focused. Pay attentions son.

I am not talking to the point of capitalism at the moment (pay attention!). I and others are talking to the point of unions would create better working conditions for pilots and make a push towards the safer working conditions pilots want and, therefore, reduce the number of serious accidents. Pilots don't like flying under those conditions but feel they have no choice, it lowers their quality of life. Improving QOL via improved safety, pay and working conditions are primary functions of unions.

You seem to put on like you are well read, but you are not on the matter of unions, safety working conditions etc. Manufacturing rubber ducks is the same as flying a plane lol, you are making yourself into a joke with that dumb comparison.

a-tree

Apr 4th, 2012, 10:01 AM

Except that the case he has in his signature isnt simply a pilot who was tired that day, it was a company with poor wages and high demands forcing him to work too much. anyone can crash a plane, should they lower their standards seeing as its inevitable anyway. Between cheaper labor and reduced safety regulations I am sure they could make a killing compared to now and only increase their accidents by 2-3%.

So could this accident have been prevented with better policy and not a union? That's my point

Low end styles there a-tree. Stay focused. Pay attentions son.

I am not talking to the point of capitalism at the moment (pay attention!). I and others are talking to the point of unions would create better working conditions for pilots and make a push towards the safer working conditions pilots want and, therefore, reduce the number of serious accidents. Pilots don't like flying under those conditions but feel they have no choice, it lowers their quality of life. Improving QOL via improved safety, pay and working conditions are primary functions of unions.

You seem to put on like you are well read, but you are not on the matter of unions, safety working conditions etc. Manufacturing rubber ducks is the same as flying a plane lol, you are making yourself into a joke with that dumb comparison.

You actually are whining and lamenting about capitalism. The very idea of a union is to impede efficient flows of capital. Like I said, your overarching point is that unions improve product quality, which simply is false. Speaking of safe working conditions, every pilot with at least a high school education knows that rest is critical. It's up to him to make sure that he has enough rest before a flight. It can be reinforced by company policy, but in the end, the pilot has to make sure that he's well rested. If you're not, don't fly. If you can only make $16k a year, lower your standards of living so you wouldn't have to work 5 jobs then fly right after.

My point about rubber duckies isn't that it requires the same skill level as flying a plane. The point was that unions do not raise product quality. Try to understand what I'm saying clearly before dismissing it with your infantile mind next time.

Agafaba

Apr 4th, 2012, 10:09 AM

So could this accident have been prevented with better policy and not a union? That's my point

Of course it would. Like I said earlier, Unions are only necessarily because companies often dont have their employees best interests in mind.

a-tree

Apr 4th, 2012, 10:13 AM

Of course it would. Like I said earlier, Unions are only necessarily because companies often dont have their employees best interests in mind.

You accept a wage that the other person is willing to pay. You don't deserve a penny more.

Agafaba

Apr 4th, 2012, 10:29 AM

You accept a wage that the other person is willing to pay. You don't deserve a penny more.

Then schools should properly inform students if there are little work opportunities or if the employers require you to agree to unsafe work conditions. Why shouldnt workers be allowed to demand better work conditions anyway?

DearSummer

Apr 4th, 2012, 10:50 AM

Then schools should properly inform students if there are little work opportunities or if the employers require you to agree to unsafe work conditions. Why shouldnt workers be allowed to demand better work conditions anyway?

They can demand whatever they want. The same way you as a consumer can demand anything from a business you want. Whether it will be provided is a different story.

The reason people are paid low wages is because there are people willing to work for that wage and people demand low priced products/services. The free market system matches supply with demand.

You can't just arbitrarily pay people more money. Those wages come out of somebody's pocket. That is what you don't understand.

Agafaba

Apr 4th, 2012, 10:57 AM

They can demand whatever they want. The same way you as a consumer can demand anything from a business you want. Whether it will be provided is a different story.

The reason people are paid low wages is because there are people willing to work for that wage and people demand low priced products/services. The free market system matches supply with demand.

You can't just arbitrarily pay people more money. Those wages come out of somebody's pocket. That is what you don't understand.

Then the free market is a dangerous policy, because it leaves life and death decisions in poorly paid and overworked individuals.

DearSummer

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:00 AM

Then the free market is a dangerous policy, because it leaves life and death decisions in poorly paid and overworked individuals.

You aren't even arguing principle, you are arguing price. Would you pay every pilot $100,000 more each year if it made airplanes 0.1% safer?

Agafaba

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:05 AM

You aren't even arguing principle, you are arguing price. Would you pay every pilot $100,000 more each year if it made airplanes 0.1% safer?

The pilot was paid $16000 a year based on supply and demand, it wouldnt take close to $100000 to make airflight 0.1% safer with her. She worked at a coffee shop on the side to supplement her income, its likely as little as $5000 would have made a difference. Besides doesnt the free market have room for unions anyway? Employees have a demand for representation, and the union supplies it for an agreed on price. Why is it that the free market can arbitrarily place restrictions on some things and not others?

PPiL

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:05 AM

Then schools should properly inform students if there are little work opportunities or if the employers require you to agree to unsafe work conditions. Why shouldnt workers be allowed to demand better work conditions anyway?

The only one who are preventing workers to ask for better working conditions are the workers who are ready to work for worst conditions.

There seems to be a lot of people in this thread that give little personal responsibility to people for the choice they do, like if they were only zombies controlled by "THE MAN".

 You don't vote with your purchases because you can't possibly be expected to inform yourself on everything you buy. It's "THE MAN"'s fault for doing shady things.
 You have no choice but to put your life, and others life at risk when you are tired and don't feel good enough to fly a plane. It's "THE MAN"'s fault for putting you in the plane.
 You only go to school to study to get a job, it's not your responsibility to get informed on the job market. It's "THE MAN"'s fault for not informing you on the prospect of the job you are studying for.

Sure if you are for the state babysitting its citizens, you probably hate capitalism which is based on the premises that anyone can take things in it's own hands (take control of his life) to better it's life.

Yes, it turns bad when bettering your life equals deteriorating someone else life, but that is more of a moral/human nature thing than a system thing.

If you think that it's others' job to make sure your life goes the way you want, than sure capitalism isn't great for you, an other system might be better, but it's a question of preferences, not because capitalism doesn't work.

Agafaba

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:13 AM

The only one who are preventing workers to ask for better working conditions are the workers who are ready to work for worst conditions.

There seems to be a lot of people in this thread that give little personal responsibility to people for the choice they do, like if they were only zombies controlled by "THE MAN".

 You don't vote with your purchases because you can't possibly be expected to inform yourself on everything you buy. It's "THE MAN"'s fault for doing shady things.
 You have no choice but to put your life, and others life at risk when you are tired and don't feel good enough to fly a plane. It's "THE MAN"'s fault for putting you in the plane.
 You only go to school to study to get a job, it's not your responsibility to know get informed on the job market. It's "THE MAN"'s fault for not informing you on the prospect of the job you are studying for.

Sure if you are for the state babysitting its citizens, you probably hate capitalism which is based on the premises that anyone can take things in it's own hands (take control of his life) to better it's life.

Yes, it turns bad when bettering your life equals deteriorating someone else life, but that is more of a moral/human nature thing than a system thing.

If you think that it's others' job to make sure your life goes the way you want, than sure capitalism isn't great for you, an other system might be better, but it's a question of preferences, not because capitalism doesn't work.

You have no choice but to work, not working isnt an option for anyone unless someone else is willing to work more on your behalf. There are too many things in life to properly research every product and service you use to ensure they meet your personal work and safety guidelines. Its aviation for gods sake! I know as a kid I never thought "If I am living in Peterborough but a flight is taking off in Calgary and I need to pilot it what time frame would I be left with and would I receive extra compensation?" I thought "Flying airplanes would be pretty cool". Your expecting 18 year olds with little to no work experience to have incredible foresight about issues they have never experienced before.

Perhaps what they really should do is require 1-2 years work experience minimum before you are allowed to apply for post secondary.

DearSummer

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:17 AM

The pilot was paid $16000 a year based on supply and demand, it wouldnt take close to $100000 to make airflight 0.1% safer with her. She worked at a coffee shop on the side to supplement her income, its likely as little as $5000 would have made a difference. Besides doesnt the free market have room for unions anyway? Employees have a demand for representation, and the union supplies it for an agreed on price. Why is it that the free market can arbitrarily place restrictions on some things and not others?

Exactly so you aren't arguing principle, you are arguing price. You are simply arguing that consumers are not pricing the cost of safety properly. Why should consumers not decide how much they are willing to pay for increased airline safety? Airlines are already far safer than cars.

Syne

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:18 AM

Not even the most fervent supporters of the free markets can deny that the gap between the super-wealthy and the masses has grown substantially over time. What is the endgame of this process?

Anyone care to answer this?

DearSummer

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:18 AM

You have no choice but to work, not working isnt an option for anyone unless someone else is willing to work more on your behalf. There are too many things in life to properly research every product and service you use to ensure they meet your personal work and safety guidelines. Its aviation for gods sake! I know as a kid I never thought "If I am living in Peterborough but a flight is taking off in Calgary and I need to pilot it what time frame would I be left with and would I receive extra compensation?" I thought "Flying airplanes would be pretty cool". Your expecting 18 year olds with little to no work experience to have incredible foresight about issues they have never experienced before.

Perhaps what they really should do is require 1-2 years work experience minimum before you are allowed to apply for post secondary.

Why is your solution always increased government? People have this tendency to believe that they can regulate others' lives better than those people can regulate their own lives. Live and let live.

Agafaba

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:25 AM

Why is your solution always increased government? People have this tendency to believe that they can regulate others' lives better than those people can regulate their own lives. Live and let live.

You want people with no experience to regulate their lives to prevent things they dont know exist yet, and pay substantial amounts of debt for the right to do so.

And while your doing that you want the government to regulate unions so that the then employees cannot organize themselves to attempt to change the work conditions they are in themselves. Instead you expect consumers to properly regulate the employees they know nothing about.

DearSummer

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:29 AM

You want people with no experience to regulate their lives to prevent things they dont know exist yet, and pay substantial amounts of debt for the right to do so.

Oh so the government should tell everybody how to live? They know better than adults do about how they should live their lives?

And while your doing that you want the government to regulate unions so that the then employees cannot organize themselves to attempt to change the work conditions they are in themselves. Instead you expect consumers to properly regulate the employees they know nothing about.

No I think unions have the right to exist. However, they should not have a monopoly over jobs and people should not be forced to join them. If I want to work for Air Canada, I shouldn't have to join the union and should be free to negotiate my own compensation package. Why should I be forced into a union and have them take a part of my paycheque when I want nothing to do with them? Where is the freedom in that?

a-tree

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:39 AM

Then the free market is a dangerous policy, because it leaves life and death decisions in poorly paid and overworked individuals.

Why can't you answer the question, 'would this accident have been prevented if the company had the right policies in place instead of a union?'

PPiL

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:44 AM

Keep in mind that I'm not saying capitalism is the greatest system ever, I'm debating that there isn't a better system right now and that most of the flaws that people associate with capitalism are actually human nature flaws that would show up in any system.

You have no choice but to work, not working isnt an option for anyone unless someone else is willing to work more on your behalf.

I'm not debating that, just saying it's true in any system, not just in capitalism. Food doesn't get in your plate magically, at least not yet.

There are too many things in life to properly research every product and service you use to ensure they meet your personal work and safety guidelines.

Sure, but the number of things you buy is your choice, and your involvement in your research is also your choice. If someone would stick to basic needs, how hard would it be to know where is things come from?

Capitalism didn't create the fact that people want the most possible with little as possible effort, it always was that way.

Its aviation for gods sake! I know as a kid I never thought "If I am living in Peterborough but a flight is taking off in Calgary and I need to pilot it what time frame would I be left with and would I receive extra compensation?" I thought "Flying airplanes would be pretty cool". Your expecting 18 year olds with little to no work experience to have incredible foresight about issues they have never experienced before.

Perhaps what they really should do is require 1-2 years work experience minimum before you are allowed to apply for post secondary.

That's another debate that has nothing to do with the economic system. I don't expect him to know how to fly a plane before getting into school, but if you don't have the kind of personality to do enough research to have a general perspective of what kind of lifestyle comes with being a pilot, you probably shouldn't fly plane in the first place.

Cerenity

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:45 AM

Anyone care to answer this?

i dont think there is a valid (good) end game for both full capitalism and full socialism. both end games are depressingly bad.

capitalism provides funds and tax revenue to support socialism. socialism provides a safety net and societal foundation to drive capitalism. a mix of both is good for sustainability. lack of either leads to very bad outcomes.

Agafaba

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:46 AM

Oh so the government should tell everybody how to live? They know better than adults do about how they should live their lives?

No I think unions have the right to exist. However, they should not have a monopoly over jobs and people should not be forced to join them. If I want to work for Air Canada, I shouldn't have to join the union and should be free to negotiate my own compensation package. Why should I be forced into a union and have them take a part of my paycheque when I want nothing to do with them? Where is the freedom in that?

Actually my point is more specifically aimed at teenagers who are just finishing highschool and have to pick a career based on little to no information about the viability of their choice. Its not surprising when many of them make the wrong choice, and end up either stuck in a crappy job or going back for additional education.

I agree with all of that, Unions should be optional. I dont really like most unions to be honest, but I can understand that in some situations they are important. CDN's sig is a good example of where they were needed, as the job conditions prevented the employee from properly doing their job, so something had to be done to reduce the level of fatigue and stress of those workers. Increasing the pay wasnt the only solution, just the easiest to discuss here.

Agafaba

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:49 AM

Why can't you answer the question, 'would this accident have been prevented if the company had the right policies in place instead of a union?'

I already answered "yes", and that unions would have no reason to exist if the company always had the right policies in place. They dont and sometimes it takes several employees working together to make the company change their outlook.

Cerenity

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:49 AM

in general, private sector union existence is okay i think. they are kept in check by the potential downsides if they bargain for too much. the underlying mandate of a private sector union is to bargain for fair compensation and ensure not only the survival of the business itself, but growth of the business to grow its membership

its public sector unions that are out of control because they sit on both sides of the negotiation table and there is little preventative measure to government deficit spending. only now we're beginning to see the problems arising from the public sector union.

edit: and yes, membership in a union should be completely optional

Agafaba

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:53 AM

Keep in mind that I'm not saying capitalism is the greatest system ever, I'm debating that there isn't a better system right now and that most of the flaws that people associate with capitalism are actually human nature flaws that would show up in any system.

I'm not debating that, just saying it's true in any system, not just in capitalism. Food doesn't get in your plate magically, at least not yet.

Sure, but the number of things you buy is your choice, and your involvement in your research is also your choice. If someone would stick to basic needs, how hard would it be to know where is things come from?

Capitalism didn't create the fact that people want the most possible with little as possible effort, it always was that way.

That's another debate that has nothing to do with the economic system. I don't expect him to know how to fly a plane before getting into school, but if you don't have the kind of personality to do enough research to have a general perspective of what kind of lifestyle comes with being a pilot, you probably shouldn't fly plane in the first place.

Agreed, but that does mean that simply not working to protest bad conditions is not an option.

Agreed again, but this also shows that consumers are not very good at regulating work place conditions. If the consumer cant do it, and the employer wont do it, there is only one group left.

So what should people without that kind of personality do, other than flipping burgers? The same idea applies to any profession that requires post secondary education.

Agafaba

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:56 AM

Cerenity

Apr 4th, 2012, 12:23 PM

agree with your 2nd point, but it has little to do with politicians selling votes.

conceptually, labor unions should not be allowed in government simply because their main bargaining chip is labor stoppage threats. this means their presence in government is an intent to obstruct the operations of government services until their demands are met. the government is not the same as a private entity. obstruction the operations of government does not hurt profits or shareholders, but it directly hurts the residents and citizens of the country who have paid for the services with tax dollars. if a private company decides the demands of labor unions is too much, they can shut the business down and take their capital elsewhere. ordinary citizens have no such option and are essentially forced to accept the terms of public sector labor unions. the only thing keeping these unions in check is the possibility of a default, and that idea alone is ridiculous if you think about it. the only method that keeps a public labor union in check is the threat of governmental default???

so the existence of a public sector union amounts to what is basically intent to terrorize the population. to me at least, this is unacceptable.

stuntman

Apr 4th, 2012, 08:03 PM

I think the issue lies more in a government willing to sell votes in the form of giving unions whatever they want than the unions themselves. Unfortunately most politicians govern for votes and not for the country/province itself.

Since Roman times votes have been bought and sold. It is a tradition!

Syne

Apr 4th, 2012, 08:36 PM

i dont think there is a valid (good) end game for both full capitalism and full socialism. both end games are depressingly bad.

Really? I had always imagined socialism's end game to be a Star Trek-esque universe, where people want for nothing and work to further pursuits of human intrigue and a sense of noble civic responsibility.

Troodon

Apr 4th, 2012, 09:38 PM

DearSummer

Apr 4th, 2012, 10:19 PM

But companies have a monopoly over jobs too. If you're a pilot then you're pretty much stuck with Air Canada and West Jet.

It is extremely hard to find a monopoly that lasted over the long-term that wasn't created and/or supported by government regulation. Air Canada is a perfect example.

Also, nobody is forcing you to become a pilot. If you don't like the pay, do something else for living.

CDNPatriot

Apr 4th, 2012, 10:35 PM

Yeah, after spending how many thousands of dollars on training? And if you are 45 plus changing careers good luck to you. They have higher unemployment rates than students. You live in a dream world Dearsummer. Either that or you are just a very bitter guy that thought he would make it big on importing stuff, and now you are angry when you hear people that have benefits and sick benefits.

It is extremely hard to find a monopoly that lasted over the long-term that wasn't created and/or supported by government regulation. Air Canada is a perfect example.

Also, nobody is forcing you to become a pilot. If you don't like the pay, do something else for living.

stuntman

Apr 4th, 2012, 11:30 PM

Why can't you answer the question, 'would this accident have been prevented if the company had the right policies in place instead of a union?'

It would have certainly participated in decreasing the chances of the accident happening.
The problem is that many companies act immorally, they act for profit. Companies are not responsible citizens.

Unions stand up for their workers that are being treated like garbage and are socially more responsible (at least that is the way it is supposed to work all the time, unions are no angels).

a-tree

Apr 5th, 2012, 11:48 AM

It would have certainly participated in decreasing the chances of the accident happening.
The problem is that many companies act immorally, they act for profit. Companies are not responsible citizens.

Unions stand up for their workers that are being treated like garbage and are socially more responsible (at least that is the way it is supposed to work all the time, unions are no angels).

Profit is the all encompassing good. Profit is king. Unions may stand up for their workers but at the expense of everyone else. If you want a better paying job, then get a better paying job. Simple.

olssy

Apr 5th, 2012, 03:02 PM

stuntman

Apr 5th, 2012, 04:34 PM

Profit is the all encompassing good. Profit is king. Unions may stand up for their workers but at the expense of everyone else. If you want a better paying job, then get a better paying job. Simple.
Not true.
Not true.
Easier said than done especially outside of the GTA and especially with certain skill sets or careers.

And let them eat cake...

Yes, olssy is right.
How about might. Might is right!
Let them eat cake was soon followed by 'might is right'.

Heck lets do that now....as long as someone can get away with it they should do it. It is not bad if you don't get caught. Lets see you a-tree cry "be fair!" at the mercy of might. But that would be wrong...wouldn't it.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 01:58 PM

Not true.
Not true.
Easier said than done especially outside of the GTA and especially with certain skill sets or careers.

Yes, olssy is right.
How about might. Might is right!
Let them eat cake was soon followed by 'might is right'.

Heck lets do that now....as long as someone can get away with it they should do it. It is not bad if you don't get caught. Lets see you a-tree cry "be fair!" at the mercy of might. But that would be wrong...wouldn't it.

Anyone who's ever looked up the word 'economics' on wikipedia knows why unions impede efficient flow of capital. Let's leave it at that.

olssy

Apr 6th, 2012, 03:12 PM

Anyone who's ever looked up the word 'economics' on wikipedia knows why unions impede efficient flow of capital. Let's leave it at that.

Anyone who is interested in history knows how unions were responsible for augmenting working conditions and salaries, that's why they exist. Why do you think working conditions only started really improving after unions were legalized in the UK in the middle of the 19th century?
The role of the employer is to make a profit, not to ensure the workers have an adequate salary, take away the union and no one is looking out for the worker.

Also, I looked at economics on wikipedia and the only mention of unions on it is this:

In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith addressed many issues that are currently also the subject of debate and dispute. Smith repeatedly attacks groups of politically aligned individuals who attempt to use their collective influence to manipulate a government into doing their bidding. In Smith's day, these were referred to as factions, but are now more commonly called special interests, a term which can comprise international bankers, corporate conglomerations, outright oligopolies, monopolies, trade unions and other groups

And on the page for trade unions we have this from Mr.Smith:

We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combination of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate[.] When workers combine, masters ... never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen.

That was written when trade unions were still illegal, it seems to me that Smith was in favor of legalizing unions or at least hostile to "Masters" that would use the magistrate to disassemble them.
And just for those that don't know, Adam Smith is considered the father of capitalism.

Agafaba

Apr 6th, 2012, 03:34 PM

Anyone who's ever looked up the word 'economics' on wikipedia knows why unions impede efficient flow of capital. Let's leave it at that.

Of course it does, anything that tries to redirect the flow of anything (money, water, electricity etc...) will in the process also make it less efficient. That being said sometimes the goal isnt to have the most of something, but instead have the most of something while also having that resource be beneficial.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 03:54 PM

Anyone who is interested in history knows how unions were responsible for augmenting working conditions and salaries, that's why they exist. Why do you think working conditions only started really improving after unions were legalized in the UK in the middle of the 19th century?
The role of the employer is to make a profit, not to ensure the workers have an adequate salary, take away the union and no one is looking out for the worker.

Also, I looked at economics on wikipedia and the only mention of unions on it is this:

In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith addressed many issues that are currently also the subject of debate and dispute. Smith repeatedly attacks groups of politically aligned individuals who attempt to use their collective influence to manipulate a government into doing their bidding. In Smith's day, these were referred to as factions, but are now more commonly called special interests, a term which can comprise international bankers, corporate conglomerations, outright oligopolies, monopolies, trade unions and other groups

And on the page for trade unions we have this from Mr.Smith:

We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combination of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate[.] When workers combine, masters ... never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen.

That was written when trade unions were still illegal, it seems to me that Smith was in favor of legalizing unions or at least hostile to "Masters" that would use the magistrate to disassemble them.
And just for those that don't know, Adam Smith is considered the father of capitalism.

You're misreading him. That paragraph doesn't express a single hint of his favouring of legalizing unions. All that paragraph says is that owners are just as likely as workers to organize themselves in order to prevent unions from succeeding in raising wages. It's a statement of fact. Smith was never in favour of or making unions hostile to masters. He was against any form of price interference in general. Yes, he was the father of capitalism.

I'm not arguing that unions don't raise wages or working conditions. The problem is, there is a cost to everything, and the cost borne to make these changes is an unnatural one by those willing to pay for them.

Of course it does, anything that tries to redirect the flow of anything (money, water, electricity etc...) will in the process also make it less efficient. That being said sometimes the goal isnt to have the most of something, but instead have the most of something while also having that resource be beneficial.

Inefficient allocation of resource is actually bad for everyone.

stuntman

Apr 6th, 2012, 05:08 PM

Anyone who's ever looked up the word 'economics' on wikipedia knows why unions impede efficient flow of capital. Let's leave it at that.

Oh. Is that where you get your vast and wise:facepalm: point of view from? Wikipedia?

Your statement has about as little to do with the item at hand as "the sun rises in the east".

But to clarify your statement for you:
Yes, when the there are fewer people to distribute the wealth to the wealth distribution system becomes more efficient for the few that have the wealth. duh. :facepalm:

neutral

Apr 6th, 2012, 05:22 PM

It is extremely hard to find a monopoly that lasted over the long-term that wasn't created and/or supported by government regulation. Air Canada is a perfect example.

Also, nobody is forcing you to become a pilot. If you don't like the pay, do something else for living.

Nobody is forcing you to whine and whine about anything that benefits a majority of Canadians, yet here you are.

Agafaba

Apr 6th, 2012, 05:23 PM

Inefficient allocation of resource is actually bad for everyone.

Allocating all the wealth to greedy individuals is bad for everyone.

your turn.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 05:41 PM

Allocating all the wealth to greedy individuals is bad for everyone.

your turn.

Prices don't allocate wealth to greedy individuals. Price ensures that resources go where they're most valued. If from a group of factory owners the highest bid for your services is $16k, then that's what you're worth and you live according to those means. You don't deserve a hair more. Unions inflate those natural prices.

Oh. Is that where you get your vast and wise:facepalm: point of view from? Wikipedia?

Your statement has about as little to do with the item at hand as "the sun rises in the east".

But to clarify your statement for you:
Yes, when the there are fewer people to distribute the wealth to the wealth distribution system becomes more efficient for the few that have the wealth. duh. :facepalm:

What's wrong with wikipedia? But never mind that. I was making the point that the statement 'unions are bad for the whole' is the commonest of all common knowledges. Perhaps you should read into the message rather than just words.

digital99

Apr 6th, 2012, 05:44 PM

The nature of the problem is not with capitalism alone. When any system exists long enough, people within that system will accumulate enough knowledge to bypass the rules or take shortcuts for personal gains. This is inevitable as no system is perfect. It's similar to a business life cycle, you have the stages of start-up, growth, mature, and eventually decline. I personally believe the best of capitalism is already behind us and we're now approaching the downward slope of the curve. I reckon the end must not be very far from now. Only time will tell.

Agafaba

Apr 6th, 2012, 05:55 PM

Prices don't allocate wealth to greedy individuals. Price ensures that resources go where they're most valued. If from a group of factory owners the highest bid for your services is $16k, then that's what you're worth and you live according to those means. You don't deserve a hair more. Unions inflate those natural prices.

I would consider hiring people into workplaces that are knowingly hazardous due to company measures they put into place to maximize their cozy lifestyle as greedy and reckless. People have all the right to organize and work towards their own goals, just like everyone else and every company does.

Saying we all have a choice is an illusion, someone who just spent thousands and thousands of dollars of debt to become educated gets to choose between flipping burgers and being poor/miserable for the rest of their life or working in ****** conditions and at least obtaining some reward for their investment.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 06:06 PM

I would consider hiring people into workplaces that are knowingly hazardous due to company measures they put into place to maximize their cozy lifestyle as greedy and reckless. People have all the right to organize and work towards their own goals, just like everyone else and every company does.

Saying we all have a choice is an illusion, someone who just spent thousands and thousands of dollars of debt to become educated gets to choose between flipping burgers and being poor/miserable for the rest of their life or working in ****** conditions and at least obtaining some reward for their investment.

Why does anyone deserve a return on their investment? It's a risk. No one is entitled to anything. You play the game according to rules and try to maximize wealth for yourself. If you lose out, then it's your fault. Nobody else's.

Greed is the supreme good. It's the only good. Greed isn't evil or bad. Greed doesn't determine prices. Supply and demand do. Price is determined by nature. Man does not determine price. Capitalism is king.

Agafaba

Apr 6th, 2012, 06:16 PM

Why does anyone deserve a return on their investment? It's a risk. No one is entitled to anything. You play the game according to rules and try to maximize wealth for yourself. If you lose out, then it's your fault. Nobody else's.

Greed is the supreme good. It's the only good. Greed isn't evil or bad. Greed doesn't determine prices. Supply and demand do. Price is determined by nature. Man does not determine price. Capitalism is king.

Man shouldnt worship money, im not anti-materialistic but there is a point when you have to step back and ask yourself "Should I buy that 3rd yacht or should I make sure my company isnt working people so hard that they are endangering their lives and the lives of our customers"

Unfortunately there are a lot of people who believe greed is the supreme good, thats why unions are necessary.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 06:47 PM

Man shouldnt worship money, im not anti-materialistic but there is a point when you have to step back and ask yourself "Should I buy that 3rd yacht or should I make sure my company isnt working people so hard that they are endangering their lives and the lives of our customers"

Unfortunately there are a lot of people who believe greed is the supreme good, thats why unions are necessary.

Who are you to tell a factory owner how he should spend his money? Would it be right if someone just barged into your house and told you what to buy and throw out and how much you should save?

Agafaba

Apr 6th, 2012, 06:58 PM

Who are you to tell a factory owner how he should spend his money? Would it be right if someone just barged into your house and told you what to buy and throw out and how much you should save?

Thats not even close to a proper analogy. Maybe...

Would it be right if my tenant barged into their house and called me, stating he wanted running water and wanted me to buy it with the money I made from rent.

And yes I would find that acceptable.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 07:13 PM

Thats not even close to a proper analogy. Maybe...

Would it be right if my tenant barged into their house and called me, stating he wanted running water and wanted me to buy it with the money I made from rent.

And yes I would find that acceptable.

You didn't answer my question though. You implied that a factory owner should improve the working conditions as opposed to buying another yacht. And I asked, who are you to tell how he should spend his money?

stuntman

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:24 PM

Allocating all the wealth to greedy individuals is bad for everyone.

your turn.
+1

Prices don't allocate wealth to greedy individuals. Price ensures that resources go where they're most valued. If from a group of factory owners the highest bid for your services is $16k, then that's what you're worth and you live according to those means. You don't deserve a hair more. Unions inflate those natural prices.

Prices for people? I you turning people into product? Dehumanizing people? That is not the road to go down. A conglomerate of factory owners is going to tell me what I am worth? that is offensive. How about a union tells the factory what I am worth. How about I tell them what I am worth? Factory owners can take it or leave it, do you think they will roll over as easily as you would hope workers would roll over?

In some cases unions do inflate the price, in some cases they don't. In most cases they improve the safety and quality of life for many and usually at the expense of the wealthy that make excessive amounts of money on the workers backs. If there was not a need for unions they would not have come into being.

You are talking theories and books that do not translate completely into real life. Real life is more complicated and throws in factors that screw up the theory.

. I was making the point that the statement 'unions are bad for the whole' is the commonest of all common knowledges. Perhaps you should read into the message rather than just words.

If that was the point you were trying to make you failed miserably due to your own inability. People are not mind readers, they are going to read what you type and go from there: You stated that unions impede the efficient flow of capital and me and others are saying, no kidding, sharing the wealth with more people will do that. Now you are saying no, no no, what I meant was something completely different (?)

What's wrong with wikipedia?:
Actually, wikipedia is not so bad......it is almost as good as school for some things. I think you need to some education and experience in other areas to make the current knowledge you have useful and be exposed to it and gain some real world experience. At the risk of being presumptuous you sound young (don't worry, it is not your fault, brains don't fully develop until the mid twenties...they they start learning new stuff)

stuntman

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:27 PM

You didn't answer my question though. You implied that a factory owner should improve the working conditions as opposed to buying another yacht. And I asked, who are you to tell how he should spend his money?

Well to reverse the logic upon your argument the factory owner can take it or leave it. What is stopping them from:

-laying everyone off.
-closing down their factory and moving elsewhere to start it up again.

They have complete freedom to do one of the other or they can hold off on their yacht and improve the working conditions.

Agafaba

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:29 PM

You didn't answer my question though. You implied that a factory owner should improve the working conditions as opposed to buying another yacht. And I asked, who are you to tell how he should spend his money?

No you asked if I would be ok with someone bursting into my house and telling me how to spend my money, I assumed that was supposed to be related to the discussion so I posted a much more accurate analogy.
If you were talking about my example then you must have misunderstood, I wasnt implying that the workers break into the owners house and hold him captive until he did exactly as they said. I was referring to a group of workers gathering together and paying someone to represent them to the employer listing unsafe practices and a request to fix them.

Agafaba

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:31 PM

Prices for people? I you turning people into product? Dehumanizing people? That is not the road to go down. A conglomerate of factory owners is going to tell me what I am worth?

Of course they should, didnt you know human lives are just a means to an end for wealthy people to amass more wealth. We should be thanking them that they allow us to work long hours for little wage even when it does cause some of our coworkers to kill themselves and everyone around them.

ishfish

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:35 PM

You didn't answer my question though. You implied that a factory owner should improve the working conditions as opposed to buying another yacht. And I asked, who are you to tell how he should spend his money?

Does improving working conditions mean installing a spa or something more basic (air exchange...)?

For non-fluff I think it is reasonable to expect/request healthy and safe working conditions. And the requestor doesn't have to have any special qualifications. We are not born equal and $ is not always earned honorably - who is a business owner to take advantage of someones need to provide for their family?

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:37 PM

Prices for people? I you turning people into product? Dehumanizing people? That is not the road to go down. A conglomerate of factory owners is going to tell me what I am worth? that is offensive. How about a union tells the factory what I am worth. How about I tell them what I am worth? Factory owners can take it or leave it, do you think they will roll over as easily as you would hope workers would roll over?

In some cases unions do inflate the price, in some cases they don't. In most cases they improve the safety and quality of life for many and usually at the expense of the wealthy that make excessive amounts of money on the workers backs. If there was not a need for unions they would not have come into being.

You are talking theories and books that do not translate completely into real life. Real life is more complicated and throws in factors that screw up the theory.

If that was the point you were trying to make you failed miserably due to your own inability. People are not mind readers, they are going to read what you type and go from there: You stated that unions impede the efficient flow of capital and me and others are saying, no kidding, sharing the wealth with more people will do that. Now you are saying no, no no, what I meant was something completely different (?)

What's wrong with wikipedia?:
Actually, wikipedia is not so bad......it is almost as good as school for some things. I think you need to some education and experience in other areas to make the current knowledge you have useful and be exposed to it and gain some real world experience. At the risk of being presumptuous you sound young (don't worry, it is not your fault, brains don't fully develop until the mid twenties...they they start learning new stuff)

Prices are determined by the market. It has nothing to do with your sense of self-worth. Books and theories are actually about real world. Books don't exist in a vacuum. If you had ever touched a book in your life or had a single whiff of what a book smells you would know this.

It's true people aren't mind readers, but if you had the reading skills of a 5 year old, you would know what my reference to wiki had meant.

It's obvious that your extent of the knowledge of capitalism and unions is limited to what YOU get out of being a union member. I'm pretty sure that even the lowly wikipedia articles on unions and economics would be enough to think twice about the subject. But don't reply back to me any further. You simply know nothing.

Best of luck.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:41 PM

Well to reverse the logic upon your argument the factory owner can take it or leave it. What is stopping them from:

-laying everyone off.
-closing down their factory and moving elsewhere to start it up again.

They have complete freedom to do one of the other or they can hold off on their yacht and improve the working conditions.

This is what happened in London at a Caterpillar plant a few months ago I think. I guess they chose the yachts. Just a simple rule of the universe. Prices get too high, you move.

Syne

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:42 PM

This is what happened in London at a Caterpillar plant a few months ago I think. I guess they chose the yachts. Just a simple rule of the universe. Prices get too high, you move.

Yep, it's a big ol' race to the bottom for everyone but the fatcats.

Nice to see people promoting this. The 1% must be so proud to have lobbyists who will work for free.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:46 PM

No you asked if I would be ok with someone bursting into my house and telling me how to spend my money, I assumed that was supposed to be related to the discussion so I posted a much more accurate analogy.
If you were talking about my example then you must have misunderstood, I wasnt implying that the workers break into the owners house and hold him captive until he did exactly as they said. I was referring to a group of workers gathering together and paying someone to represent them to the employer listing unsafe practices and a request to fix them.

The point I'm making is, you have no right to tell anyone how they should spend their money. That is not reasonable grounds to promote unions.

Does improving working conditions mean installing a spa or something more basic (air exchange...)?

For non-fluff I think it is reasonable to expect/request healthy and safe working conditions. And the requestor doesn't have to have any special qualifications. We are not born equal and $ is not always earned honorably - who is a business owner to take advantage of someones need to provide for their family?

Healthy working conditions are important. But the owner has to be able to make that choice himself and not through a union.

ishfish

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:48 PM

Nice to see people promoting this. The 1% must be so proud to have lobbyists who will work for free.

It is interesting when people who are not fatcats do this.

A fear of being a "soft and cuddley socialist?"

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:48 PM

Yep, it's a big ol' race to the bottom for everyone but the fatcats.

Nice to see people promoting this. The 1% must be so proud to have lobbyists who will work for free.

What's wrong with fatcats? The employees at that plant were the fatcats being overpaid. I hear the new plant wages are 50% less. Rule of the universe. Greed is god.

ishfish

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:51 PM

Healthy working conditions are important. But the owner has to be able to make that choice himself and not through a union.

But what if the business owner does not make that choice - and say has the workers inhaling asbestos rather than investing in safety gear - like that employer in BC?

Agafaba

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:51 PM

What's wrong with fatcats? The employees at that plant were the fatcats being overpaid. I hear the new plant wages are 50% less. Rule of the universe. Greed is god.

Actually I think the rule of the universe would be "survive at any cost"

Agafaba

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:52 PM

But what if the business owner does not make that choice - and say has the workers inhaling asbestos rather than investing in safety gear?

Thats his point, workers have no right to question what the boss decides. Questioning authority reduces the power of said authority, and thats bad for everyone apparently.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:52 PM

But what if the business owner does not make that choice - and say has the workers inhaling asbestos rather than investing in safety gear?

Rationally speaking he would make that choice himself. I'd be dead scare of a class action in about 20 years with former workers suffering from lung cancer. Installing a clean air system would be a lot cheaper.

Syne

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:54 PM

What's wrong with fatcats? The employees at that plant were the fatcats being overpaid. I hear the new plant wages are 50% less. Rule of the universe. Greed is god.

Well then greed is a false idol in my eyes, because while I'm not really all that theistic, I do believe that doing good unto your fellow man is by far the more 'Godlier' concept vs. personal greed.

So maybe this is the issue. I do not subscribe to your beliefs. It seems that people such as yourself and Kevin O'Leary believe greed to be some sort of supernatural force.. perhaps one that possesses people? That actually makes a bit of sense when you think about it in a spiritual context.

Maybe what people such as yourself need is an exorcist.

ishfish

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:54 PM

Greed is god.

There are many different churches, shrines and temples. People pick the one that works for them, sometimes at the expense of the vulnerable.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:57 PM

Well then greed is a false idol in my eyes, because while I'm not really all that theistic, I do believe that doing good unto your fellow man is by far the more 'Godlier' concept vs. personal greed.

So maybe this is the issue. I do not subscribe to your beliefs. It seems that people such as yourself and Kevin O'Leary believe greed to be some sort of supernatural force.. perhaps one that possesses people? That actually makes a bit of sense when you think about it in a spiritual context.

Maybe what people such as yourself need is an exorcist.

Being greedy ensures that resources flow to their most valued uses. Maybe I should have said god is greed.

Syne

Apr 6th, 2012, 08:58 PM

There are many different churches, shrines and temples. People pick the one that works for them, sometimes at the expense of the vulnerable.

It is strange, don't you think that the party most affiliated with Christianity is also the one most Darwinistic in their social views.

Syne

Apr 6th, 2012, 09:03 PM

Being greedy ensures that resources flow to their most valued uses. Maybe I should have said god is greed.

Greed is an ugly word. I would temper it down to 'personal ambition' - which certainly is a driving force for innovation. When I think of greed, I think of a sort of a 3rd World free-for-all where nothing really gets done in the name of progress because everyone is just out for #1.

If unmitigated greed really is your personal philosophy, then your efforts are undoing the good work that created the socially-minded and upwardly-mobile society the rest of us have created for ourselves. Perhaps you may want to rethink your wording entirely.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 09:08 PM

Greed is an ugly word. I would temper it down to 'personal ambition' - which certainly is a driving force for innovation. When I think of greed, I think of a sort of a 3rd World free-for-all where nothing really gets done in the name of progress because everyone is just out for #1.

If unmitigated greed really is your personal philosophy, then your efforts are undoing the good work that created the socially-minded and upwardly-mobile society the rest of us have created for ourselves. Perhaps you may want to rethink your wording entirely.

Why so hung up on a word if we're talking about the same thing? What's a socially-minded and upwardly-mobile society? Nobody created such a thing for the purposes of such a thing in mind. The world was created by greed, or the drive, the spirit, the energy. The quest for more, newer and better. That's the reality created before any of us were born. You guys need to accept the world for what it is first.

stuntman

Apr 6th, 2012, 09:16 PM

Prices are determined by the market. It has nothing to do with your sense of self-worth. Books and theories are actually about real world. Books don't exist in a vacuum. If you had ever touched a book in your life or had a single whiff of what a book smells you would know this.

Books and theories are about the real world, however, the world is often too complex to be communicated in them.
If you live in a small world with limited knowledge then perhaps your books have suited your needs. The world I know of and live in is complex and richer.

It's true people aren't mind readers, but if you had the reading skills of a 5 year old, you would know what my reference to wiki had meant.

What made you think that I did not know what a wiki was? Your reading and comprehension skills suck. That or you are trolling.
I have actually installed and configured a wiki....that and I also mentioned in the post that I thought wiki's were a good thing (wow, your skills suck).

It's obvious that your extent of the knowledge of capitalism and unions is limited to what YOU get out of being a union member. I'm pretty sure that even the lowly wikipedia articles on unions and economics would be enough to think twice about the subject. But don't reply back to me any further. You simply know nothing.
Best of luck.

Pay attention! I said pay attention son.
You are all over the map and you are talking gibberish. You are a terrible communicator and have horrible manners.

*Current subtopic: Unions improve the working conditions, quality of life AND in the case of that plane crash a strong union would have likely prevented it from happening.*

My experience goes both ways. I have worked in union and non-union environments and am wise enough to have recognized the good and bad in both. I have not been an employer of more than 5 people though so I really don't have experience on that side.

You are overcompensating for your lack of ability you are all talk and are unable to back it up so you start with insults (butt buddies comments and more) and "you simply know nothing, when it is obvious I do know something. Telling ME not to reply to you. How about you don't reply to me. Put me on ignore even then you won't have to worry about it. BUT if you keep spouting ignorance and bull I will be responding and others will see (not that you care right?)

stuntman

Apr 6th, 2012, 09:18 PM

Being greedy ensures that resources flow to their most valued uses. Maybe I should have said god is greed.

hahahahhahahaha

stuntman

Apr 6th, 2012, 09:30 PM

Rationally speaking he would make that choice himself. I'd be dead scare of a class action in about 20 years with former workers suffering from lung cancer. Installing a clean air system would be a lot cheaper.

He would? Maybe. Many business owners are cheap and they may not be smart or wise enough to realize the consequences or care about the consequences. How many real life examples do you require to show that this is the case and I and others are right?

CDNPatriot

Apr 6th, 2012, 09:31 PM

Yep, it's a big ol' race to the bottom for everyone but the fatcats.

Nice to see people promoting this. The 1% must be so proud to have lobbyists who will work for free.

Mind boggling isn't it? The top 1 percent are sucking money from shareholders of companies, the middle class and the entire system. Yet people are fixated on going after the middle class. Air Canada top management make multi millions each to bankrupt the company. Yet the flight attendants are the ones taking a thirty percent pay cut!!!

CDNPatriot

Apr 6th, 2012, 09:34 PM

It is interesting when people who are not fatcats do this.

A fear of being a "soft and cuddley socialist?"

Not socialist... it's called the MIDDLE CLASS! The middle class and young people are getting squeezed like we have never seen before in history. And what do members of the middle class do? They attack each other while CEO pay keep sky rocketing.

Looks like Occupy Toronto movement is back. Too many young people out of work. And too many baby boomers thinking about themselves, working until 67 and living in their 1 million dollar plus homes not caring about young people. 1 percent better be careful as this can spill over into a REVOLUTION!

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/06/theyre-back-occupy-toronto-marches-again

medalgo

Apr 6th, 2012, 09:35 PM

Capitalism: only the rich get richer, poor people don't have a chance, we need to spread the wealth! we need communism!

Communism: everybody makes the same, what's the point in trying? need more incentive to work harder! we need capitalism!

:facepalm:

I know I'm not competent enough to debate these topics, but I really don't know what people want.

Agafaba

Apr 6th, 2012, 09:41 PM

CDNPatriot

Apr 6th, 2012, 09:43 PM

Communism is a failed system. Socialism may work but I'm skeptical.

Capitalism rules. But it needs it's checks and balances. And when you see that the top 1 percent are doing extremely well at the expense of the middle class, intervention is required in order to even out the field. Their taxes should go up significantly while ours should drop.

Capitalism: only the rich get richer, poor people don't have a chance, we need to spread the wealth! we need communism!

Communism: everybody makes the same, what's the point in trying? need more incentive to work harder! we need capitalism!

:facepalm:

I know I'm not competent enough to debate these topics, but I really don't know what people want.

Syne

Apr 6th, 2012, 09:50 PM

Why so hung up on a word if we're talking about the same thing? What's a socially-minded and upwardly-mobile society? Nobody created such a thing for the purposes of such a thing in mind. The world was created by greed, or the drive, the spirit, the energy. The quest for more, newer and better. That's the reality created before any of us were born. You guys need to accept the world for what it is first.

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. Untempered greed is contraindicated by so many things, like consideration for others, a sense of community, and since we're on the topic, spiritual fulfillment. I'm not trying to nitpick here, but to frame an argument as, "greed is what gets me up in the morning" is just plain unsettling.

I think we're all ambitious to varying degrees. Sociopaths, for example, have issues channeling their ambition in a positive way, or in a way that is considerate to others. A community organizer, on the other hand, is ambitious with the thoughts of others in mind.

Accordingly, I think it's very important that any discussion on greed is contextualized or qualified.

ishfish

Apr 6th, 2012, 09:56 PM

It is strange, don't you think that the party most affiliated with Christianity is also the one most Darwinistic in their social views.

The great thing about christianity (and others) is you can pick and choose from such a delightful variety of options: vengence, compassion, judgement, love, kill your son, don't kill others, war in my name...very flexible.

But yes, I have often found it unfortunate that the party seems to choose what I would see as the most self serving of the values. No surprise though.

stuntman

Apr 6th, 2012, 10:26 PM

wait, I know something that is wrong with capitalism!

Capitalism is like a sport where the rules are not effective enough to deal with the unsportsmanlike conduct continually taking place.

ishfish

Apr 6th, 2012, 10:33 PM

wait, I know something that is wrong with capitalism!

Capitalism is like a sport where the rules are not effective enough to deal with the unsportsmanlike conduct continually taking place.

That is a good analogy. With capitalism as with sports the goal is to win, ideally with some fair play rules and sportsmanship. But when the ref is not looking...

Syne

Apr 6th, 2012, 10:38 PM

I think capitalism fails on premise alone simply because it's unsustainable.

I always ask my fundie friends to imagine a capitalistic society that exists in a more utopian world, and suddenly it's no fun and they don't want to play any more. Maybe because it's only fun when you can imagine the people around you suffering visibly.

500 years from now when our population has leveled off, we have food replicators and transporters, and the 407ETR lease expires, are we really still going to be fighting about who gets to eat and who gets health care?

It's such a small world that some conservative thinkers live in. When they imagine the future, I sometimes think that they must be fantasizing about the past.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 10:39 PM

Books and theories are about the real world, however, the world is often too complex to be communicated in them.
If you live in a small world with limited knowledge then perhaps your books have suited your needs. The world I know of and live in is complex and richer.

What made you think that I did not know what a wiki was? Your reading and comprehension skills suck. That or you are trolling.
I have actually installed and configured a wiki....that and I also mentioned in the post that I thought wiki's were a good thing (wow, your skills suck).

Pay attention! I said pay attention son.
You are all over the map and you are talking gibberish. You are a terrible communicator and have horrible manners.

*Current subtopic: Unions improve the working conditions, quality of life AND in the case of that plane crash a strong union would have likely prevented it from happening.*

My experience goes both ways. I have worked in union and non-union environments and am wise enough to have recognized the good and bad in both. I have not been an employer of more than 5 people though so I really don't have experience on that side.

You are overcompensating for your lack of ability you are all talk and are unable to back it up so you start with insults (butt buddies comments and more) and "you simply know nothing, when it is obvious I do know something. Telling ME not to reply to you. How about you don't reply to me. Put me on ignore even then you won't have to worry about it. BUT if you keep spouting ignorance and bull I will be responding and others will see (not that you care right?)

I actually didn't read your reply nor am I planning to. I know you have no clue what you're talking about so I won't waste my time.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 10:41 PM

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. Untempered greed is contraindicated by so many things, like consideration for others, a sense of community, and since we're on the topic, spiritual fulfillment. I'm not trying to nitpick here, but to frame an argument as, "greed is what gets me up in the morning" is just plain unsettling.

I think we're all ambitious to varying degrees. Sociopaths, for example, have issues channeling their ambition in a positive way, or in a way that is considerate to others. A community organizer, on the other hand, is ambitious with the thoughts of others in mind.

Accordingly, I think it's very important that any discussion on greed is contextualized or qualified.

Of course not every human endeavour is driven by money. But we're talking about economics here, not what drives a community volunteer.

stuntman

Apr 6th, 2012, 11:05 PM

Being greedy ensures that resources flow to their most valued uses. Maybe I should have said god is greed.

hahahahhahahaha

I actually didn't read your reply nor am I planning to. I know you have no clue what you're talking about so I won't waste my time.

hahahahahahahahahaha run away! run way to fight another day!
ahahahahahhahahaha

stuntman

Apr 6th, 2012, 11:09 PM

Of course not every human endeavour is driven by money. But we're talking about economics here, not what drives a community volunteer.

hahahahaha

For the most part the rest of us are talking society and capitalism and what is wrong/right with capitalism here in the REAL WORLD. You are talking pure economics, books, wikis, theories mixed in with gibberish and insults.

Pay attention!
hahahahaha

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 11:10 PM

hahahahahahahahahaha run away! run way to fight another day!
ahahahahahhahahaha

I hope that one day, after you've read a book or two on the topic, you'll look back on this thread and your posts and realize for yourself what a sad man you were.

stuntman

Apr 6th, 2012, 11:24 PM

I hope that one day, after you've read a book or two on the topic, you'll look back on this thread and your posts and realize for yourself what a sad man you were.

I actually have read a book or two on the subject :)
I combine that with real world experience. <--something that you are not doing in this thread.
I back stuff up with real world examples....you say refer to this book or wiki's, spout bs and insults or just plain can't come up with an answer. You are laughable (rubber ducks vs pilots ahahahhahaha).

AND I know that we are talking real world and not strictly books and theories, you obviously don't or are a capitalism fanatic. You seem to want to treat people like product, if you make that knowledge public to mature people most will look upon you as fool. The predators will think you are cool though.

So go be a predator. Just don't whine that some person screwed you out of something in the business or working world if/when they do. Don't whine that the government cut a benefit or funding you found useful (because benefit's and funding are anti-capitalism). Don't whine if people don't like you for it.

PS: just in case you forgot already: your comprehension skills suck.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 11:29 PM

I actually have read a book or two on the subject :)
I combine that with real world experience. <--something that you are not doing in this thread.
I back stuff up with real world examples....you say refer to this book or wiki's, spout bs and insults or just plain can't come up with an answer. You are laughable (rubber ducks vs pilots ahahahhahaha).

AND I know that we are talking real world and not strictly books and theories, you obviously don't or are a capitalism fanatic. You seem to want to treat people like product, if you make that knowledge public to mature people most will look upon you as fool. The predators will think you are cool though.

So go be a predator. Just don't whine that some person screwed you out of something in the business or working world if/when they do. Don't whine that the government cut a benefit or funding you found useful (because benefit's and funding are anti-capitalism). Don't whine if people don't like you for it.

PS: just in case you forgot already: your comprehension skills suck.

I'm praying for you.

stuntman

Apr 6th, 2012, 11:47 PM

I'm praying for you.

You don't have to. Besides you need to brush up on your skills,that would be more beneficial to you. Lets go over some of your failings in this thread:

-Comparing the skill to make a rubber duck to flying an airplane. (hahahahahhaha)
-Dehumanizing people and calling them product.
-Meaningless insult after insult.
-Implying a few economic books and theories are capable of representing the dynamics of the real world.
-"Being greedy ensures that resources flow to their most valued uses. Maybe I should have said god is greed" (I think this one is the most telling. It was amusing too :). It sounds like your only thoughts and ideas comes from simple books).
-Baseless assumptions about my background
-dodging a question by replying with rudeness.
-After me implicitly stating that wiki's are pretty good you then go on to say I don't even know what a wiki is (lol)

Then someone else went and zinged you with a look up on wikipedia:

Anyone who is interested in history knows how unions were responsible for augmenting working conditions and salaries, that's why they exist. Why do you think working conditions only started really improving after unions were legalized in the UK in the middle of the 19th century?
The role of the employer is to make a profit, not to ensure the workers have an adequate salary, take away the union and no one is looking out for the worker.

Also, I looked at economics on wikipedia and the only mention of unions on it is this:
.
.
.
.
That was written when trade unions were still illegal, it seems to me that Smith was in favor of legalizing unions or at least hostile to "Masters" that would use the magistrate to disassemble them.
And just for those that don't know, Adam Smith is considered the father of capitalism.

Is that the extent of your knowledge....you are getting your stuff from wikipedia? You live in a small and silly headed world. Come on young one talk about the rubber duckies and that first year economics greed is good thing lol.

a-tree

Apr 6th, 2012, 11:55 PM

You don't have to. Besides you need to brush up on your skills,that would be more beneficial to you. Lets go over some of your failings in this thread:

-Comparing the skill to make a rubber duck to flying an airplane. (hahahahahhaha)
-Dehumanizing people and calling them product.
-Meaningless insult after insult.
-Implying a few economic books and theories are capable of representing the dynamics of the real world.
-"Being greedy ensures that resources flow to their most valued uses. Maybe I should have said god is greed" (I think this one is the most telling. It was amusing too :). It sounds like your only thoughts and ideas comes from simple books).
-Baseless assumptions about my background
-dodging a question by replying with rudeness.
-After me implicitly stating that wiki's are pretty good you then go on to say I don't even know what a wiki is (lol)

Then someone else went and zinged you with a look up on wikipedia:

Is that the extent of your knowledge....you are getting your stuff from wikipedia? You live in a small and silly headed world. Come on young one talk about the rubber duckies and that first year economics greed is good thing lol.

Dear god...

stuntman

Apr 7th, 2012, 12:05 AM

Dear god...

What happened is your book collection much more basic than I thought? No more typing the thoughts of others?
Lord knows that wiki stuff you were going on about is a bust.
Dang. You lost but just keep jabbering like computer bot. Are you not a man, can you not bow out gracefully?

a-tree

Apr 7th, 2012, 12:27 AM

What happened is your book collection much more basic than I thought? No more typing the thoughts of others?
Lord knows that wiki stuff you were going on about is a bust.
Dang. You lost but just keep jabbering like computer bot. Are you not a man, can you not bow out gracefully?

God says you're irreparable. Sorry bro.

stuntman

Apr 7th, 2012, 12:46 AM

God says you're irreparable. Sorry bro.

wow...from no original thoughts to no thoughts....how many posts of nothing did you finish this off with?
OK....no use picking away at your arguments any more you are done. You are all picked out. :D

PS: BTW: you really have to fix that getting the last word thing in when you have jack all to to say. It is a sign of a damaged mind. Grow up please.

a-tree

Apr 7th, 2012, 12:49 AM

wow...from no original thoughts to no thoughts....how many posts of nothing did you finish this off with?
OK....no use picking away at your arguments any more you are done. You are all picked out. :D

PS: BTW: you really have to fix that getting the last word thing in when you have jack all to to say. It is a sign of a damaged mind. Grow up please.

kjhj

CDNPatriot

Apr 7th, 2012, 11:46 AM

Just an FYI *****... I notice that with people like you, I too post wiki stuff because based on your diction and other posts it's easier for you to understand. What I struggle with is finding enough pictures to post so that people understand better.
Union Achievements In the United States

Unions are all about getting a better deal for employees. By working together, workers have found that they can make a big difference. Here are some of the improvements that unions have helped win for workers.

Shorter working hours

Back in the mid 1800s, it was common to work a 12 or 16 hour day, six days a week. The stonemasons’ union took a stand and won the now famous eight hour day; eight hours work, eight hours rest, and eight hours play. This eight hour day was recognised internationally and over 150 years later is still considered to be a standard working day. Later unions pressed for a shorter working week and won the 38 hour week – which is now the most common working hours for a full-time job.

Fair pay and better pay

There is a fair pay rate for every job thanks to unions. Back in 1907, unions argued that wages needed to be enough to support a family, and won – this was called the Harvester judgement. Since then, unions have helped win increases to the minimum wage and award wages that give everybody a fair go. Overtime, penalty rates, meal allowances or holiday pay are all examples of improvements won by unions.

Holidays with pay

It’s hard to believe, but not so long ago (only about 50 years ago) full-time workers were only given two weeks paid annual leave. In the years since, unions have rallied and worked hard to ensure that all full-time workers receive four weeks paid annual leave. It is because of unions that we also receive sick leave and many receive paid parental leave.

Equal pay for women

Up until 1969, it was the law that women working the same job as men earned 25 per cent less. On top of this, women in many jobs were expected to resign from their jobs once they got married. Since 1969, campaigns by unions have contributed to women being gradually granted equal privileges to men; that is, they are paid an equal pay for an equal amount work.

Superannuation for all

Superannuation is money saved for you to spend after you retire from work. Unions argued that everyone should be able to have superannuation and that most of the money should be paid by the boss. Now it’s the law that employers pay an extra nine per cent above your wages into the super fund of your choice.

Safer work

Unions and union members are a big part of making work safer. Over the years they have won many changes that keep workers safe and healthy. Unions have spearheaded moves to fairly compensate people who are hurt at work or damaged by unhealthy things like asbestos. But with over 300 work-related deaths every year, there’s a lot more to be done.

What happened is your book collection much more basic than I thought? No more typing the thoughts of others?
Lord knows that wiki stuff you were going on about is a bust.
Dang. You lost but just keep jabbering like computer bot. Are you not a man, can you not bow out gracefully?

stuntman

Apr 7th, 2012, 01:20 PM

.........

meanstreetjd

Apr 10th, 2012, 10:07 PM

Capitalism has it's benefits, but it's getting carried away, we should change the way capitalism works. People or corporations should not be allowed to own natural resources, or even the government/crown corporations, but instead every human should have a share/stake in all local natural resources. If there is profit generated from a local natural resource, each person should be paid a dividend.

http://capitalism3.com/home

Our current version of capitalism—the corporate, globalized version 2.0—is rapidly squandering our shared inheritances. Now, Peter Barnes offers a solution: protect the commons by giving it property rights and strong institutional managers.

Barnes shows how capitalism—like a computer—is run by an operating system. Our current operating system gives too much power to profit-maximizing corporations that devour our commons and distribute most of their profit to a sliver of the population. And government—which in theory should defend our commons—is all too often a tool of those very corporations.

Barnes proposes a revised operating system—Capitalism 3.0—that protects the commons while preserving the many strengths of capitalism as we know it. His major innovation is the commons trust—a market-based entity with the power to limit use of scarce commons, charge rent, and pay dividends to everyone.

Capitalism 3.0 offers a practical alternative to our current flawed economic system. It points the way to a future in which we can retain capitalism's virtues while mitigating its vices.

JSz

Apr 11th, 2012, 08:22 PM

It is sad when the masses defend a system that does not work without doing any research. They talk about how communism is bad but they don't look at the reality, if communism is so bad then why does China a communist country own the united states of america? I had a foreign student from china, a brilliant kid that was laughing at me when I asked him about the supposed problems his country is going through, he laughed at me at the problems I mentioned about slave workers and such, he said the western media is pretty good at brain washing people to make them look bad, the reality is the USA is in worse shape then they ever will be, work and money is not everything the Chinese care about, they would rather live a more spiritual and fulfilling life then what we have here, after he finished his schooling here he said he will be going back home, there is no way he would live here. From what I saw he wasn't BSing me, hell if life was really bad back home he wouldn't have gone back and he seemed more happy and intelligent then most people at school, was always in the top 3 in marks.

I agree that communism isn't perfect but capitalism is far worse, look at what has happened to the USA, capitalism is basically a big legalized pyramid scheme, the people at the top are the ones that get rich. If pyramid schemes are illegal then capitalism should also be illegal. Socialism on the other hand is a bit of both and there are countries that are more better off then the westernized countries, unionization is a form of socialism in the world of capitalism that is why the rich want to kill unions as quickly as possible. If you look at some of the socialist countries you will see high unionized employees and most are doing far better then the USA. Here is a list of socialist countries to go through if you have time, if you look at some of the unionization rates of these countries they are getting close to full unionization of their workforce and most are doing pretty damn good, yet most people here want to kill unions.

Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
India
Ireland
Moldova
Norway
Poland
Sweden

DearSummer

Apr 11th, 2012, 08:42 PM

CDNPatriot

Apr 11th, 2012, 08:46 PM

You are so naive Dearsummer. The United States is in a big mess. Don't watch too much of that American television and the propaganda it spews. Great great grandkids of Americans born today will be paying all this debt they are taking on just to keep their standard of living.

This post made me LOL.

China owns the U.S.? LOL.

How "spiritual" is it to survive on dollars a day or work long shifts in a factory?

Give some examples of successful communist states. All of China's progress (which still leaves them far, far behind the developed world) is because of their gradual change to a market-based economy. It is ironic that you cite them as a successful communist state when they are neither communist nor successful in comparison to the Western world.

Your list of unionized countries is a very strong finish. Ireland is in a world of fiscal trouble and everybody with a brain is getting out of dodge. Most of India's population is living on dollars a day and is uneducated. The vast majority of those countries can't hold a candle to the Western world and especially the U.S.

DearSummer

Apr 11th, 2012, 08:49 PM

stuntman

Apr 11th, 2012, 08:52 PM

And whose fault is that? Government.

And does Canada have the same problem? Yes. And whose fault is that? Government.

I disagree. It is the fault of ball. Ball is at fault, or maybe men, men and women. Men and women are the problem!

antibasher

Apr 11th, 2012, 08:59 PM

DearSummer

Apr 11th, 2012, 09:17 PM

JustBob

Apr 11th, 2012, 09:22 PM

It's rather ironic that those who, merely a few years ago, were trumpeting the "Celtic Tiger" as the shining example of the success of the "markets regulate themselves" fallacy, are now mostly silent when Irish Eyes Are Crying... Oops!

CDNPatriot

Apr 11th, 2012, 09:27 PM

And whose fault is that? Government.

And does Canada have the same problem? Yes. And whose fault is that? Government.

Republican right wing government lead to the 2008 meltdown with their "let the market regulate itself" attitude.

The top one percent who collapsed the financial system as they continued to suck money out through their fraudulent schemes.

The middle class are the heros who came in and paid for the recovery efforts while the top one percent retired into their mansions and divided their fortunes for all their family members down to future great great great great grandkids.

CDNPatriot

Apr 11th, 2012, 09:28 PM

Engineers in Canada are driving cabs...

think again bud.

China is a one-party capitalistic country, it is no longer a communist nation. If you argue with this, you don't know understand economics....period. The reason for increasing amount of poverty today is constant government interference and lack of good labour skills in economy, which is making the country non-competitive and causing jobs to go offshore. Just look at the massive amount of people taking unemployable art degrees compare to engineers and scientists. If you think Sweden is a socialist country because of its numerous benefits, you are an economic ignoramus. Bailouts for big corporations is not a form a capitalism, if you disagree, do some research. People who advocate socialism are just above the stupid threshold because they obviously don't know the much dire consequences it will bring compare to today. In addition, poor people will be in a much worser shape under that economic reform, since government will not distribute resources properly. Communist China and the Soviet Union are a perfect example.

DearSummer

Apr 11th, 2012, 09:32 PM

Republican right wing government lead to the 2008 meltdown with their "let the market regulate itself" attitude.

Actually it was quite clearly the Fed (government), Fannie/Freddie (government), and government policy (everybody should own a house!) that led to the financial crisis. The private sector simply drank the alcohol poured by the government. Further, the only reason the taxpayer is on the hook for a single cent is because the government decided to interfere with the free market AGAIN by bailing out a bunch of the state's favourite companies.

The top one percent who collapsed the financial system as they continued to suck money out through their fraudulent schemes.

The middle class are the heros who came in and paid for the recovery efforts while the top one percent retired into their mansions and divided their fortunes for all their family members down to future great great great great grandkids.

The middle class are the morons who allowed the government to socialize private business losses and continue to vote in leaders who cause market distortions that lead to crashes.

CDNPatriot

Apr 11th, 2012, 09:38 PM

You left the most important point out.

Your point on the "market self regulating" principle.

That was the key and root cause of the 2008 disaster.

Actually it was quite clearly the Fed (government), Fannie/Freddie (government), and government policy (everybody should own a house!) that led to the financial crisis. The private sector simply drank the alcohol poured by the government. Further, the only reason the taxpayer is on the hook for a single cent is because the government decided to interfere with the free market AGAIN by bailing out a bunch of the state's favourite companies.

The middle class are the morons who allowed the government to socialize private business losses and continue to vote in leaders who cause market distortions that lead to crashes.

Syne

Apr 11th, 2012, 10:19 PM

peanutz

Apr 12th, 2012, 12:49 PM

As someone finishing up a science degree, I certainly hope you're right and when I graduate, I'll have to beat off potential employers with a stick.I'm sure they'll let (or demand that) you beat them off with other tools.

olssy

Apr 12th, 2012, 02:35 PM

China is a one-party capitalistic country, it is no longer a communist nation. If you argue with this, you don't know understand economics....period. The reason for increasing amount of poverty today is constant government interference and lack of good labour skills in economy, which is making the country non-competitive and causing jobs to go offshore. Just look at the massive amount of people taking unemployable art degrees compare to engineers and scientists. If you think Sweden is a socialist country because of its numerous benefits, you are an economic ignoramus. Bailouts for big corporations is not a form a capitalism, if you disagree, do some research. People who advocate socialism are just above the stupid threshold because they obviously don't know the much dire consequences it will bring compare to today. In addition, poor people will be in a much worser shape under that economic reform, since government will not distribute resources properly. Communist China and the Soviet Union are a perfect example.

China's one party is called "The Communist Party".

Who would paint the masterpieces that the upper class love to invest in if no one went to art school?

Sweden is a social democracy with a welfare state.

What would you call a capitalist economy where the government gives bailouts to corporations? CapaSocaLism? I prefer to say it's a form of capitalism as after the bailouts I could still invest in private corporations and that's basically what defines capitalism, isn't it?

Socialism was thought up to decrease the inequalities between poor and rich because the private sector wasn't able to by itself.

China and the USSR are not perfect examples of socialism failing, USSR lost the cold war, the Regan administration had been taking that war to an economic front and just crushed the USSRs economy. China's standard of living really went up with Mao at first and it seemed fairer for the majority than compared to now. That said, I'm not a big fan of Mao or any other totalitarian leader but he did manage to feed a billion hungry Chinese.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 03:15 PM

You left the most important point out.

Your point on the "market self regulating" principle.

That was the key and root cause of the 2008 disaster.

It was actually the aggressive home ownership policies that oriented the market. The market itself is fine. It always works the way it's supposed to. Again, the conclusion is that any sort of intervention in the market leads to massive failure. Why do you call yourself a Canadian patriot in a country built on capitalism?

olssy

Apr 12th, 2012, 04:45 PM

It was actually the aggressive home ownership policies that oriented the market. The market itself is fine. It always works the way it's supposed to. Again, the conclusion is that any sort of intervention in the market leads to massive failure. Why do you call yourself a Canadian patriot in a country built on capitalism?

a-tree, do you have an example of a country, whether successful or not, that does not intervene in any way in economic markets? Also, don't you consider sub-primes a product of the banks? And finally, Canada could also be considered to be built on mercantilism, a very oppressive and regulated flavor of capitalism.

DearSummer

Apr 12th, 2012, 05:10 PM

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 05:12 PM

a-tree, do you have an example of a country, whether successful or not, that does not intervene in any way in economic markets? Also, don't you consider sub-primes a product of the banks? And finally, Canada could also be considered to be built on mercantilism, a very oppressive and regulated flavor of capitalism.

I can't say whether zero intervention would lead to prosperity for all. But at least the problems we have seen, can be attributed to intervention. Sub-primes = a result of wanting everyone who don't deserve to own a home to own homes, largely a product of government thinking, not the market.

It's same thing with unions. Unions distort true prices. And when companies can adjust union prices by going elsewhere, it is those union members that get dismembered and gutted from the inside.

Anything that distorts the true price of something always ends up in destruction. Market is the king and capitalism is the word. This is simply the law of the universe, just like the laws of physics. People can talk about how capitalism is 'bad', how 'greed' is 'bad', but the rules never change because these aren't man-made rules.

Syne

Apr 12th, 2012, 05:42 PM

I'm sure they'll let (or demand that) you beat them off with other tools.

Hahah... ew. :cry:

Syne

Apr 12th, 2012, 05:47 PM

I can't say whether zero intervention would lead to prosperity for all. But at least the problems we have seen, can be attributed to intervention. Sub-primes = a result of wanting everyone who don't deserve to own a home to own homes, largely a product of government thinking, not the market.

Market is the king and capitalism is the word. This is simply the law of the universe, just like the laws of physics. People can talk about how capitalism is 'bad', how 'greed' is 'bad', but the rules never change because these aren't man-made rules.

Again, I'd like to point out that we created the market to serve us, not the other way around. The market is the creation of governments. We are not slaves to the shortcoming of the ideas we come up with to help us thrive as a community. We intervene because lots of people agreed that home ownership was a step in the right direction, and because it's not in society's best interest to allow a man-made market dictate and limit who deserves to own a home and who doesn't.

What we're seeing is almost a cult-like loyalty to these ancient ideas that clearly need to be tweaked and adjusted for future progression. The problem is that you actually have to change your entire way of thinking of things. Start with the concept that we (people) are the ones behind the tiller. Work from there. The free market is not larger than life. If was some human beings' idea, and like humans it is not infallible. Your entire concept, and dare I say the entire right wing concept of economics is based on the notion that we are not self-determining as a society, and that once we come up with an idea (like the constitution and the bible and the free market) we are stuck with it forever and ever.

You say the rules of greed and self-interest are inherent to all humans, but mitigation from society is evident everywhere we look. I can't have 7 wives. I can't kill my enemies. I can't own slaves. I have very real limitations on the way these 'laws of the universe' play out. The market is no different. It's ours to control for the betterment of society.

JSz

Apr 12th, 2012, 05:52 PM

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 06:04 PM

Again, I'd like to point out that we created the market to serve us, not the other way around. The market is the creation of governments. We are not slaves to the shortcoming of the ideas we come up with to help us thrive as a community. We intervene because lots of people agreed that home ownership was a step in the right direction, and because it's not in society's best interest to allow a man-made market dictate and limit who deserves to own a home and who doesn't.

What we're seeing is almost a cult-like loyalty to ideas that worked in the past, but clearly need to be adjusted for the future. The problem is that you actually have to change your entire way of thinking of things. Start with the concept that we (people) are the ones behind the tiller and go from there. The free market is not larger than life. If was some human beings' idea, and like humans it is not infallible. Your entire concept, and dare I say the entire right wing concept of economics is based on the notion that we are not self-determining as a society, and that once we come up with an idea (like the constitution and the bible and the free market) we are stuck with it forever and ever.

So what really happened after the government wanted everyone to own homes? There's a price to everything. And when you try to distort prices that the market won't bear, sh*t happens. People that can't afford a home at the market rate don't deserve to own homes, period, not because they're some other, unworthy being, but because they simply can't afford houses. Free market has no flaws. It's the supreme way to allocate resources, according to prices, according to where resources are most valued. If your idea of flaws is that it leads to 'unfair distribution of wealth', that it leads to poverty etc. etc., these are not flaws. They simply mean that resources are being allocated to their most valued uses. There's no progress without sacrifice. Do you think anyone gives a rat's ***** about people who work in obsolete industries that go out of business because some new, better way of doing things get invented? You face the reality and move on. No one is entitled to a penny of others' money.

I'm not saying we should stick with one idea forever. But as of now, nothing comes even close to free markets.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 06:05 PM

It is true that if you look at the basic laws of the universe, you will find the need for humans to conquer over others. OK but lets look back thousands of years at our history, when kings had slaves and reproduced with thousands of women they conquered. Yes that is natural instinct to reproduce with as many people as possible, we still see it today with people like Tiger Woods but is the need to conquer needed today in our modern world. Conquering women for reproduction and conquering for money is pretty much the same thing. If it is not right to conquer women, why is it right to conquer money?

What's wrong with conquering women? What's wrong with conquering for money? I don't get it.

CDNPatriot

Apr 12th, 2012, 06:09 PM

Yeah kind of like what is happening in Canada now.

The problem is that the bubble burst with exotic investment vehicles that were being sold.

I can't say whether zero intervention would lead to prosperity for all. But at least the problems we have seen, can be attributed to intervention. Sub-primes = a result of wanting everyone who don't deserve to own a home to own homes, largely a product of government thinking, not the market.

It's same thing with unions. Unions distort true prices. And when companies can adjust union prices by going elsewhere, it is those union members that get dismembered and gutted from the inside.

Anything that distorts the true price of something always ends up in destruction. Market is the king and capitalism is the word. This is simply the law of the universe, just like the laws of physics. People can talk about how capitalism is 'bad', how 'greed' is 'bad', but the rules never change because these aren't man-made rules.

Syne

Apr 12th, 2012, 06:12 PM

So what really happened after the government wanted everyone to own homes?

You seem to make this dichotomy between people and government. The government is simply the will of the people in condensed form. The elected leaders represent the people who vote them in. It's a multi-tiered system and while it has its flaws in terms of proportional representation, that is basically all it is. We are the government.

There's a price to everything. And when you try to distort prices that the market won't bear, sh*t happens. People that can't afford a home at the market rate don't deserve to own homes, period, not because they're some other, unworthy being, but because they simply can't afford houses. Free market has no flaws. It's the supreme way to allocate resources, according to prices, according to where resources are most valued. If your idea of flaws is that it leads to 'unfair distribution of wealth', that it leads to poverty etc. etc., these are not flaws. They simply mean that resources are being allocated to their most valued uses. There's no progress without sacrifice. Do you think anyone gives a rat's ***** about people who work in obsolete industries that go out of business because some new, better way of doing things get invented? You face the reality and move on. No one is entitled to a penny of others' money.

I'm not saying we should stick with one idea forever. But as of now, nothing comes even close to free markets.

Someone once asked what the 'end game' to unchecked free market capitalism is. I imagine it would be a de facto emperor with no accountability. That emperor would end up running the world like a game of Risk that has reached its conclusion. Is that your idea of flawless?

I guess I can agree that the free market is 'working as intended' if its intent is to elegantly distribute wealth unevenly. Let's agree to that then. I guess what we might have to disagree on, is that it is in our best interests to allow this system to abuse us in this fashion. Seems rather masochistic to create such a thing, then live under the thumb of a man-made device with no identity, no face and no consideration - it just does the supreme bidding of the most powerful.

Syne

Apr 12th, 2012, 06:14 PM

What's wrong with conquering women? What's wrong with conquering for money? I don't get it.

.. Are you ****ing serious?

divx

Apr 12th, 2012, 06:21 PM

China's one party is called "The Communist Party".

Who would paint the masterpieces that the upper class love to invest in if no one went to art school?

Sweden is a social democracy with a welfare state.

What would you call a capitalist economy where the government gives bailouts to corporations? CapaSocaLism? I prefer to say it's a form of capitalism as after the bailouts I could still invest in private corporations and that's basically what defines capitalism, isn't it?

Socialism was thought up to decrease the inequalities between poor and rich because the private sector wasn't able to by itself.

China and the USSR are not perfect examples of socialism failing, USSR lost the cold war, the Regan administration had been taking that war to an economic front and just crushed the USSRs economy. China's standard of living really went up with Mao at first and it seemed fairer for the majority than compared to now. That said, I'm not a big fan of Mao or any other totalitarian leader but he did manage to feed a billion hungry Chinese.

:facepalm:that's quite the factual error, I suppose it was somewhat "fair" as he made everyone poor and starve to death.

JSz

Apr 12th, 2012, 06:37 PM

What's wrong with conquering women? What's wrong with conquering for money? I don't get it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 06:51 PM

You seem to make this dichotomy between people and government. The government is simply the will of the people in condensed form. The elected leaders represent the people who vote them in. It's a multi-tiered system and while it has its flaws in terms of proportional representation, that is basically all it is. We are the government.

Someone once asked what the 'end game' to unchecked free market capitalism is. I imagine it would be a de facto emperor with no accountability. That emperor would end up running the world like a game of Risk that has reached its conclusion. Is that your idea of flawless?

I guess I can agree that the free market is 'working as intended' if its intent is to elegantly distribute wealth unevenly. Let's agree to that then. I guess what we might have to disagree on, is that it is in our best interests to allow this system to abuse us in this fashion. Seems rather masochistic to create such a thing, then live under the thumb of a man-made device with no identity, no face and no consideration - it just does the supreme bidding of the most powerful.

Ok you still didn't answer my question. What happened after the government (the people) wanted to own homes they couldn't by distorting market determined rates?

You're damn right wealth will be distributed unevenly. Those who get more, deserve more. Simple.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 06:55 PM

.. Are you ****ing serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

Seriously. What's wrong with those things? What's wrong with narcissism. I'm not talking about abusing rights of people or doing something illegal for money. But what's wrong with the notion of conquering women and wanting to accumulate more wealth in general?

What does conquering mean anyway? It just a idea of asserting yourself. Getting what you want. You two obviously have never conquered anything in your lives.

Agafaba

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:00 PM

So what really happened after the government wanted everyone to own homes? There's a price to everything. And when you try to distort prices that the market won't bear, sh*t happens. People that can't afford a home at the market rate don't deserve to own homes, period, not because they're some other, unworthy being, but because they simply can't afford houses. Free market has no flaws. It's the supreme way to allocate resources, according to prices, according to where resources are most valued. If your idea of flaws is that it leads to 'unfair distribution of wealth', that it leads to poverty etc. etc., these are not flaws. They simply mean that resources are being allocated to their most valued uses. There's no progress without sacrifice. Do you think anyone gives a rat's ***** about people who work in obsolete industries that go out of business because some new, better way of doing things get invented? You face the reality and move on. No one is entitled to a penny of others' money.

I'm not saying we should stick with one idea forever. But as of now, nothing comes even close to free markets.

There is one major flaw to a completely free market, eventually there are more starving people than rich ones, and you end up with a revolt.

Syne

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:02 PM

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:02 PM

There is one major flaw to a completely free market, eventually there are more starving people than rich ones, and you end up with a revolt.

Ok

Syne

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:06 PM

Seriously. What's wrong with those things? What's wrong with narcissism. I'm not talking about abusing rights of people or doing something illegal for money. But what's wrong with the notion of conquering women and wanting to accumulate more wealth in general?

What does conquering mean anyway? It just a idea of asserting yourself. Getting what you want. You two obviously have never conquered anything in your lives.

I'm going to go with the obvious here and go with low infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy, brought to us by a civilized society that doesn't rape and pillage things for personal gain.

stuntman

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:07 PM

Seriously. What's wrong with those things? What's wrong with narcissism. I'm not talking about abusing rights of people or doing something illegal for money. But what's wrong with the notion of conquering women and wanting to accumulate more wealth in general?

What does conquering mean anyway? It just a idea of asserting yourself. Getting what you want. You two obviously have never conquered anything in your lives.

Conquering is fine for sports and women (I suppose).
Financially conquering is financial oppression and oppression is oppression. It has started wars and is no good for the worlds population as a whole an not good for most individuals.

It can be extrapolated to represent greed and oppression...neither of those are good things.

MrKap

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:09 PM

There is one major flaw to a completely free market, eventually there are more starving people than rich ones, and you end up with a revolt.

There are probably more "rich" people than starving ones.

Obesity is beginning to overtake starvation as a more important health crisis. That says alot.

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2011/08/15/obesity-the-new-global-crisis/

Most people are well aware of humanity’s constant struggle against famine and food insecurity. According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), around 925 million people across the globe went hungry in 2010. The number is staggering, but it’s still down from over 1 billion in 2009. To make this horrific number a little less abstract, let’s consider it in human terms: FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf points out that “with a child dying every six seconds because of undernourishment-related problems, hunger remains the world’s largest tragedy and scandal.”

But there’s another side to the world’s nutrition problem, and it grows more pronounced with each passing year: Obesity. According to the World Health Organization, over 1 billion people are overweight. Of that billion-and-change, hundreds of millions are obese. By numerous accounts, this trend seems set to continue over the foreseeable future.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:17 PM

I'm going to go with the obvious here and go with low infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy, brought to us by a civilized society that doesn't rape and pillage things for personal gain.

Conquering doesn't have to be criminal

Conquering is fine for sports and women (I suppose).
Financially conquering is financial oppression and oppression is oppression. It has started wars and is no good for the worlds population as a whole an not good for most individuals.

It can be extrapolated to represent greed and oppression...neither of those are good things.

You're just mad you're not a billionaire.

stuntman

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:21 PM

Conquering doesn't have to be criminal

You're just mad you're not a billionaire.

No one is talking about the law but you.
AND
Nope, not mad...I am tied down by a ******* conscience and concern for future generations (Take away either of those and watch out!). I think it is good that people are reasonably happy and healthy.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:33 PM

No one is talking about the law but you.
AND
Nope, not mad...I am tied down by a ******* conscience and concern for future generations (Take away either of those and watch out!). I think it is good that people are reasonably happy and healthy.

You don't think billion dollar corporations don't care about people? The corporations that enrich and make better the lives of people who use their products and services? Caring about money is caring about people. Sitting at home and just 'thinking' of the future generation means jack squat.

Syne

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:34 PM

He's right. Someone give me a billion dollars so I can put my thoughts into action!

stuntman

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:40 PM

You don't think billion dollar corporations don't care about people? The corporations that enrich and make better the lives of people who use their products and services? Caring about money is caring about people. Sitting at home and just 'thinking' of the future generation means jack squat.

You need to read a few studies on happiness, happiness makes life good and happiness is not dependent on income above that required for basic needs. (as per the Economist. that is right THE ECONOMIST).

Corporations have no conscience and largely driven by money. Money is not caring about people. You know it. Some low end styles there a-tree)

What has sitting at home just thinking about future generations have to do with anything? (ohhhh I see what you did there. What is the proper word/phrase for that. False....something)

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:46 PM

You need to read a few studies on happiness, happiness makes life good and happiness is not dependent on income above that required for basic needs. (as per the Economist. that is right THE ECONOMIST).

Corporations have no conscience and largely driven by money. Money is not caring about people. You know it. Some low end styles there a-tree)

What has sitting at home just thinking about future generations have to do with anything? (ohhhh I see what you did there. What is the proper word/phrase for that. False....something)

So if the Economist tells you to jump off a cliff you're going to do just that?

stuntman

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:54 PM

So if the Economist tells you to jump off a cliff you're going to do just that?

huh?
Is that like saying: "I put my hand on in tire the chair on sky keyboard road tree"?

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 07:55 PM

huh?
Is that like saying: "I put my hand on in tire the chair on sky keyboard road tree"?

You're emphasizing 'the economist' as if that's the source of all truth or something. By that logic if the magazine told you to kill yourself you probably would.

stuntman

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:00 PM

You're emphasizing 'the economist' as if that's the source of all truth or something. By that logic if the magazine told you to kill yourself you probably would.

Just what I thought. It is like saying: "I put my hand on in tire the chair on sky keyboard road tree"

JSz

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:06 PM

There are probably more "rich" people than starving ones.

Obesity is beginning to overtake starvation as a more important health crisis. That says alot.

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2011/08/15/obesity-the-new-global-crisis/

I believe it was something like 92% are poor, with the 1% of the wealthy controlling 40% of the worlds wealth through 150 or so faceless corporations that control things like water, food and other natural resources.

Obesity is caused by people no longer having time to cook a good meal at home because people are to busy working to make ends meat. The money goes back to the rich corporations through fast food establishments and then later drug companies to treat problems that were caused by the bad life style they had to go through. What is worse is the drug companies never find a cure to anything, there is no motivation to find a cure when they can push pills and get you hooked to their monthly subscription of drugs, your choice pay the subscription or die, what will you do?

I find this kind of sad, as long as capitalism lives there will never be a cure for things like obesity and cancer, look at cancer there is no money in curing cancer only in treating it. I know the great Canadian Terry Fox probably would never have run across Canada if he knew what the cancer research industry has become, all he wanted at the time was a million dollars and he felt cancer could be cured, billions have been raised, hell The Princess Margaret Hospital today announced that they reached there goal of $1 billion dollars for their fund raising this year, I want to know where every penny is going, I am pretty sure someone down the line is a billionaire from this crap that is going on.

You can say that if there is no money there will be no cure, I find that false the greatest inventors of the past like Albert Einstein or Nikola Tesla were not driven by money, they only wanted to make the lives of people better. Albert Einstein died working at the patent office and Nikola Tesla died in debt, if capitalism was fair these people should have had at least a million dollars to there name at their death but what really happened is corporations stole their work and profited from their inventions. Hollywood owes every last cent to Albert Einstein, they sue the little people for downloading their movies, yet they stole the whole industry from Albert Einstein and the united states government classified some of Nikola Tesla research on free electricity that would have helped the little people because if its free and they couldn't control it how would they take your money. A famous capitalist crook that created a cult and recently passed away said "Good artists copy, great artists steal" and that summarizes what capitalism really is, a big frigging theft ring.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:07 PM

You don't think billion dollar corporations don't care about people? The corporations that enrich and make better the lives of people who use their products and services? Caring about money is caring about people. Sitting at home and just 'thinking' of the future generation means jack squat.
You are seriously delusional.

Not a single corporation cares about anyone but the bottom line. As long as they make money, people can burn and die! The products & services are completely irrelevant to the general aspiration to make money.

If it was otherwise, capitalism would have collapsed a long time ago as companies would have found other ways to "care" about people without getting dragged into the zero-sum profit chasing game. Since the world is as abominable as it is, this clearly hasn't happened which means that companies don't give a damn about anyone but the money.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:08 PM

Just what I thought. It is like saying: "I put my hand on in tire the chair on sky keyboard road tree"

So you are going to jump off a cliff if the economist told you so.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:12 PM

I believe it was something like 92% are poor, with the 1% of the wealthy controlling 40% of the worlds wealth through 150 or so faceless corporations that control things like water, food and other natural resources.

Obesity is caused by people no longer having time to cook a good meal at home because people are to busy working to make ends meat. The money goes back to the rich corporations through fast food establishments and then later drug companies to treat problems that were caused by the bad life style they had to go through. What is worse is the drug companies never find a cure to anything, there is no motivation to find a cure when they can push pills and get you hooked to their monthly subscription of drugs, your choice pay the subscription or die, what will you do?

I find this kind of sad, as long as capitalism lives there will never be a cure for things like obesity and cancer, look at cancer there is no money in curing cancer only in treating it. I know the great Canadian Terry Fox probably would never have run across Canada if he knew what the cancer research industry has become, all he wanted at the time was a million dollars and he felt cancer could be cured, billions have been raised, hell The Princess Margaret Hospital today announced that they reached there goal of $1 billion dollars for their fund raising this year, I want to know where every penny is going, I am pretty sure someone down the line is a billionaire from this crap that is going on.

You say that if there is no money there will be no cure, I find that false the greatest inventors of the past like Albert Einstein or Nikola Tesla were not driven by money, they only wanted to make the lives of people better. Albert Einstein died working at the patent office and Nikola Tesla died in debt, if capitalism was fair these people should have had at least a million dollars to there name at their death but what really happened is corporations stole their work and profited from their inventions. Hollywood owes every last cent to Albert Einstein, they sue the little people for downloading their movies, yet they stole the whole industry from Albert Einstein and the united states government classified some of Nikola Tesla research on free electricity that would have helped the little people because if its free and they couldn't control it how would they take your money. A famous capitalist crook that created cult and recently passed away said "Good artists copy, great artists steal" and that summarizes what capitalism really is, a big frigging theft ring.
1+

Capitalism benefits those with the money who can then hold on to it in perpetuity and keep multiplying it and climb higher on the Forbes list.

Ordinary folks who rely on LABOR that is not indexed with INFLATION and is subject to STAGNATING wages which are PREDETERMINED by SUPPLY & DEMAND mechanics that of course cater to the rich who EMPLOY these people and subsequently MULTIPLY the fruits of their labor DIRECTLY or VICARIOUSLY and therefore forever remain the 1% while the rest of humanity welters in filth in a world that is CLEARLY NOT designed for THEM

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:22 PM

You are seriously delusional.

Not a single corporation cares about anyone but the bottom line. As long as they make money, people can burn and die! The products & services are completely irrelevant to the general aspiration to make money.

If it was otherwise, capitalism would have collapsed a long time ago as companies would have found other ways to "care" about people without getting dragged into the zero-sum profit chasing game. Since the world is as abominable as it is, this clearly hasn't happened which means that companies don't give a damn about anyone but the money.

But how will they make money if people burn and die? If there is no market how will the corporation survive? Is it not in the best interest of the corporations to have their consumers prosper, so as to create future wealth for both the company and the consumers? Caring about money is caring about people. Companies that only care about money usually don't last very long.

stuntman

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:23 PM

So you are going to jump off a cliff if the economist told you so.

I will jump if you jump. You go first Mr. gibberish.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:23 PM

1+

Capitalism benefits those with the money who can then hold on to it in perpetuity and keep multiplying it and climb higher on the Forbes list.

Ordinary folks who rely on LABOR that is not indexed with INFLATION and is subject to STAGNATING wages which are PREDETERMINED by SUPPLY & DEMAND mechanics that of course cater to the rich who EMPLOY these people and subsequently MULTIPLY the fruits of their labor DIRECTLY or VICARIOUSLY and therefore forever remain the 1% while the rest of humanity welters in filth in a world that is CLEARLY NOT designed for THEM

How did those billionaires get their wealth in the first place? Because the society was willing to pay for the products they were providing!!! That's what matters! The society was willing! And they were willing because the benefit from what the billionaires were providing was greater than the costs!

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:24 PM

I will jump if you jump. You go first Mr. gibberish.

Sorry man. I stopped reading the economist long ago.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:28 PM

But how will they make money if people burn and die? If there is no market how will the corporation survive? Is it not in the best interest of the corporations to have their consumers prosper, so as to create future wealth for both the company and the consumers? Caring about money is caring about people. Companies that only care about money usually don't last very long.
Did you watch Moore's "Capitalism" movie? Did you see the part about insurance companies making money from people dying? Any other questions?

"Caring about money is caring about people" is the type of nonsense you would hear from new-age teachers... makes me want to barf more than anything...

The only interest corporations have is to make money. Obviously they wouldn't want the population to die off (not YET anyway) but just be in a bad enough shape for it to desire the services of the company that offers it so they could make money off of them. Death is truly the worst thing that can possibly happen to a "consumer" because the company loses a potential source of profit. Oh wait... how much does a funeral cost? How much does a patch of land cost? How much does a casket cost?

Death was monetized too then! At least when consciousness shuts down, that's it and companies haven't yet managed to monetize the oblivion... the only safe heaven from these faceless caricatures of "care" and "love"

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:32 PM

How did those billionaires get their wealth in the first place? Because the society was willing to pay for the products they were providing!!! That's what matters! The society was willing! And they were willing because the benefit from what the billionaires were providing was greater than the costs!
Just for your information.. majority of billionaires in Forbes... privatized and in collusion with the government got their hands on all that money so they could buy yachts/soccer clubs and everything else. So society was willing for them to privatize so that they could become filthy rich?! Are you sane?!

You're incredibly naive... an average person you're referring it (or anyone for that matter) doesn't really think about "oh that makes this guy/corporation rich". They just buy what they need. Just because the billionaires managed to swallow the competition and hog all the resources behind the scenes outside of everyone's view... doesn't mean that the average person knows or even cares about that because he is living the life society prescribes to him and that's it.

When life's RESOURCES are STOLEN by someone, a person doesn't CARE where they are or who profits from them - he just wants what he needs and he doesn't care how it got there!

Billionaires/corporations managed to cast a spellbinding curse on everyone that makes it seem as if they work for the "good of mankind" and prosper in the process instead of destroying the world, profiting from all that destruction and then doubling the profit when the society demands services to mend the aforementioned destruction!

I got over your sort of naivete when I was 10 years old and I'm baffled as to why you hold on that absurd rosy view of reality.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:34 PM

Did you watch Moore's "Capitalism" movie? Did you see the part about insurance companies making money from people dying? Any other questions?

"Caring about money is caring about people" is the type of nonsense you would hear from new-age teachers... makes me want to barf more than anything...

The only interest corporations have is to make money. Obviously they wouldn't want the population to die off (not YET anyway) but just be in a bad enough shape for it to desire the services of the company that offers it so they could make money off of them. Death is truly the worst thing that can possibly happen to a "consumer" because the company loses a potential source of profit. Oh wait... how much does a funeral cost? How much does a patch of land cost? How much does a casket cost?

Death was monetized too then! At least when consciousness shuts down, that's it and companies haven't yet managed to monetize the oblivion... the only safe heaven from these faceless caricatures of "care" and "love"

So if one company does something, you automatically generalize that into something that all companies do?

My point is that in order to make money, they have to care about the consumers. They need to ensure that what they do actually adds value to consumers. In that sense, companies do care.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:36 PM

So if one company does something, you automatically generalize that into something that all companies do?

My point is that in order to make money, they have to care about the consumers. They need to ensure that what they do actually adds value to consumers. In that sense, companies do care.
Its funny how you conveniently cherry-picked a single thing from my response and generalized it in your reply. So who is doing the generalizing here? I don't need to be convinced of anything.... but you should seriously drop your childish views of reality. In no sense do they care about anything but money. As I said already, you're delusional.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:39 PM

In no sense do they care about anything but money. As I said already, you're delusional.

But getting money means that they care. If company packaged dog sh*t and sold it in stores would it sell? Whatever they offer has to add value to the consumers themselves. When you buy a computer you buy it because it adds value to your life. When you go buy a burger it's because it adds value to your life. In other words, they care. Your life was enriched by someone else, and for that you paid a price for it. Is it so hard to understand?

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:43 PM

But getting money means that they care. If company packaged dog sh*t and sold it in stores would it sell? Whatever they offer has to add value to the consumers themselves. When you buy a computer you buy it because it adds value to your life. When you go buy a burger it's because it adds value to your life. In other words, they care. Your life was enriched by someone else, and for that you paid a price for it. Is it so hard to understand?
You are missing my point.

I already told you that corporations HOGGED. You want to check what it means in a dictionary? "take greedily; take more than one's share" ALL the resources of life and now dare to put a PRICE-TAG on that and stipulate who is allowed access to it and who is not just because they need to make a profit to make the CEOs rich. Where the hell does it reek here of "they make money hence they care"?!

None of the capitalistic doohickeys add any value to anyone's life. Its wants that are artificially made by the advertisement industry and maintained so that corporations could continue to turn in a profit.

If corporations cared, they would not engage in the capitalism game at all and resources would be free for everyone to share and enjoy and every product would be created due to the overarching desire to HELP each other and PROGRESS humanity. PERIOD.

In the current system, the only motivation is money and greed.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:46 PM

You are missing my point.

I already told you that corporations HOGGED. You want to check what it means in a dictionary? "take greedily; take more than one's share" ALL the resources of life and now dare to put a PRICE-TAG on that and stipulate who is allowed access to it and who is not just because they need to make a profit to make the CEOs rich. Where the hell does it reek here of "they make money hence they care"?!

If corporations cared, they would not engage in the capitalism game at all and resources would free for everyone to share and enjoy. PERIOD.

Resources are 'hogged' because only certain people in a given society know what to do with them to make something useful out of it. If you were given access to crude oil by yourself would you know what to do with it? If you owned a patch of land with natural gas would you know what to do with it? Someone with knowledge of what to do to make those resources useful is needed. Someone has to take ownership, because otherwise, there would be no incentive to make something useful out of it. I hope you understand that. I tried to put it into as simple terms as possible for you.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:50 PM

Resources are 'hogged' because only certain people in a given society know what to do with them to make something useful out of it. If you were given access to crude oil by yourself would you know what to do with it? If you owned a patch of land with natural gas would you know what to do with it? Someone with knowledge of what to do to make those resources useful is needed. Someone has to take ownership, because otherwise, there would be no incentive to make something useful out of it. I hope you understand that. I tried to put it into as simple terms as possible for you.
Don't pull this grandstanding game of yours as if you understand more than anyone else.

There is no "because". They shouldn't be "hogged". PERIOD! You either help humanity by converting these resources to something desirable for ALL (themselves and everyone else) with NO price tag or you LEAVE them alone (if that's the sort of bastard you are) and go back to your cave for the next hunter-gatherer meal.

Even if not everyone knows what to do with it, corporations or these individuals have NO RIGHT to take away resources and then make a profit off of them regardless of how smart they are or whether they could make anything useful out of it. Humanity doesn't exist to be enslaved eternally by money. Motivation should NOT come from money but from a desire as I have already said, to help humanity and help people. People like Tesla, Einstein and others were not driven by money but by curiosity and desire to help HUMANITY move forward and everyone to be prosperous.

There is absolutely no justification for any act of these rich people or their corporations. None whatsoever.

stuntman

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:55 PM

Syne

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:56 PM

Jonas Salk said it best when he came up with the Polio vaccine.

When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun? source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk)

We need more Salks in the world and less a-trees.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 08:56 PM

People buy thing usually be cause they THINK it adds value to their lives. Material possessions often do not ad value to lives. Eating junk food ads less value to a persons life than buying and eating an orange but they buy the junk food.

People do actually buy bad products in droves.
People buy things they don't need too.

How is this done? Marketing. Marketing includes all the unscrupulous practices such as lying....but it is OK...as long as people buy it. because all consumption is good, right?
+1

Thank you!

RFD has rational people after all!

Jonas Salk said it best when he came up with the Polio vaccine.

When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun? source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk)

We need more Salks in the world and less a-trees.
Precisely! Salks, Einsteins and others like them.
I seriously LOL-ed here at your timely snide ;) We also need less DearSummer's...

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 09:00 PM

Don't pull this grandstanding game of yours as if you understand more than anyone else.

There is no "because". They shouldn't be "hogged". PERIOD! You either help humanity by converting these resources to something desirable for ALL (themselves and everyone else) with NO price tag or you LEAVE them alone (if that's the sort of bastard you are) and go back to your cave for the next hunter-gatherer meal.

Even if not everyone knows what to do with it, corporations or these individuals have NO RIGHT to take away resources and then make a profit off of them regardless of how smart they are or whether they could make anything useful out of it. Humanity doesn't exist to be enslaved eternally by money. Motivation should NOT come from money but from a desire as I have already said, to help humanity and help people. People like Tesla, Einstein and others were not driven by money but by curiosity and desire to help HUMANITY move forward and everyone to be prosperous.

There is absolutely no justification for any act of these rich people or their corporations. None whatsoever.

Why would someone just volunteer their time and money for the good of all with no other incentive attached? Are you the one to drill hundreds of feet underground to dig up some oil and just give it to the world because it's the 'right' thing to do and don't get rewarded for it? The world doesn't work like that. Don't you understand that in order to make something useful from something that has no use by itself, someone has to take ownership? Ownership gives incentive because they can convert it and sell it back for a profit.

Scientists didn't spend thousands of hours in their labs and studies for the benefit of others. They did because of their own curiosity for the world. Is it so hard to believe? It's probably safe to assume Einstein wasn't motivated by money. But he certainly wasn't motivated to 'help' people either. He was motivated by something that made him feel good.

Syne

Apr 12th, 2012, 09:05 PM

Why would someone just volunteer their time and money for the good of all with no other incentive attached?

It's tough to explain the concept of philanthropy to a bottom-dweller such as yourself. It's like dumping a box of Milk Bones on the kitchen floor and telling the dog to "just eat 1" - You just aren't going to get it.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 09:06 PM

Why would someone just volunteer their time and money for the good of all with no other incentive attached? Are you the one to drill hundreds of feet underground to dig up some oil and just give it to the world because it's the 'right' thing to do and don't get rewarded for it? The world doesn't work like that. Don't you understand that in order to make something useful from something that has no use by itself, someone has to take ownership? Ownership gives incentive because they can convert it and sell it back for a profit.

Scientists didn't spend thousands of hours in their labs and studies for the benefit of others. They did because of their own curiosity for the world. Is it so hard to believe? It's probably safe to assume Einstein wasn't motivated by money. But he certainly wasn't motivated to 'help' people either. He was motivated by something that made him feel good.
You are seriously misguided here.

Scientists are motivated by curiosity and also a desire to help people and move the world forward (because that's what science is about). Capitalism and its money games has absolutely nothing to do with it!

This sense of "ownership" is precisely the reason why we are so screwed and why we live in this horrible system. Ownership DOES NOT give incentive to anyone but GREEDY bastards who want to take all the credit and end up with MORE than anyone else! The "right" thing to do is exactly what everyone has to do or NOT touch it at all if their motivation is anything BUT that!

Can you stop with your capitalistic drivel? We already have a couple of hard-headed capitalists here who think like you and you guys are clearly not the best representations of what our species has to offer if you attempt to justify this marauding system that reworks the "survival of the fittest" theory of Darwin in economic terms and tries to apply it to everyone as if there is no other way of making things work!

Pure drivel.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 09:09 PM

It's tough to explain the concept of philanthropy to a bottom-dweller such as yourself. It's like dumping a box of Milk Bones on the kitchen floor and telling the dog to "just eat 1" - You just aren't going to get it.
The only problem with philanthropy to my greatest chagrin is that it is done within a system that simply cannot systematically accommodate it no matter how many Bill Gates or Warren Buffets it has. Even if they donate all of their billions, this is not going to change a god damn thing because you simply cannot solve problems with more money. You need to banish capitalism and install a new system... then you wouldn't need money to begin with...

Syne

Apr 12th, 2012, 09:11 PM

I believe in progress. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here trying to convert the O Learys of the world to the side of light.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 09:13 PM

I believe in progress. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here trying to convert the O Leary's of the world to the side of light.
Progress has to be attained by abolishing money and instituting a new system. Otherwise no one would care to solve anything. Government doesn't solve problems - it preserves old problems and creates new ones. Money also preserves old and creates new problems. EVERYTHING in this system is constructed in such a way that it corrodes and destroys everything good and leaves only greed and pursuit of bottom-line.

I believe in progress too and there are proposals out there light-years ahead of this outdated system we call "capitalism".

More like "crapisalism"

stuntman

Apr 12th, 2012, 09:16 PM

JSz

Apr 12th, 2012, 09:46 PM

Why would someone just volunteer their time and money for the good of all with no other incentive attached? Are you the one to drill hundreds of feet underground to dig up some oil and just give it to the world because it's the 'right' thing to do and don't get rewarded for it? The world doesn't work like that. Don't you understand that in order to make something useful from something that has no use by itself, someone has to take ownership? Ownership gives incentive because they can convert it and sell it back for a profit.

Scientists didn't spend thousands of hours in their labs and studies for the benefit of others. They did because of their own curiosity for the world. Is it so hard to believe? It's probably safe to assume Einstein wasn't motivated by money. But he certainly wasn't motivated to 'help' people either. He was motivated by something that made him feel good.

If the world needs oil then the profit created should be shared equally with everyone from the CEO at the top to the workers at the bottom and some to the people that own the land, everyone of those people are equals but they don't get their fair share, they are all owners in some way but only the one at the top gets the most money. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme, only the rich at the top get rich, eventually pyramid schemes collapse and the time for capitalism to fall is near. The funny thing is pyramid schemes are illegal, yet most people don't see the biggest pyramid scheme of all.

I would have to disagree with Einstein not helping people, come on man if I remember correctly he has like 1000+ patents, though I may be getting confused with Thomas Edison, I would have to hit the books to differentiate who did what, someone can correct me if they wish. Today you can't really do what makes you feel good, all the matters is how much money you have to get through life, there are millions of people out there that can make the world a better place but they can't because they need money even to die like what was mentioned before.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 09:52 PM

If the world needs oil then the profit created should be shared equally with everyone from the CEO at the top to the workers at the bottom and some to the people that own the land, everyone of those people are equals but they don't get their fair share, they are all owners in some way but only the one at the top gets the most money. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme, only the rich at the top get rich, eventually pyramid schemes collapse and the time for capitalism to fall is near. The funny thing is pyramid schemes are illegal, yet most people don't see the biggest pyramid scheme of all.

I would have to disagree with Einstein not helping people, come on man if I remember correctly he has like 1000+ patents, though I may be getting confused with Thomas Edison, I would have to hit the books to differentiate who did what, someone can correct me if they wish. Today you can't really do what makes you feel good, all the matters is how much money you have to get through life, there are millions of people out there that can make the world a better place but they can't because they need money even to die like what was mentioned before.
I am glad all the thinking people came out of the woodwork... finally! Thankfully, it's not just hard-nosed capitalists here...

JSz

Apr 12th, 2012, 10:21 PM

I am glad all the thinking people came out of the woodwork... finally! Thankfully, it's not just hard-nosed capitalists here...

Well the Hot Deals part of the site now only attracts people that want to take advantage of deals to make a profit, not to buy something they need. Most of the good people left years ago and its only getting worse... like the world.

Agafaba

Apr 12th, 2012, 10:25 PM

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 10:56 PM

It's tough to explain the concept of philanthropy to a bottom-dweller such as yourself. It's like dumping a box of Milk Bones on the kitchen floor and telling the dog to "just eat 1" - You just aren't going to get it.

Philanthropy and working for others with no pay are different things.

You are seriously misguided here.

Scientists are motivated by curiosity and also a desire to help people and move the world forward (because that's what science is about). Capitalism and its money games has absolutely nothing to do with it!

This sense of "ownership" is precisely the reason why we are so screwed and why we live in this horrible system. Ownership DOES NOT give incentive to anyone but GREEDY bastards who want to take all the credit and end up with MORE than anyone else! The "right" thing to do is exactly what everyone has to do or NOT touch it at all if their motivation is anything BUT that!

Can you stop with your capitalistic drivel? We already have a couple of hard-headed capitalists here who think like you and you guys are clearly not the best representations of what our species has to offer if you attempt to justify this marauding system that reworks the "survival of the fittest" theory of Darwin in economic terms and tries to apply it to everyone as if there is no other way of making things work!

Pure drivel.

Ownership is everything. Owning something gives you incentive to make changes, to make things better to what you own and sell it back to the society for your hard work. The society in turn is willing to pay, because the benefit is greater than its costs. It's such a simple concept I don't know why you guys are struggling so hard with it.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 10:57 PM

There is beneficial and good motivational forces.
There are evil motivational forces.

There are beneficial good results.
There are bad results.

Scientists are often driven by good motivational forces. Who cares if they like it or not. They like it for the good of all and maintaining the worlds resources, not gobbling them up.

How misguided are you? It seems you are motivated by the need to be wrong.

Nice poem.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 10:59 PM

If the world needs oil then the profit created should be shared equally with everyone from the CEO at the top to the workers at the bottom and some to the people that own the land, everyone of those people are equals but they don't get their fair share, they are all owners in some way but only the one at the top gets the most money. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme, only the rich at the top get rich, eventually pyramid schemes collapse and the time for capitalism to fall is near. The funny thing is pyramid schemes are illegal, yet most people don't see the biggest pyramid scheme of all.

I would have to disagree with Einstein not helping people, come on man if I remember correctly he has like 1000+ patents, though I may be getting confused with Thomas Edison, I would have to hit the books to differentiate who did what, someone can correct me if they wish. Today you can't really do what makes you feel good, all the matters is how much money you have to get through life, there are millions of people out there that can make the world a better place but they can't because they need money even to die like what was mentioned before.

Profit absolutely not be shared equally from ceo to the front line worker. Profit should be shared according to what the other party is willing to pay. Einstein doens't have a 1000+ patents. You obviously don't know who Einstein is. But that's ok. I didn't expect you to know anything.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:03 PM

Haha you are so delusional, this is optimism at its finest.

Hey guys, I had a shower today, not because I like to be clean but because I know that bad smells can be irritating for other people. Same reason I ate today, not because I was hungry but because how inconvenient it would be for society if I died in my living room. I think I might go buy a snack, not because I want a snack mind you, but because I care about Mac's financial situation.

Corporations don't care about you the way your mother does. Corporations care that their products add value to your life, which is the reason why you buy the damn thing in the first place. Value. It adds something to that worthless, mundane, pathetic life of yours. In return for this value, you pay a price. The corp. makes money. This is how the world works.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:12 PM

Corporations don't care about you the way your mother does. Corporations care that their products add value to your life, which is the reason why you buy the damn thing in the first place. Value. It adds something to that worthless, mundane, pathetic life of yours. In return for this value, you pay a price. The corp. makes money. This is how the world works.
http://gizmodo.com/5901527/kfc-thailand-exploits-tsunami-to-sell-terror-chicken

"Let's hurry home and follow the earthquake news. And don't forget to order your favorite KFC menu."

Yes, let's. This, in the midst of beach evacuations and panic—the perfect time to sell a bucket. Nothing goes better with crisis than grease and mashed potatoes. Actually that'd probably be a pretty great thing to be stuffing yourself with if you were about to be washed away into death's maw, but pretty screwed up advertising opportunism!

That's how all corporations work my friend. That's the reality. Not you aimless dreaming..

Agafaba

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:16 PM

Corporations don't care about you the way your mother does. Corporations care that their products add value to your life, which is the reason why you buy the damn thing in the first place. Value. It adds something to that worthless, mundane, pathetic life of yours. In return for this value, you pay a price. The corp. makes money. This is how the world works.

Corporations caring if something adds value to my life and corporations caring if I will buy their product are two very different things. I dont know if you should be talking about how worthless someones life is while at the same time worshiping money and greed.... unless you measure a life's worth by its income.

You really have to take a moment and realize, most of us dont agree with you because your world view is warped, not because we think that companies should give their product away.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:18 PM

Philanthropy and working for others with no pay are different things.

Ownership is everything. Owning something gives you incentive to make changes, to make things better to what you own and sell it back to the society for your hard work. The society in turn is willing to pay, because the benefit is greater than its costs. It's such a simple concept I don't know why you guys are struggling so hard with it.

Profit absolutely not be shared equally from ceo to the front line worker. Profit should be shared according to what the other party is willing to pay. Einstein doens't have a 1000+ patents. You obviously don't know who Einstein is. But that's ok. I didn't expect you to know anything.

You sir.. are hopeless. I give up.

Agafaba

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:20 PM

You sir.. are hopeless. I give up.

I realized that a while ago, its why I am having trouble responding even remotely seriously.

a-tree

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:26 PM

http://gizmodo.com/5901527/kfc-thailand-exploits-tsunami-to-sell-terror-chicken

That's how all corporations work my friend. That's the reality. Not you aimless dreaming..

What's wrong with selling chicken? What's wrong with making money? I admit that was a crass thing to do on KFC's part. But can you tell me what's wrong with making money? What's wrong with wanting more money? Was anyone hurt by this advertisement?

Corporations caring if something adds value to my life and corporations caring if I will buy their product are two very different things. I dont know if you should be talking about how worthless someones life is while at the same time worshiping money and greed.... unless you measure a life's worth by its income.

You really have to take a moment and realize, most of us dont agree with you because your world view is warped, not because we think that companies should give their product away.

It's exactly the same thing. Corporations care about things that will add value to a customer's life, because that's the only reason why he will buy the product in the first place! In order for corporations to care about you buying their product, they have to care that the product adds value as well! Get it yet? Or do you need more help?

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:32 PM

What's wrong with selling chicken? What's wrong with making money? I admit that was a crass thing to do on KFC's part. But can you tell me what's wrong with making money? What's wrong with wanting more money? Was anyone hurt by this advertisement?
Its too bad this ad was run so that the CEOs could depredate all resources so that everyone lives like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMnil9Jxrx8&feature=related

While the CEOs live like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cps42IRMGFE#!

Agafaba

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:35 PM

What's wrong with selling chicken? What's wrong with making money? I admit that was a crass thing to do on KFC's part. But can you tell me what's wrong with making money? What's wrong with wanting more money? Was anyone hurt by this advertisement?

It's exactly the same thing. Corporations care about things that will add value to a customer's life, because that's the only reason why he will buy the product in the first place! In order for corporations to care about you buying their product, they have to care that the product adds value as well! Get it yet? Or do you need more help?

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money, there is nothing wrong with wanting more money, the only question is by what means does someone do it. Do you honestly believe that KFC paid hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising in an offensive way to add value to victims of a natural disaster?

Every sales person that has lied, every company with sketchy quality, and every manipulative advertisement says your wrong, not to mention the products that are intentionally addictive so that the customers feel like they need it regardless of if it adds value or not.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:42 PM

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money, there is nothing wrong with wanting more money, the only question is by what means does someone do it. Do you honestly believe that KFC paid hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising in an offensive way to add value to victims of a natural disaster?

Every sales person that has lied, every company with sketchy quality, and every manipulative advertisement says your wrong, not to mention the products that are intentionally addictive so that the customers feel like they need it regardless of if it adds value or not.
While I generally agree with your criticism of a-tree on every count... I do have to disagree about money. The capitalistic system and the money system that goes along with it are truly the root of all evil because this is how the system is setup - to breed corruption and structural classism along with planned obsolescence and every other huge issue you'd care to mention.

We need a new system. Not coming up with ways to make more money. So in the current system - yes there is nothing wrong with making more money because you NEED to make more money with the way things are going and with the way you want to live... but SHOULD it be this way? HELL NO! Money should not exist at all. There is only resources and that's it.

Syne

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:45 PM

I'm trying to think of a crevice or subterranean place where an a-tree would come from.

An a-cave?

No...

An a-burrow?

Hm.. Not it

An a-crater?

Nope. Can anyone tell me where a-tree came from?

Agafaba

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:53 PM

While I generally agree with your criticism of a-tree on every count... I do have to disagree about money. The capitalistic system and the money system that goes along with it are truly the root of all evil because this is how the system is setup - to breed corruption and structural classism along with planned obsolescence and every other huge issue you'd care to mention.

We need a new system. Not coming up with ways to make more money. So in the current system - yes there is nothing wrong with making more money because you NEED to make more money with the way things are going and with the way you want to live... but SHOULD it be this way? HELL NO! Money should not exist at all. There is only resources and that's it.

As things are currently I believe Capitalism is necessary, but with a bit of socialism sprinkled on top. I dont believe there is anything wrong with being rich, as long as their method of achieving the wealth isnt immoral.

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:53 PM

I'm trying to think of a crevice or subterranean place where an a-tree would come from.

An a-cave?

No...

An a-burrow?

Hm.. Not it

An a-crater?

Nope. Can anyone tell me where a-tree came from?
Watch the video I posted earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=cps42IRMGFE#!

He came from the underground bunker there...

Agafaba

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:53 PM

anyasok

Apr 12th, 2012, 11:54 PM

As things are currently I believe Capitalism is necessary, but with a bit of socialism sprinkled on top. I dont believe there is anything wrong with being rich, as long as their method of achieving the wealth isnt immoral.
Well at least you are far more reasonable than a-tree so I can live with that ;)

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 12:08 AM

I give. I know I can't convince you all. But I am confident that you will see the truth for yourselves one day.

anyasok

Apr 13th, 2012, 12:23 AM

I give. I know I can't convince you all. But I am confident that you will see the truth for yourselves one day.
One day I will also see the afterlife... or not...

JSz

Apr 13th, 2012, 01:15 AM

Has anyone else here realized that we don't really own much anymore? Our homes aren't ours unless we pay for property taxes, we can't own a car unless you renew your sticker, software on your computer is licensed to use you don't own it, the back of sports tickets say you don't own the ticket you have the privilege to attend an event, even money is never yours it is the property of the government and they can take it back any time they want and hell my birth certificate is also property of the government, does that mean I am not really a person if I don't have a birth certificate? The government owns me.

PS. Yes after spending sometime reading because I have a bad memory, I messed up Thomas Edison with Einstein, everything else still stands including Hollywood screwing Edison out of the industry he created.

Syne

Apr 13th, 2012, 01:26 AM

I own nothing of value but my lifestyle is quite good. I figure once I die, they can have whatever little bit is left. I can't take it with me anyways. It's how I spend my time on Earth that counts.

motto1997

Apr 13th, 2012, 03:14 AM

For A-Tree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOPkGAtt48

MrKap

Apr 13th, 2012, 03:26 AM

Looks like Iceland did it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/iceland-channels-volcanoes-to-win-europe-s-clean-energy-supply-race.html

Iceland Channels Volcanoes in Europe's Energy-Supply Race
By Omar R. Valdimarsson - Feb 28, 2011 10:33 AM ET

Europeans left stranded at airports last year as an Icelandic volcano spewed ash across the continent may soon benefit from the power that seethes beneath the remote north Atlantic island.

Iceland is doing a feasibility study into building a 1,170- kilometer (727-mile) power cable to Scotland to send some of its untapped potential of 18 terawatt-hours of geothermal and hydropower -- that’s enough for 5 million European homes. The project has the backing of the government, Industry Minister Katrin Juliusdottir said in an interview.

“Icelanders live with earthquakes and volcanic activity but the benefits are that now we can monetize these powers,” said Valdimar Armann, an economist at Reykjavik-based asset manager GAMMA, who estimates annual clean-energy exports could reach about a tenth of the island’s $12 billion economy.

DearSummer

Apr 13th, 2012, 03:27 AM

For A-Tree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOPkGAtt48

Haha are you serious?

motto1997

Apr 13th, 2012, 03:32 AM

Haha are you serious?

You asked earlier how science can manage society. This man, 38 years ago, knew the answer to that simple question. I won't bother feeding a troll, so I'll leave it at that.

But I do find it funny that a 95 year old man is walking around some place in Florida, with a clearer vision of reality than you.

MrKap

Apr 13th, 2012, 03:38 AM

The engineers at Google have worked on automated cars, just like it's mentioned in that video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

The Google Driverless Car is a project by Google that involves developing technology for driverless cars. The project is currently being led by Google engineer Sebastian Thrun, director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and co-inventor of Google Street View, whose team at Stanford created the robotic vehicle Stanley which won the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge and its US$2 million prize from the United States Department of Defense.[1] The team developing the system consisted of 15 engineers working for Google, including Chris Urmson, Mike Montemerlo, and Anthony Levandowski who had worked on the DARPA Grand and Urban Challenges.[2]

In any event, I recognize that guy in the video, he's the same guy who has this concept...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project

The Venus Project is a social sustainability advocacy organization started by structural engineer, industrial designer, and futurist Jacque Fresco, with the aim of improving society through the worldwide utilization of a theoretical design that it calls a "resource-based economy". The model aims to incorporate sustainable cities and values, energy efficiency, collective farms, natural resource management and advanced automation into a global socio-economic system based on social cooperation and scientific methodology.

He will probably be one of those guys, people credit with the future, when people look back 50 years from now.

motto1997

Apr 13th, 2012, 03:50 AM

Looks like Iceland did it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-28/iceland-channels-volcanoes-to-win-europe-s-clean-energy-supply-race.html

Yes, Geothermal power can fuel the world for thousands of years. However in a Capitalistic system, it is expensive to take part in and profits if any, wouldn't exist for sometime.

If we elected the scientific method in charge of controlling the world's resources, the world wouldn't be in the shape it is today.

Science really is our only salvation from almost every single global problem you can think of. As cheesy as that sounds, mankind's only clear collective objective is to get off this finite rock. I really don't see how free market capitalism is going to achieve that. And if that is the case, then why do we continue to allow such an ancient concept, rule our lives? Are we not meant to evolve as a society, the same as our species?

MrKap

Apr 13th, 2012, 04:00 AM

When it's resources, cheap and efficient is always good, and that's pretty much what capitalism is all about. Investing into profitable areas for development.

There are also downsides, and that pretty much has to do with conflict between competitors, and the necessity of earning money.

I don't necessarily think capitalism is bad. If anything is bad it's complacent consumers, and an uneducated public.

There is a conflict though, and it probably has to do with monopolies, and unemployment rates. How's that? Whenever a business dominates an industry and it reaches the perfect efficientcy, or is favored the most ,others naturally suffer as the system basically requires competition to keep everyone earning money.

The other downsides are the way people purposely build cheap products, to get prices down, and keep them coming back for more once the original is broken or outdated, which just creates a lot of waste.

motto1997

Apr 13th, 2012, 04:00 AM

The engineers at Google have worked on automated cars, just like it's mentioned in that video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

In any event, I recognize that guy in the video, he's the same guy who has this concept...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project

He will probably be one of those guys, people credit with the future, when people look back 50 years from now.

I agree. It's just sad, such simple, child-like reasoning can instil such fear, confusion and doubt in so many people's minds.

What is so difficult to comprehend that there is something inherently wrong with ONE hedge fund executive making more than 1/5th of NASA's 2011 budget. A budget mind you, used to employ, thousands of the brightest minds to improve all of our lives with ground breaking research.

Every dime the 1% siphon off the 99% is a dime taken away from improving everyone's standard of living.

motto1997

Apr 13th, 2012, 04:06 AM

When it's resources, cheap and efficient is always good, and that's pretty much what capitalism is all about. Investing into profitable areas for development.

There are also downsides, and that pretty much has to do with conflict between competitors, and the necessity of earning money.

I don't necessarily think capitalism is bad. If anything is bad it's complacent consumers, and an uneducated public.

True. But then again, it's not profitable to educate consumers, now is it. Look at advertising. A useless profession, that damages more minds and produces less for society than say the public library. But in this system, a place like the public library couldn't even exist without government intervention. And advertising generates billions yearly on it's own. It's an absolute joke.

I know it's the best we got at the moment but there are still major holes in it.

MrKap

Apr 13th, 2012, 04:18 AM

Not all advertising is bad. It's a form of educating the public about a new brand or service. Maybe advertising will change with the internet when people realize that people want to know more about what they are buying. Rather than be lectured with the same non-offensive 30 second spot, over and over and over again.

I must admit though, there is a recent crop of television advertising which really just wants to be a feature film or a short movie, which are highly annoying and borderline offensive. I can't seem to get my head around the purpose of the superbowl ads to be honest. I guess it's better to show the same 30 seconds of entertainment a thousand times over, than it is to make one quality long educational and real TV ad. Infomercials sort of give away how people really feel about consumers.

DearSummer

Apr 13th, 2012, 08:55 AM

You asked earlier how science can manage society. This man, 38 years ago, knew the answer to that simple question. I won't bother feeding a troll, so I'll leave it at that.

But I do find it funny that a 95 year old man is walking around some place in Florida, with a clearer vision of reality than you.

Creating a utopian society where everything is automated, we get our power from volanos without producing carbon, and nobody has to work is "the answer"? Let me know when that is feasible and not a complete pipe dream. It's like me saying that the answer to traffic is personal teleportation devices. :D:facepalm:

DearSummer

Apr 13th, 2012, 08:56 AM

I own nothing of value but my lifestyle is quite good. I figure once I die, they can have whatever little bit is left. I can't take it with me anyways. It's how I spend my time on Earth that counts.

I would imagine your thoughts on this will change if/when you have a family. You will want to leave your spouse (if alive) and your kids with something.

DearSummer

Apr 13th, 2012, 08:59 AM

I agree. It's just sad, such simple, child-like reasoning can instil such fear, confusion and doubt in so many people's minds.

What is so difficult to comprehend that there is something inherently wrong with ONE hedge fund executive making more than 1/5th of NASA's 2011 budget. A budget mind you, used to employ, thousands of the brightest minds to improve all of our lives with ground breaking research.

Every dime the 1% siphon off the 99% is a dime taken away from improving everyone's standard of living.

The idea that the pie is a finite size is typical socialist thinking. This could not be further from the truth.

Did Bill Gates syphon off wealth from the "99%" to get rich? No, he made EVERYBODY's lives better by running a successful business and providing a product that improved our standard of living.

flashy_mcflash

Apr 13th, 2012, 08:59 AM

I would imagine your thoughts on this will change if/when you have a family. You will want to leave your spouse (if alive) and your kids with something.No, DS. The free market will take care of them. If the market determines my family should be wealthy, then so be it. Let them pull themselves up by their bootstraps and be good little job creators. Sink or swim. The free market doesn't reward or allow for emotions and feelings. What's that, little Jimmy? You want a new toy? Then go out there, create some wealth, and earn it.

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 11:05 AM

For A-Tree:

For motto1997:

Econ 101

Syne

Apr 13th, 2012, 01:37 PM

I would imagine your thoughts on this will change if/when you have a family. You will want to leave your spouse (if alive) and your kids with something.

Why should they profit off of my work? Doesn't that distort the free market, where everyone gets only what they deserve?

Come to think of it, if I left my kids more money than the guy next to me, it will likely make it so my kid has more advantages in life. How is that fair when these kids didn't pick their fathers? Seems like what you're advocating is an uneven playing field.

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 03:59 PM

Why should they profit off of my work? Doesn't that distort the free market, where everyone gets only what they deserve?

Come to think of it, if I left my kids more money than the guy next to me, it will likely make it so my kid has more advantages in life. How is that fair when these kids didn't pick their fathers? Seems like what you're advocating is an uneven playing field.

What you deserve in the free market is what the other person is willing to pay. If someone wants to pay you $16k a year for your work, then that's what you deserve. If your daddy wants to bequeath $50billion in inheritance, that's what you deserve. The 'fairness' of the exchange is determined only by the participants, not what an outside 3rd person (i.e. you) views as 'fair'.

DearSummer

Apr 13th, 2012, 04:36 PM

Syne

Apr 13th, 2012, 05:07 PM

What you deserve in the free market is what the other person is willing to pay. If someone wants to pay you $16k a year for your work, then that's what you deserve. If your daddy wants to bequeath $50billion in inheritance, that's what you deserve. The 'fairness' of the exchange is determined only by the participants, not what an outside 3rd person (i.e. you) views as 'fair'.

Then the market is nonsense because it isn't objective. The word deserve here is also nonsense.

Here's how dictionary.com defines the word.

de·serve
[dih-zurv] verb, de·served, de·serv·ing.
verb (used with object) To merit, or be qualified for (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation: to deserve exile; to deserve charity; a theory that deserves consideration.

But your definition doesn't include merit or qualification at all. It's just your own made-up definition. In your world, people deserve something because someone else says they do. There are no checks or balances or mitigating factors. You get to start out rich because this guy says so, and you are poor because nobody said you could be rich. Now here's the starting line, you start up here and you start back here. Ready, Set, Go!

So why in the world would I get behind such a system unless it benefited me directly to do so?

You talk about how perfect the free market is because of its simplicity, but it really just allows a handful of already wealthy people to engage in unchecked favourtism. You said it yourself, if you're not participating in the free market, your voice won't get heard. So the answer is for as many people as possible to stop participating. That's really what class warfare is, a bunch of people supporting a market where they derive the most value, and a bunch of other people rejecting that same market because the same amount of effort won't give the same results. It says nothing of value or work ethic or who deserves what. It's just an unfair system where some people benefit more than others, calorie for calorie, and more often than not it's a roll of the dice that decides who starts where.

It's so crystal clear to me that government intervention is needed to level the playing field. It's like 1+1=2. How that escapes you, I have no idea.

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 05:20 PM

Then the market is nonsense because it isn't objective.

Why in the world would I get behind such a system unless it benefited me directly to do so?

You talk about how perfect the free market is because of its simplicity, but it really just allows a handful of already wealthy people to engage in unchecked favourtism. You said it yourself, if you're not participating in the free market, your voice won't get heard. So the answer is for as many people as possible to stop participating. That's really what class warfare is, a bunch of people supporting a market where they derive the most value, and a bunch of other people rejecting that same market because it does nothing for them.

What does it mean the market isn't objective? It's objective in the sense that it satisfies both parties. The price agreed on is the price fair for both parties, which is why they agreed to it in the first place.

How many billionaires do you think are billionaires because of inheritance? Most billionaires are billionaires because they added value to the society and the society was willing to pay for what they were contributing. Was Bill Gates born into a billionaire family? Was Steve Jobs born into a billionaire family? Were the RIM founders? Did Sam Walton start out as a billionaire? Was George Soros born a billionaire? Was Warren Buffet? These guys all knew the rules of the game and played it for maximum payoff for themselves. They added something to the society no one else could and the society paid them back. That's all it is. How come the game worked for these guys and not for you? The problem isn't the game, it's your mind, your attitude, your ignorance.

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 05:24 PM

Then the market is nonsense because it isn't objective. The word deserve here is also nonsense.

Here's how dictionary.com defines the word.

But your definition doesn't include merit or qualification at all. It's just your own made-up definition. In your world, people deserve something because someone else says they do. There are no checks or balances or mitigating factors. You get to start out rich because this guy says so, and you are poor because nobody said you could be rich. Now here's the starting line, you start up here and you start back here. Ready, Set, Go!

So why in the world would I get behind such a system unless it benefited me directly to do so?

You talk about how perfect the free market is because of its simplicity, but it really just allows a handful of already wealthy people to engage in unchecked favourtism. You said it yourself, if you're not participating in the free market, your voice won't get heard. So the answer is for as many people as possible to stop participating. That's really what class warfare is, a bunch of people supporting a market where they derive the most value, and a bunch of other people rejecting that same market because it does nothing for them. It says nothing of value or work ethic or who deserves what. It's just an unfair system where some people benefit and some people don't, and more often than not it's a roll of the dice that decides.

It's so crystal clear to me that government intervention is needed to level the playing field. It's like 1+1=2. How that escapes you, I have no idea.

Why are you reading me so literally? Why would you even think that my use of the word 'deserve' is that according to the dictionary. When I say deserve, I'm talking about the fairness and the function of prices. A price is essentially an agreed upon value of something that is equal to both parties involved. That what it means to say you deserve something, in my use of the term. Because both parties agreed to the same value, that's what makes the price, the wage, etc. deserving. If the society isn't willing to pay you more than $16 for your services, then you don't deserve a shred of a penny more. Seriously. Get that idea in your head. Just because my usage of the term doesn't equate to that of the dictionary, it doesn't mean the idea is invalid. Fairness is determined by prices.

Syne

Apr 13th, 2012, 05:34 PM

What does it mean the market isn't objective? It's objective in the sense that it satisfies both parties. The price agreed on is the price fair for both parties, which is why they agreed to it in the first place.

That's not the market, that's a transaction. The market doesn't exist between two parties. The mixed market we currently enjoy is the forest and the transactions are the trees. It seems you're having trouble discerning the two. The market is a social structure (much like a real market) where lots of people mill about. The regulations in the market prevent things like forcing everyone to line up at one vendor to get an item that could be offered by multiple vendors, and allowing multiple vendors to operate in the same vicinity. This is why we have a mixed market.

When you deregulate the market and allow wealth to be concentrated, people leave the market and start looking for something else that better serves them and that they can afford to shop at. That's basically what the Occupy protests are. A bunch of people forced out of the market, and looking for another system to operate under. One that they can participate in.

Your examples of pricing and 'fairness' would be fine if the market existed in a vacuum or between two individuals, or on a deserted island where everyone got a vote - but forcing people to compete in a market where they have no skin in the game just infuriates them. The endgame is billionaires competing with themselves and everyone else giving them the finger.

How many billionaires do you think are billionaires because of inheritance? Most billionaires are billionaires because they added value to the society and the society was willing to pay for what they were contributing. Was Bill Gates born into a billionaire family? Was Steve Jobs born into a billionaire family? Were the RIM founders? Did Sam Walton start out as a billionaire? Was George Soros born a billionaire? Was Warren Buffet? These guys all knew the rules of the game and played it for maximum payoff for themselves. They added something to the society no one else could and the society paid them back. That's all it is. How come the game worked for these guys and not for you? The problem isn't the game, it's your mind, your attitude, your ignorance.

I've often said that capitalism stokes innovation. At the same time, most examples people use have nothing to do with personal greed and really don't require a free market. Mac, PC and every other Silicon Valley innovation was created in what was a more regulated market than the one in the US today. In fact, the advent of computers was primarily funded and developed by government military interests. Yet, despite tax breaks for the rich and Citizens United, we haven't seen a speedup in innovation, as one of your persuasion might expect.

I am all for mixed markets that reward innovation, but for every Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, there is a Lindsay Lohan and a Paris Hilton and a Chaz Bono, whose careers were predicated on having rich families. The entire concept of a 'socialite' is firmly rooted in nepotism. So keep trotting out the Gates and Jobs examples, and I'll match you, person for person. Who wants to bet that you run out of names before I do?

DearSummer

Apr 13th, 2012, 05:49 PM

Syne and the other anti-capitalists here are the guy with the red fro:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4

Friedman graciously schools him on the pitfalls of an inheritance tax.

anyasok

Apr 13th, 2012, 05:57 PM

DearSummer and a-tree should get married and have capitalistic kids who will then see capitalism being destroyed in the coming years when people like Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco who had this whole thing figured out many years ago will have their ideas realized while you two remain in the cesspool of history with your absurd and misguided beliefs.

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 06:00 PM

That's not the market, that's a transaction. The market doesn't exist between two parties. The mixed market we currently enjoy is the forest and the transactions are the trees. It seems you're having trouble discerning the two. The market is a social structure (much like a real market) where lots of people mill about. The regulations in the market prevent things like forcing everyone to line up at one vendor to get an item that could be offered by multiple vendors, and allowing multiple vendors to operate in the same vicinity. This is why we have a mixed market.

When you deregulate the market and allow wealth to be concentrated, people leave the market and start looking for something else that better serves them and that they can afford to shop at. That's basically what the Occupy protests are. A bunch of people forced out of the market, and looking for another system to operate under. One that they can participate in.

Your examples of pricing and 'fairness' would be fine if the market existed in a vacuum or between two individuals, or on a deserted island where everyone got a vote - but forcing people to compete in a market where they have no skin in the game just infuriates them. The endgame is billionaires competing with themselves and everyone else giving them the finger.

I'm here talking about the fairness of prices. Transactions happen in the market. A market is broad terms is not a singular place where people gather to sell and buy goods, which is the way you're using the term here. I'm here talking about the broader economy in general and how people function in that market through transactions and setting prices. Don't twist the words around.

Occupiers were forced out of the market because they have. no. marketable.skills. If someone could do something the other person valued, they'd have a job. They weren't forced out because the system is inherently unfair, although that kind of slavish thinking only puts the blame on everyone else and not for yourself. It gives you an opportunity justify your laziness and the chance to blame the 'world' for what you can't have. That's the essence of the occupy movement. There's nothing wrong with being unemployed if you're willing to acquire new skills and make a contribution to society. But blaming the 'rich' for taking 'their money' is truly the gutless and slavish thing to do for a human being. I'm glad no gave a rats ***** about that worthless 'movement' and that it's finally died down.

I've often said that capitalism stokes innovation. At the same time, most examples people use have nothing to do with personal greed and really don't require a free market. Mac, PC and every other Silicon Valley innovation was created in what was a more regulated market than the one in the US today. In fact, the advent of computers was primarily funded and developed by government military interests. Yet, despite tax breaks for the rich and Citizens United, we haven't seen a speedup in innovation, as one of your persuasion might expect.

I am all for mixed markets that reward innovation, but for every Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, there is a Lindsay Lohan and a Paris Hilton and a Chaz Bono, whose careers were predicated on having rich families. The entire concept of a 'socialite' is firmly rooted in nepotism. So keep trotting out the Gates and Jobs examples, and I'll match you, person for person. Who wants to bet that you run out of names before I do?

What the hell does being in a regulated market have anything to do with innovation? Regulation does not stoke innovation. My point was that you don't have to be born into a billionaire family to make billions for yourself And now you're talking about how 'regulation, innovation, blah blah bah'? Be coherent. Stick to the topic.

Why the hell are you giving me names like Paris Hilton. Did I say you can't be a billionaire by being born into a billionaire family? Your whole of yapping until now was about how the society is unfair because there are billionaires born into billionaire families, blah blah. And I made the point that even a lowling like you can become a billionaire if you knew the game. That's the point.

Nepotism doesn't really work in real life, if you even know what that is. If Lindsay Lohan became an actress because her daddy knew some friends in the show biz, so what? What's wrong with that. The show biz must have seen some potential in her to even give her to opportunity. If the show biz saw absolutely no money making potential in Lindsay Lohan, they never would have invested a penny on her. Yes, her connections definitely played a part, but at the end of the day, regular channels of success, like an audition, isn't closed off everyone else who's just as talented as her. So you know what? Nepotism isn't as prevalent as you think, because it's is actually bad for everyone involved!! Get it?!!!?! Do you get it now? How many Lindsay Lohans are there? How many people actually end up successful only through their connections while at the same time having zero competence?

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 06:01 PM

Syne

Apr 13th, 2012, 06:06 PM

Friedman graciously schools him on the pitfalls of an inheritance tax.

No, Friedman says that 100% inheritance tax would disincentivize people from investing in their children's future, and instead they would waste the money on high living. Interestingly, he said this over 30 years ago, before the advent of the global economy. There is an interesting cavet to add to this. In today's economy, using that money on high living would actually re-inject it back into the domestic system and keep it from leaking out of our borders, which is a very real concern. The global economy is hurting our middle class, and investments, smart as they may be for the individual, have a way of exiting our economy and making the citizens of Canada poorer.

Inheritance tax should not be 100%. Both of these people have a point. It should be somewhere between 0% and 100%.

DearSummer

Apr 13th, 2012, 06:30 PM

No, Friedman says that 100% inheritance tax would disincentivize people from investing in their children's future, and instead they would waste the money on high living. Interestingly, he said this over 30 years ago, before the advent of the global economy. There is an interesting cavet to add to this. In today's economy, using that money on high living would actually re-inject it back into the domestic system and keep it from leaking out of our borders, which is a very real concern. The global economy is hurting our middle class, and investments, smart as they may be for the individual, have a way of exiting our economy and making the citizens of Canada poorer.

Inheritance tax should not be 100%. Both of these people have a point. It should be somewhere between 0% and 100%.

Thank you for your valuable insight. LOL. :lol:

CDNPatriot

Apr 13th, 2012, 06:37 PM

In a few years people like you will be licking my shoes for a penny.

You sure? Ever heard of a concept called life?

Some people get cancer and die including those in the top one percent.

Some people get into a serious accident and are stuck in a wheelchair.

Or you can be a type A personality thinking you are invincible and next thing you know you suffer an aneurism and keel over into the unknown.

Again... be careful atree.

anyasok

Apr 13th, 2012, 06:58 PM

In a few years people like you will be licking my shoes for a penny.
I wont be licking your shoes a-tree. First of all, its inhumane. Second of all, it reeks of the spirit of capitalism where everyone is a slave to the 1%. Even when trying to make a personal insult indirectly, you come off sounding ridiculous and overzealous to your favorite system.

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 07:02 PM

You sure? Ever heard of a concept called life?

Some people get cancer and die including those in the top one percent.

Some people get into a serious accident and are stuck in a wheelchair.

Or you can be a type A personality thinking you are invincible and next thing you know you suffer an aneurism and keel over into the unknown.

Again... be careful atree.

This is all true. But I'll have tried, while you rot into oblivion, never having had a chance.

Syne

Apr 13th, 2012, 07:05 PM

Thank you for your valuable insight. LOL. :lol:

That's the thanks I get from watching your vintage Youtube videos from the bellbottom era and actually taking time out of my day to comment on the outdated economic policies contained within?

Next you'll be asking me to take cues from McGruff the Crime Dog when it comes to street smarts. Watch out for that coloured man in the parachute pants with the boom box on his shoulder. He's dangerous!

Syne

Apr 13th, 2012, 07:06 PM

In a few years people like you will be licking my shoes for a penny.

Ah, and here is the belly of the beast. The nature of capitalism exposed for all to see.

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 07:08 PM

Ah, and here is the belly of the beast. The nature of capitalism exposed for all to see.

Stop whining about capitalism. Go live your life.

Syne

Apr 13th, 2012, 07:11 PM

Stop whining about capitalism. Go live your life.

Yep, nothing to see here folks. Move along.

divx

Apr 13th, 2012, 07:17 PM

the further we move away from capitalism, the closer we move towards communism, and I hate commies.

anyasok

Apr 13th, 2012, 07:20 PM

the further we move away from capitalism, the closer we move towards communism, and I hate commies.
divx is a fan of misconceptions too.. can we move away from "isms"? Communism or socialism were never really tried in the way they should have if you insist to stay on the subject... they were always followed and undergirded by the corruption of capitalism.

Gets your facts straight.

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 07:27 PM

divx is a fan of misconceptions too.. can we move away from "isms"? Communism or socialism were never really tried in the way they should have if you insist to stay on the subject... they were always followed and undergirded by the corruption of capitalism.

Gets your facts straight.

Capitalism haven't been tried in a way it's supposed to either. If it ever does, I know it would shut you up.

sylpherware

Apr 13th, 2012, 07:33 PM

Capitalism haven't been tried in a way it's supposed to either. If it ever does, I know it would shut you up.

I would say communist China is actually pretty capitalistic right now :lol:

anyasok

Apr 13th, 2012, 07:43 PM

Capitalism haven't been tried in a way it's supposed to either. If it ever does, I know it would shut you up.
What you haven't tried doing a-tree is to actually think. Try doing it once in a while, it might come in handy:facepalm:

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 08:05 PM

What you haven't tried doing a-tree is to actually think. Try doing it once in a while, it might come in handy:facepalm:

What you haven't done is take two seconds out of your life to actually read and educate yourself. Something as useless as Economics for Dummies is sufficient to change your life view. Do it. Educate yourself.

stuntman

Apr 13th, 2012, 08:13 PM

What you haven't done is take two seconds out of your life to actually read and educate yourself. Something as useless as Economics for Dummies is sufficient to change your life view. Do it. Educate yourself.

lol you say some of the dumbest things a-tree.....I recall from some other thread that your knowledge of the subject is limited to wikipedia and a couple of first year economic books. Real life experience and knowledge is something you are sorely lacking. trash talk and gibbberish....you have plenty of that.

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 09:19 PM

lol you say some of the dumbest things a-tree.....I recall from some other thread that your knowledge of the subject is limited to wikipedia and a couple of first year economic books. Real life experience and knowledge is something you are sorely lacking. trash talk and gibbberish....you have plenty of that.

I've never read the wikipedia article. I simply pointed it out to let you know that common knowledge is just a click away. And you're still on here writing garbage instead of educating yourself. What a waste of a life. Oh well, it's yours, not mine.

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 09:32 PM

stuntman

Apr 13th, 2012, 09:51 PM

I've never read the wikipedia article. I simply pointed it out to let you know that common knowledge is just a click away. And you're still on here writing garbage instead of educating yourself. What a waste of a life. Oh well, it's yours, not mine.

Garbage? what garbage? you are the gibberish talking guy. Trash talker and garbage talker. How about backing up that statement? (oh wait...you can't it is just more a-tree trash talk...what does the a stand for anyways?)

I am pretty sure I and others here are far more knowledgeable than you on the subject.
The time you did recommend Wikipedia it was a bust.....barely a page on unions. So you are left with a couple of first year economics books to base you stuff on. You repeat that basic stuff like it is word of God.
It seems there not an original or free thinking thought in your head or real world experience.....so you end up falling back on insults and outrageous comments to troll/throw people off.

You are not a person that has earned any standing to tell others to get educated so keep it down young one.

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 10:46 PM

Garbage? what garbage? you are the gibberish talking guy. Trash talker and garbage talker. How about backing up that statement? (oh wait...you can't it is just more a-tree trash talk...what does the a stand for anyways?)

I am pretty sure I and others here are far more knowledgeable than you on the subject.
The time you did recommend Wikipedia it was a bust.....barely a page on unions. So you are left with a couple of first year economics books to base you stuff on. You repeat that basic stuff like it is word of God.
It seems there not an original or free thinking thought in your head or real world experience.....so you end up falling back on insults and outrageous comments to troll/throw people off.

You are not a person that has earned any standing to tell others to get educated so keep it down young one.

I told you I didn't recommend wikipedia. Do you not know how to read? It was to point that common knowledge is just a click away, because you lack even that. The commonest of all common knowledges.

I get it now. If you had the comprehension skills to understand me, we wouldn't even be arguing. You'd just stay in your place where you belong.

antibasher

Apr 13th, 2012, 11:07 PM

Proper free-market capitalism involves being successful morally, which does not involve killing your competitors or defrauding them, much like today's government and some financial firms. That is called crony capitalism.

Everywhere you look there are pros and noobs in society since human history. Successful people will be looked upon, and noobs will be ignored. You cannot equalize this success. It is impossible. Resistance is futile. Socialism.... will.... FAIL. AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!

stuntman

Apr 13th, 2012, 11:39 PM

I told you I didn't recommend wikipedia. Do you not know how to read? It was to point that common knowledge is just a click away, because you lack even that. The commonest of all common knowledges.

I get it now. If you had the comprehension skills to understand me, we wouldn't even be arguing. You'd just stay in your place where you belong.

Get a thesaurus and your prescription filled school boy.

a-tree

Apr 13th, 2012, 11:43 PM

Get a thesaurus and your prescription filled school boy.

Aw, now you're all mad.

stuntman

Apr 13th, 2012, 11:56 PM

A repeating pattern has emerged. Over that last week or so at least 3 times you go from bad/faulty argument>BS none sense>trash talk> gibberish....
You are very predictable a-tree.

a-tree

Apr 14th, 2012, 12:10 AM

A repeating pattern has emerged. Over that last week or so at least 3 times you go from bad/faulty argument>BS none sense>trash talk> gibberish....
You are very predictable a-tree.

Bad arguments? Good god! You haven't refuted me yet just once man!

Syne

Apr 14th, 2012, 12:42 AM

^ Yes he has

Refuted!

a-tree

Apr 14th, 2012, 12:55 AM

^ Yes he has

Refuted!

Where? What about you? After my last response you just cowered yourself away. But this has been a habit of yours. So I understand.

Needinghelp

Apr 14th, 2012, 12:57 AM

a-tree and DearSummer should start their own forum. They're meant for one another... While the rest of us actually have a conscious and have ethics towards our fellow human beings, instead of stepping all over the poor people just to make a quick buck and kicking them while they're down. Probably would be a great idea!

In a few years people like you will be licking my shoes for a penny.

Well, we've come to the realization that corrupt and unethical trash like yourself (who take the pleasure of continually stealing from the poor and being a greedy SOB, just to make a few extra bucks at the expense of people who can barely live and get by in their day-to-day life because they can barely afford food and shelter) will rot and burn in the bottom depths of hell. You'll soon come to realize the mistakes and evil that you've committed in this world.

This life doesn't last forever and by the time you realize that, it'll be too late. And then you'll answer for your crimes and sins against your fellow brothers and sisters, against the poor, against the innocent, etc. well after your limited lifespan is over and then you'll be subject to an ever-lasting punishment.

a-tree

Apr 14th, 2012, 01:08 AM

a-tree and DearSummer should start their own forum. They're meant for one another... While the rest of us actually have a conscious and have ethics towards our fellow human beings, instead of stepping all over the poor people just to make a quick buck and kicking them while they're down. Probably would be a great idea!

Well, we've come to the realization that corrupt and unethical trash like yourself (who take the pleasure of continually stealing from the poor and being a greedy SOB, just to make a few extra bucks at the expense of people who can barely live and get by in their day-to-day life because they can barely afford food and shelter) will rot and burn in the bottom depths of hell. You'll soon come to realize the mistakes and evil that you've committed in this world.

This life doesn't last forever and by the time you realize that, it'll be too late. And then you'll answer for your crimes and sins against your fellow brothers and sisters, against the poor, against the innocent, etc. well after your limited lifespan is over and then you'll be subject to an ever-lasting punishment.

Geez. You're obviously NOT a christian. Guess what buddy? Your god doesn't exist. Hell doesn't exist. Why would I be worried about a world that doesn't exist? I'm scared!!!

divx

Apr 14th, 2012, 03:58 AM

This thread turned out to be a pretty useless pissing match, if I were a mod, I would have locked it.

MrKap

Apr 14th, 2012, 04:56 AM

Geez. You're obviously NOT a christian. Guess what buddy? Your god doesn't exist. Hell doesn't exist. Why would I be worried about a world that doesn't exist? I'm scared!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZLCoYrmZwk

Sometimes I wish people would upload portions from their webcam along with the text rant.

How many billionaires do you think are billionaires because of inheritance? Most billionaires are billionaires because they added value to the society and the society was willing to pay for what they were contributing. Was Bill Gates born into a billionaire family? Was Steve Jobs born into a billionaire family? Were the RIM founders? Did Sam Walton start out as a billionaire? Was George Soros born a billionaire? Was Warren Buffet? These guys all knew the rules of the game and played it for maximum payoff for themselves. They added something to the society no one else could and the society paid them back. That's all it is. How come the game worked for these guys and not for you? The problem isn't the game, it's your mind, your attitude, your ignorance.

Oh come on now, you are going to read that little plaque on the side of the wall telling the history of each and every billionaire and how they made their fortunes.

Then you're going to go and sit in your cubicle and work for them because you know, if you work hard enough, you can be a billionaire too. That's the whole point of the story.

Give me a break.

Did Bill Gates syphon off wealth from the "99%" to get rich? No, he made EVERYBODY's lives better by running a successful business and providing a product that improved our standard of living.

You know, a lot of people would disagree with that. Some will claim early on in his career he was heavily engaged in practices to snuff the competition out. When that happens it often means better products can't make it into the market. In the case of Bill Gates, it was an anti-trust suit in the 90s or something where the Federal Government took him to court. If you watch the tapes, it's pretty scary how they can drill someone like that.

I'm not saying that half the world doesn't steal from the guy either, I am sure in his early years when he was writing that code and people were copying it on him, he must have felt like he was being robbed blind.

In any event guys, this thread is moronic. If there were no governments, or unions, or people to counter balance the free market, then everything would be run by warlords, mafias, and dictators. Maybe a few multi billionaire dynasties, ect...

a-tree

Apr 14th, 2012, 10:50 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZLCoYrmZwk

Sometimes I wish people would upload portions from their webcam along with the text rant.

Oh come on now, you are going to read that little plaque on the side of the wall telling the history of each and every billionaire and how they made their fortunes.

Then you're going to go and sit in your cubicle and work for them because you know, if you work hard enough, you can be a billionaire too. That's the whole point of the story.

Give me a break.

You can be rich too. No wait. YOU can't.

Hitman21

Apr 14th, 2012, 10:58 AM

There are no perfect systems but Capitalism is the best system.

anyasok

Apr 14th, 2012, 11:04 AM

In any event guys, this thread is moronic. If there were no governments, or unions, or people to counter balance the free market, then everything would be run by warlords, mafias, and dictators. Maybe a few multi billionaire dynasties, ect...
This thread is not moronic as to the subject matter but as it relates to people like DearSummer and a-tree it is indeed that.

You don't need governmnets or unions or money or free market to begin with and it would not revert to warlords, mafia and dictators as you erroneously believe. I repeat: read about the Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement, read the literature and watch the presentations by Peter Joseph/Jacque Fresco where its all explained succinctly and you'll lose that misleading point of view. In fact, you agreed that Fresco would be looked back to as a visionary that predicted the world. So what's the problem now?

Check the whole interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN6puH9DYnQ

And then as a small sample:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gMi6zpKabE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_btXktBTEi8

And a-tree, for your information, Buffett, Gates and pretty much almost every other billionaire (whether highschool dropout or not) come from WEALTHY families so here's another thing to undermine your moronic rambling.

anyasok

Apr 14th, 2012, 11:05 AM

There are no perfect systems but Capitalism is the best system.
How many times did it take you to repeat that mantra? Pure indoctrination..

Hitman21

Apr 14th, 2012, 11:09 AM

How many times did it take you to repeat that mantra? Pure indoctrination..

:facepalm:

a-tree

Apr 14th, 2012, 11:22 AM

This thread is not moronic as to the subject matter but as it relates to people like DearSummer and a-tree it is indeed that.

You don't need governmnets or unions or money or free market to begin with and it would not revert to warlords, mafia and dictators as you erroneously believe. I repeat: read about the Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement, read the literature and watch the presentations by Peter Joseph/Jacque Fresco where its all explained succinctly and you'll lose that misleading point of view.

And a-tree, for your information, Buffett, Gates and pretty much almost every other billionaire (whether highschool dropout or not) come from WEALTHY families so here's another thing to undermine your moronic rambling.

Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco are not economists nor do they have a background in economics. That already excludes them from having any meaningful discussion on the topic. Go read a real economist. Zeitgeist movement? Are you kidding me? This is your source of knowledge? This is like saying "I watched Loose Change so now I know everything about structural engineering, terrorist organizations, geopolitics, government conspiracies, etc.".

You're right. They are from wealthy families. But to generalize billionaires as only coming from wealthy families, you're essentially denying the existence of the phrase 'rags to riches'. Why does this phrase exist if the poor could never become rich? Anyone can become a billionaire. But I guarantee that people like you will dissolve and perish into nothingness before even coming close to making $50k a year.

Hitman21

Apr 14th, 2012, 11:24 AM

anyasok

Apr 14th, 2012, 11:35 AM

Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco are not economists nor do they have a background in economics. That already excludes them from having any meaningful discussion on the topic. Go read a real economist. Zeitgeist movement? Are you kidding me? This is your source of knowledge? This is like saying "I watched Loose Change so now I know everything about structural engineering, terrorist organizations, geopolitics, government conspiracies, etc.".
Your gravest mistake is that you think economics is a fundamental property of reality. Reality check - it's not. Its an abhorrent system that emerged out of money and now, lo and behold, it requires "economists" and other similar entities whose existence is entirely unnecessary and artificially fabricated, just like the existence of so many "professions" out there that do nothing for humanity and merely exists to buttress the concept of "employment" that is the biggest fraud in the history of the world. Everything that is wrong with the world is because of money, government, the social and capitalistic system in place and every other entity associated with them. Education is no longer there to "learn", it's there to get a boring job that will last you until the day you retire or die and serves no function whatsoever.

Absolutely useless society and a useless system.

Economists never solved problems. Economics only exists because of money that stupid men created and I would rather shoot myself in the foot than learn any of that hooey. It exists because apparently the resources are "scarce" (pure baloney) so someone has to manage that fabricated concept of money so the resources get divided but it all ends up in the hands of a few anyways so no I dont need economics background nor do we need economics, money, government, capitalism or none of these artificially filler concepts to begin with.

You, Hitman, and DearSummer should really go out on a blind date.. you will find each other's company very endearing :facepalm:
All of you seem like you were hired by the government and by the capitalists to promote these outdated values so that the society remains as stagnant and cerebrally lacking as it is right now. Your plan seem to be working. Hopefully you all get punished for propagating these moronic values.

But I guarantee that people like you will dissolve and perish into nothingness before even coming close to making $50k a year.
Oh so the billions of people who just live their lives on 1$ a day should dissolve and perish into nothingness because they don't make $50k a year? Do you even see the way you speak? Money has entirely clouded your judgement and you measure everything by how much a person has of it and what he does "for a living" (as big of a fraud as employment).
You are scum a-tree and you are not even hiding that. Capitalistic trash that thinks he knows it better than anyone else. Go and hide in a corner you foul outdated creature.

I think it's time to lock this thread as the proliferation of capitalists with no valid arguments and replete with trash talk is bordering on insanity.