Capitalism, Death of the World

[seraph8x]

Alright, who else has noticed the bull**** going on with our idiotic economic system? I mean, far beyond our petty number system bull**** where nobody has a job and people are losing their homes. I also mean beyond the fact that the rich own all the means of production and force the lower class into labor for the profit of the wealthy through supposed prospects of "freedom".

Let's consider this idiotic bailout. It's coming up on one trillion dollars. For those of you who are not aware of what this means, let me show you.

1,000,000,000,000. That many zeroes. That, again, is 1,000 times 1,000,000,000.

Now, this money will be spread around the corporations so that they may use it to hire workers and buy materials so they can continue making and selling products. Basically, we're taking money and giving it to the rich so they can hire the poor so the poor can buy from the rich. Like that's not f**** up at all.

It gets worse. What could we do with this time and money? With the resources this money represents? I did a quick number crunch. Let's assume that it costs 1 dollar a day to feed someone in a third world country. In reality, it costs much less than that, but for argument's sake, I'm rounding way up. Let's also assume that the bailout stops as 1 trillion dollars.

If we took .01% of the money... That's 1/100 of a single percent, we could feed over 230,000 people for a whole year. Imagine what we could do with .5%, or even a whole 1%. Imagine the hospitals we could build, and the schools, and the food processing facilities and water cleansing plants.

Why are we so willing to let the world fall to ****, so that we can keep the rich in their mansions and leer jets?

Think about it.

 

[Atoyont]

It's only bad because the government is giving money to these corporations. The thing is, that's not capitalism.

I think the government is doing this to make sure that our economy doesn't falter... but they're doing it the wrong way. You'd want the consumers to have the money, I think, so more things will be bought. The problem with just giving money to the poor, though, is that they could just go out and by alcohol/drugs/tobacco/etc. with it, which is a bad idea.

 

[Mariya Shidou]

Social Darwinism, a concept often in use in America in the past, will argue that the rich are rich because they're the best. Obviously, the idea is disgustingly outmoded (every time I see a corporation fall, I maintain that it's a ****-you to social Darwinism). Problem is, the workers don't control the means of production, as you stated, so what can be done? Pumping some money into the system is probably necessary. SOME, though. Of course, this being political, there's bound to be a ton of fat to trim; the government, in a capitalist system in the form which we currently have, is still a business.

Of course, what if money were granted to others? Someone else would complain. Someone will always get shafted with something like this; that's just how it works. All American money has some blood on it.

I think the government is doing this to make sure that our economy doesn't falter... but they're doing it the wrong way. You'd want the consumers to have the money, I think, so more things will be bought. The problem with just giving money to the poor, though, is that they could just go out and by alcohol/drugs/tobacco/etc. with it, which is a bad idea.

The latter being a very... odd thought. Sure, it's possible, but still. If we're so worried about the poor spending the money on drugs, etc., why don't we do this a different way, and give them e.g. housing grants, etc., for things they really need?

 

[shadowkami]

And BigLutz will tear this thread apart with his reasoning in 3, 2, and ....

OT. Capitalisim is not the death, capitalist societies have been in existence since the GD. And on a side note this is nothing like the GD. I don't understand why people are making a big deal about this.

 

[BigLutz]

And BigLutz will tear this thread apart with his reasoning in 3, 2, and ....

How did you know I was looking at this thread?!

Anyway my question to the thread maker.... Hugo Chavez is that you?

First off the bail out wasn't a capitalist decision, or really a free market decision. A Capitalist decision would be to allow the companies to go under and for stronger companies to pick up the workers, equipment, etc. Or for the company to go through Bankruptcy and restructure during that time period.

Second, while we can do alot with that money, I would prefer not to spend it at all. Yes you can use it to feed people, but then again you are forgetting the cost to transport the food and distribute it. You also are forgetting about what happens at the year's end. Do we put more money into the system? Do we expand it for more people? This is a problem when it comes to any Government program, because you get people addicted onto that source of food.And because there are so many people needing food, you expand it, and expand it, and expand it. And you can not stop it because that would be mean to suddenly let people starve. Suddenly that very small number that you started out with, has grown in to a large system that is sucking up billions each year.

 

[The_Mexican_Smeargle]

Hmmm, it's a crewel ****ing world, nothing you can do about it really, here I am, I'll work my as off to finish college, get a job somewhere and work for my entire live and will make an insignificant percentage of that Trillion. -_-

Problem with large amounts of money is that you can do a whole lot with it, but it's a huge responsibility, and I just hate the idea of the rich getting richer. Hell maybe if corporate CEOs and owners didn't live like a ****ing rockstar, then they'd have a bit left to bail their OWN ****ing selves out. This is what they get for relying on such a fragile system of mindless investments and little "rainy day stash" thought.

 

[Mariya Shidou]

How did you know I was looking at this thread?!

It's what ya do and why we love ya.

Anyway my question to the thread maker.... Hugo Chavez is that you?

lol.

First off the bail out wasn't a capitalist decision, or really a free market decision. A Capitalist decision would be to allow the companies to go under and for stronger companies to pick up the workers, equipment, etc. Or for the company to go through Bankruptcy and restructure during that time period.

Would you then say that it was spawned more as a pro-stability idea? Since a company going under would not be good for stability. Of course, pumping trillions into companies and other causes probably won't bring stability too fast, either, would it.

OT. Capitalisim is not the death, capitalist societies have been in existence since the GD. And on a side note this is nothing like the GD. I don't understand why people are making a big deal about this.

It's not that big yet but it is big, bigger than most of the **** these people have seen in their lifetimes. It's not surprising for people to over-react, really, as a result.

 

[BigLutz]

Would you then say that it was spawned more as a pro-stability idea? Since a company going under would not be good for stability. Of course, pumping trillions into companies and other causes probably won't bring stability too fast, either, would it.

Yep, it was pretty much to make sure the market doesn't go into chaos. Although it could be argued that we all would be much better if we went through about a year of pain and chaos as every body restructured and fixed their companies, and came out stronger. Than just pumping money into the system and propping up Zombie companies.

 

[Ethan]

How is our system bad? If anyone hasn't noticed, the United States is still the largest economic power on the face of the planet, while in recession. But maybe you are right, Zimbabwe really does have a flourishing economy, maybe we should take a few pointers from them. As far I'm concerned even our poor are doing better off than 75% of the world. If you had something to eat this week, are sheltered by four walls, and go or have gone to school, then shutup and quit complaining.

Whiny little kid.

 

[Dr. Ste]

Second, while we can do alot with that money, I would prefer not to spend it at all. Yes you can use it to feed people, but then again you are forgetting the cost to transport the food and distribute it. You also are forgetting about what happens at the year's end. Do we put more money into the system? Do we expand it for more people? This is a problem when it comes to any Government program, because you get people addicted onto that source of food.And because there are so many people needing food, you expand it, and expand it, and expand it. And you can not stop it because that would be mean to suddenly let people starve. Suddenly that very small number that you started out with, has grown in to a large system that is sucking up billions each year.

I think the money is enough to cover transport, and poverty is currently too bad to call this insatiable consumerism (as the everlasting expansion explains). There are poor, there are homeless, there are exploited workers. We have not reached the level of addiction, it is need.

The key to prosperity is sustainable development. Locally. Or we will occassionally have a predictable crisis. It is something that only the government can do. And a truly competitive environment hinders sustainability.

Distribution of money is a temporary remedy. To actually do something that stays, restructuring (change? distribution? development?) of wealth resources is needed.

If you had something to eat this week, are sheltered by four walls, and go or have gone to school, then shutup and quit complaining.

Whiny little kid.

Because it is very unexpected for one to complain for anyone other than himself.

 

[Ethan]

Because it is very unexpected for one to complain for anyone other than himself.

Are you calling me fat?

 

[TSL]

Mass ignorance and stupidity, death of the world

 

[Pokemon_Veteran]

Okay, I prefer capitalism over communism any day, but to sound like a communist, the only capitalist pigs here are those responsible for this crisis and the government officials who ordered this stupid bailout, like the AIG bonuses.

Also, once these failing companies got the bailout (the very same ones who caused this) just went back to their old ways of business without much change. AIG went over the top with the bonuses saying they could be sued for not giving them. Come on, how do you sue for a bonus?

The economic system here isn't capitalism anymore, as it is transitioning to socialism.

 

[Mrmagius]

I agree with babylon, My dad often says "If you can sleep at night without being dragged out of bed by the secret police, then you're not so bad off" and I echo that here. I know thats not exactly what the posters is calling for but the point still stands: As long as you're not livig in fear, have a shelter and food on your plate you've got a decent life. "Proper" education is a luxury, even though a lot of you might not agree with me here.

Like it or not, Capitalism works (unlike communism), even if you have to go without the creature comforts.

Not that I actively support capitalism, Socialism is the way to go IMO.

 

[seraph8x]

Yep, it was pretty much to make sure the market doesn't go into chaos. Although it could be argued that we all would be much better if we went through about a year of pain and chaos as every body restructured and fixed their companies, and came out stronger. Than just pumping money into the system and propping up Zombie companies.

I say screw the market. The market, the economic system, it a large scale logical fallacy of begging the question- We all use it because it is necessary, it is necessary because we all use it, and so on and so forth.

This will be a leap for you to grasp, as it is rather radical. I understand that, and I accept the fact that many are not ready for this idea.

I propose that we remove the economic system and stop focusing on economy. We should do what needs to be done and fix the problems, and being held back by funding and shifting markets will never allow that to happen efficiently.

 

[Ethan]

We should get do what needs to done and fix the problems by removing the economic system...

 

[Fused]

Um, this thread is about the recession... which is about the economy. So you're saying that in order to fix the economy... we remove it? If we did, how would America survive? If you hadn't noticed, Americans and other coutnries depend on the American economy and all that it entails, which is the production, distrubution, exchange and consumption of goods. I'm sorry, but your idea isn't radical, it's just stupid.

And how you described the economy is the perfect way to describe any economy. We need it to get by and it needs us to need it to get by. If it didn't have us, it wouldn't have any purpose (in this country) and if we didn't have it, we would be dead.

 

[PartyPokemon]

Like it or not, Capitalism works (unlike communism), even if you have to go without the creature comforts.
How do you know that communism doesn't work? No country has used REAL communism before. They all just used it to mask their dictatorships.
Not that I actively support capitalism, Socialism is the way to go IMO.

Well, yes, that is true.

We should get do what needs to done and fix the problems by removing the economic system...

Hmmmm... you're right! If it's not there, nothing can go wrong with it! Babylon, you're a genius! Wait, let me call up Mr. Obama here...

 

[Mrmagius]

How do you know that communism doesn't work? No country has used REAL communism before. They all just used it to mask their dictatorships.

But thats exactly the point, communism starts out nice and dandy and eventually becomes a dictatorship. The whole "take from each according to his ability and give acording to his needs" thing is a nice idea and great in theory, but in practice it just doesn't workout because, basically, humans are greedy.

Firstly, few are willing to downgrade their way of living anyways so thats one thing going against communism in the firts place. However, lets ignore that for the moment. Let's say country X unanimously decided that it was time for a political revolution for whatever reason and that to them communism seemed the fairest method.

From each according to his ability [to produce and provide] and to each according to his needs [to live]. Even though there's huge income tax you're always provided for so that you have no worry of where you're next meal is coming from, as long as you do hard work, in some form.

Everyone owns everything and at the same time no one owns anythings. If no one truly owns anything then they can't fight about it, there can't be coruption and avarice can there? Because there nothing to fight for or corrupt thing over? But thats where people hit a snag.

1) Humans always want more, of anything. They always want to better themselves and their lives. However, with communism there's no possible way that you can get anymore than you already have. You can work harder but in turn you'll just get more taken off you because you're ability to produce and provide has increased.

So that begs the question, whats the point of working if only to fufill a quota? Whats to strive for? You're life just becomes an endless cycle of the 9-5 routine with very little to show or it except a meager existence and no way of moving on. If nothing else thats just depressing.

2) How do you define a person's need? Most would say you define it as how much one needs to survive however those in government jobs in a communist society tend to get the idea that "well, our work is more important then yours (the working class) because cause we have to deal with all this crap so we deserve more money". This then creates a division between those who work in government and those who do not through wealth i.e. the upper class is replaced with the government, essentially, and the working class is back to square one with the middle class being enveloped by the other two.

Although there is no dictator, president or central leader as it were there is a central bank which controls the flow of money. Now someone or a group of someones has to be in charge of that and so whoever is/are becomes a target(s) to the next-in-lines who would try to take advantage of that position to dip their fingers into the money trough. The aforementioned targeted group would also be subject to the same inner demons.

I would also imagine (and this part is just my speculation) that they may also become targets to people who wish to bribe them with the only thing they really own, which is, their bodies or in mundane terms, sex and/or companionship, offering the one of the two or both in exchange for more money, possibly even going as far as to marry them. A simple exchange of powers, as it were.

And so somewhere along the lines, corruption strikes, the flow of money is altered and certain people start receiving more money than they should. This breaks the system.

Nevertheless, it gets worse. These governments also tend to become overly-paranoid (due to the need to secure their powerbase and suspicion of revolution) and in an attempt to pre-emptively quash any revolutions or "mutinies" that may occur for the above reasons, 1&2, "secret polices" are formed (hence where the quote from my dad mentioned in my other post comes in). And so country X goes from libertarianist to totalitarianism in the blink of an eye.

So before you know it you're all poor and living in fear unless you happen to be in government/play the game in which case you're basically living it up compared to the working classes. Although this is not the communist vision it is, sadly, the end result and all becasue of greed. The only reason capitalism works is because it applies to that aspect of human nature by giving humans something to strive for, something to attain, in return for working harder. With capitalism, greed can be satisified.

 

[Squirtle85]

To the topic starter: Soviet union socialism... German Centralism... Now.. think about it for a second and later ask yourself who was right: Manx or Smith? Smith was right at the end, and even Germany had to jump into Capitalism when it saw how big it was.

Heck, even China is starting to become Capitalist