Capitalism and Morality - Can they coexist? (Al Gore, unemployed, solutions)

[EZICIT]

Originally Posted by elamigo

In the end it does not matter what system it is.
Human basic needs is what drive people to better areas where they think they have a better chance to satisfy them. This has been going on since the dawn of time.
El Amigo

- - - - - - -
In a way, I agree - the 'system' doesn't matter - people throughout the world have the same immediate goals and aspirations - the most important of which is the freedom to choose . . .
Starting with "What shall I do today?"
Where the problems arise within every group and every system is that each individuals 'ambitions' conflict with someone else within that group.
Then each group conflicts with another and so it goes . .
'Capitalist' or 'Socialist', it doesn't matter! It might have been Ted Turner who, speaking of his wealth said, "It's an empty bag!" Explaining, he's always been obsessed with 'acquiring' - but once you get it (whatever IT is) it's not what you expected. (Much like marrying Jane Fonda).
What I see, from the highest in our society, to the ruler of a primitive 'tribe', to the leader of a gang, to the 'bossman' in a homeless group, is the very same thing - That's the pursuit of POWER!
No system is 'right', No person is 'right'.
If you live by, and respect the Golden Rule, you'll have no problem understanding your place.
Write this down and commit it to memory - teach your children, friends, neighbors and colleagues.
In case you don't know, the "Golden Rule" says simply, "The guy with the gold - Rules!"
That's all we need to know . . . . .

[marcopolo]

If Abraham Lincoln were alive today:

A House divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure; permanently half socialist and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of socialism, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.</SPAN>

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by marcopolo

If Abraham Lincoln were alive today:

[font=MS Mincho][font=Calibri]A House divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this [/FONT[font=Calibri][color=#800080]government[COLOR][FONT][font=Calibri] cannot endure; permanently half socialist and half free.

If Lincoln were alive today, he would say, "Who are these ultra-right morons who are spreading all this stupid foolishness?" There. We have it right from the mouth of Lincoln, if he were alive today. How can you argue with Lincoln? If he would say you're all a bunch of idiots, it must be true.

[Mahiahiono]

Originally Posted by NorthStarDelight

I had the privilege of watching "Capitalism - A Love Story" the other night, which was a real eye-opener to say the least.

This film got me to thinking about how the modern American "capitalistic" system has strayed away from basic moral values. This was plainly obvious in the movie's depiction of the 700-billion dollar bailout of "too big to fail" banks and other financial institutions over the protests of the American electorate.

But I'm not here to discuss the film (no hating on Michael Moore in this thread, please. ). Instead, I would like to bring to the debate table the juxtaposition of the capitalistic system and basic moral values that's shared among the majority of us.

In the world of business, the owner / manager / CEO has one goal in mind: To make money. If it's all "legal", it's all well and good, right? After all, it's the American way, to do business as one pleases. But what about the environmental, social and economic costs of doing business? "Externalizing costs," as they put it. The very idea of being a capitalist is producing the most for the least amount of money spent. It's hardly ever the TRUE cost of doing business - as some of these costs invariably get passed along to someone else.
The Wal-Mart example is a good one to look at - By paying sub-standard wages and too little in the way of health insurance, a good number of their employees have to rely on government assistance to meet their basic needs (food stamps, etc). Simply put, my taxes and yours go towards to supporting the cost of Wal-Mart doing business. Is this moral? I think not. Is it capitalistic? Of course it is. Wal-Mart is after all known as America's great success story. Wal-Mart is capitalistic through and through, but they sure aren't a moral institution.

And I could spend all day pointing out the legion of corporate wrong-doings, corporations being unethical in more ways then we can count, not to mention the most blatant incident of "cost externalization," the Great Bail-Out Scam of 2008. (And yes, it was a scam. There ain't a soul on God's green Earth that will convince me otherwise). But what I would like to do in this thread is to have a debate on how this country could reconcile our capitalistic system with the general moral value system most of us share in this country. And I'd like to explore ways how this country could get away from Big Corp Government and move back towards the idealistic ideas of our Founding Fathers, while preserving the modern principles of taking care of the elderly and other people in need, such as our Social Security and Medicare programs that are cherished by liberal and conservatives alike.

As for my personal beliefs, I do think capitalism, at least as it's practiced today, is an utter failure. Unless some big changes take place soon, this country is economically doomed. Our jobs have been shipped overseas to save money, our industry has been exported to the other side of the world to boost corporate earnings, and our best and brightest are shunted into financial services to devise new and inventive ways of hoovering up money casino-style, knowing full well that the American taxpayer is standing by to socialize their bad bets. I just find it very difficult to be optimistic about our current capitalistic model going forward from the year 2010. Not that I'm advocating socialism (ohhh, such a dreadful word to say, huh? ) or anything, but I just don't think this country can progress with the way we allow business, big business in particular, to run roughshod over people's basic needs and desires.

Any and all opinions on this topic are highly welcome and appreciated.

People are imperfect. Accordingly, even a "perfect" system operated by people would not operate with perfection.

Having said that, there is no economic model or system every invented or discovered that is as "good", buy virtually any measure" than capitalism. It produces the most good, for the most people. No other system comes close. If capitalism is 6' tall, socialistm is 1/4" tall, and everything else is shorter.

Capitalism produces wealth. socialist steals and redistributes it.

Magaret Thatcher said it perfectly when she said

"The problem with socialistm is that sooner or later it runs out of other people's money"

Unless you area ruminant, wealth doesn't grown on trees or on the ground. It must be created by hard labor, working under the impetus of entrapreneurs (sp).

No company runs roughshod over people's need. Companies fulfill people's needs by providing the goods and services they need. Companies do this, not because they are altruistic, but because that is how they make a profit. They are also NOT in the business of puttig people on the payroll. They only do that to make a profit, and that profit is for the owners.


I've seem to be able to put people who advocate socialism into three categories.

1. The go-for-the-throat statis who just what to control people by making them dependent upon government.

2. Lazy bums who want a free ride.

3. Extremely naive people who have no idea that it is PROFIT that makes the world go round. Nobody works for free. Not the dumest laborer or the brightest brain surgeon, or the biggest or smallest corporation. We all do our work for a profit (sometimes called salary, wages, commissions etc.)

MahiAhiOno.

[Mahiahiono]

Originally Posted by jtur88

If Lincoln were alive today, he would say, "Who are these ultra-right morons who are spreading all this stupid foolishness?" There. We have it right from the mouth of Lincoln, if he were alive today. How can you argue with Lincoln? If he would say you're all a bunch of idiots, it must be true.

You must be talking about Lincoln, Nebraska, not Abraham Lincoln, unless you are deliberately attempting to sound lame, or worse.

MahiAhiOno

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Mahiahiono

. If capitalism is 6' tall, socialistm is 1/4" tall, and everything else is shorter.

Capitalism produces wealth. socialist steals and redistributes it.
.

Please try to be realistic. There are other countries in the world, besides the USA and North Korea. You can't leap to your comparison by saying the USA is 6' and North Korea is 1/4", end of discussion, case closed.

Africa has been continuously, solidly capitalist for as long as there are historical records. Not 6'. Latin America's national economies and fabulous resources have been continuously under the stranglehold of capitalist moguls for more than a century---Bolivia's tin, Colombia's coffee, Chile's copper, Honduras' bananas, Argentina's beef, none of them 6'. Where is the "miracle of capitalism" in Guatemala and Paraguay and Haiti? Why aren't they 6 feet tall, if capitalism is all it takes to attain that stature?

And everything else shorter? European countries, controlled by kings and fascists through the same years that Latin America were capitalist republics, and the kings and fascists forged nations with more economic success.

Look at this chart: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...gdp-per-capita
There are 85 capitalist countries BELOW Cuba in per capita GDP. 85. Count them. There are 55 below North Korea. In spite of the USA actually helping them, instead of hindering them---in fact giving them handouts, 85 are still poorer than Cuba. 55 are still poorer than North Korea. What went wrong?

[paulpan]

jtur, I like the patience, you try to explain people how things are. I think, you have a really good knowledge and common sense/logic. Readers sure have the opportunity to learn something.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Mahiahiono

You must be talking about Lincoln, Nebraska, not Abraham Lincoln, unless you are deliberately attempting to sound lame, or worse.

MahiAhiOno

I was deliberately attempting to satirize Marcopolo, who speculated on Abe Lincoln of making equally idiotic remarks. That's what happens when Great Debates is open to people who think they are contributing something to a discussion by cut/pasting jokes from rightwing blogs and passing them off as logical arguments.

[Mahiahiono]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Please try to be realistic. There are other countries in the world, besides the USA and North Korea. You can't leap to your comparison by saying the USA is 6' and North Korea is 1/4", end of discussion, case closed.

Africa has been continuously, solidly capitalist for as long as there are historical records. Not 6'. Latin America's national economies and fabulous resources have been continuously under the stranglehold of capitalist moguls for more than a century---Bolivia's tin, Colombia's coffee, Chile's copper, Honduras' bananas, Argentina's beef, none of them 6'. Where is the "miracle of capitalism" in Guatemala and Paraguay and Haiti? Why aren't they 6 feet tall, if capitalism is all it takes to attain that stature?

And everything else shorter? European countries, controlled by kings and fascists through the same years that Latin America were capitalist republics, and the kings and fascists forged nations with more economic success.

Look at this chart: GDP (per capita) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
There are 85 capitalist countries BELOW Cuba in per capita GDP. 85. Count them. There are 55 below North Korea. In spite of the USA actually helping them, instead of hindering them---in fact giving them handouts, 85 are still poorer than Cuba. 55 are still poorer than North Korea. What went wrong?

I say again, only capitalism produces wealth. The Communist Chinese know this, so they have a hybrid.

Socialists, the vile parasites that they are, often glom onto capitalists systems and steal the fruits of their labor (because they produce nothing on their own but misery.

If you give a Man a fish, you feed him for a day

If you teach a Man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime

If you teach a Man to steal his daily fish from his neighbors, you are a socialist.


The more capitalism you have, the more wealth you have, the less, the less.

I ithink you don't like wealth. Perhaps you feel left behind.

MahiAhiOno

[Mahiahiono]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I was deliberately attempting to satirize Marcopolo, who speculated on Abe Lincoln of making equally idiotic remarks. That's what happens when Great Debates is open to people who think they are contributing something to a discussion by cut/pasting jokes from rightwing blogs and passing them off as logical arguments.

I take it you real leftwing blosg and think that they are logical. Well at least you admit your remaks are idiotic, and that's a start.

If you give a Man a Fish, you feed him for a day

If you teach a Man to Fish, you feed him for a lifetime

If you teach a Man to Steal his Daily Fish from his Neighbors, You are a Liberal

MahiAhiOno