Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you outline is what capitalism is about; many people have nothing to offer except their bodies for labor. Why not figure out some other way to be of value to the rest of society?
How about an estimate of how much a billboard campaign costs? The question is not what it costs, but what it could be worth.
Finding a job to clean post-construction is fine. But would you like to do it as a career? For 30 years? How about if 5 cleaning jobs are available (at minimum wage) and 500 apply? What to do with the remaining 495.
Success stories are great. What about towns with high unemployment? Do we just seal them off and let the people expire? Might be time to pack up the wagon and go to where you might be useful.
How does a family of 4 survive on minimum wage? Got any tips? They would be well appreciated. Get off minimum wage; 98% of the jobs in the country pay more than minimum.
Capitalism reduces people to vicious animal instinct for survival. That's the competition. Toss a chunk of raw meat to the beasts and watch as they claw at each other to get a share. While those who are in control play another round of golf. Captalism has moved more people further away from the animal level of survival than any other organizing principle of human activity in all of history,
This system has been completely dehumanized. Someone already mentioned cannibalism. That's the one thing that is missing.
The only way to prosper under capitalism is to be valuable to the rest of society. Those who can not, or will not, be of service to the rest of us do not like it. It is not more civilized to take from the productive to give to those who are not--it is a recipe for universal poverty.
The only way to prosper under capitalism is to be valuable to the rest of society. Those who can not, or will not, be of service to the rest of us do not like it. It is not more civilized to take from the productive to give to those who are not--it is a recipe for universal poverty.
Capitalism is indeed about value. Or, more appropriately, a price tag on EVERYTHING, including life. Social being need not apply. Being anti-social helps.
Capitalism is indeed about value. Or, more appropriately, a price tag on EVERYTHING, including life. Social being need not apply. Being anti-social helps.
Don't you find it ironic that you are arguing against a system that requires each of us to be of service to the rest of mankind in order to prosper?
Capitalism is indeed about value. Or, more appropriately, a price tag on EVERYTHING, including life. Social being need not apply. Being anti-social helps.
The only way to prosper under capitalism is to be valuable to the rest of society. Those who can not, or will not, be of service to the rest of us do not like it. It is not more civilized to take from the productive to give to those who are not--it is a recipe for universal poverty.
I'm sorry but I'm new here and you seem to have a handle on Capitalism. I have one question that seems to be unanswered. Could you tell me when America became a Capitalist state?
I'm arguing against an extreme position. I'm arguing against a rosy picture that attempts to hide the blemishes.
The two are not directly related, nor mutually inclusive. One can take an extreme position, while still recognizing the world under such system isn't going to be viewed as peaches and cream by everyone. Can't please all the people, all the time, no matter what system one chooses to live under.
Adopting a hybrid system won't change that fact, and has plenty of its own blemishes that I am sure some of its proponents would likewise love to hide just as much as those who believe in purist systems would like to hide, to lend the appearance that their system is the panacea. Dishonesty abounds in all ranks, but the two things are still not mutually inclusive. There's honest people in all different camps that have no desire to hide blemishes in their preferred system.
The two are not directly related, nor mutually inclusive. One can take an extreme position, while still recognizing the world under such system isn't going to be viewed as peaches and cream by everyone. Can't please all the people, all the time, no matter what system one chooses to live under.
Adopting a hybrid system won't change that fact, and has plenty of its own blemishes that I am sure some of its proponents would likewise love to hide just as much as those who believe in purist systems would like to hide, to lend the appearance that their system is the panacea. Dishonesty abounds in all ranks, but the two things are still not mutually inclusive. There's honest people in all different camps that have no desire to hide blemishes in their preferred system.
Don't really understand your response, to be honest, don't know what it is that you want an illustration of.... but I'll try to offer a brief follow-up, anyway.
Einsteins Ghost wrote: "... I'm arguing against an extreme position."
I merely infer, having not read all the posts in this extensive thread, that you don't care for purist systems (assuming you were labeling extreme positions as roughly a synonym for purist systems), and would rather have a hybrid system of some sort. Since I do not know what form of hybrid system you favor, I obviously can't answer your query. That would be something only you can answer, since only you know what kind of system you specifically would like to see in place.
The option I would like to see implemented, is a competitive one. One where the government should more freely allow a variety of competitive systems, so that those people who wish to get away from the capitalist paradigm, can do so.
The prevailing system we live under doesn't completely lock people into a capitalist Hobson's choice, as there exists a fairly broad amount of liberty to get away from it, for those who seek to pursue that option. Problem is, the law has just enough hooks into it, that it does legitimately thwart peoples ability to try to escape it [capitalism] to some degree, and I think that needs to be remedied to allow people the ability to more freely pursue their preferred system.
Could you tell me when America became a Capitalist state?
Do you mean Capitalism as in the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit?
Or Crony Capitalism/Corpratism as in Corporations are given special protections and benefits from the government?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
