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.
Unless you are GM, Ford and Chrysler, where you can produce crappy cars and have an incompetent management who knows that their business is too big to fail under a Fascist...oops, capitalist...society.
Exactly, this is why we need to bring the risk back to capitalism. What you describe is neither capitalism or free.
[color=royalblue][i]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.
So, human beings are motivated by material wealth in order to be productive and effective? I guess this is why we manage illnesses as opposed to curing them, so that we can get long-term value (ie, money) instead of a short-term one.
No offense, but I think statements like this, which is shared by so many capitalism enthusiasts, undermine the human being. It is also erroneous. First, mankind on all continents have been progressive without capitalism.
Contrary to devout capitalist's beliefs, there are still some people who will create new technology, conduct medical research or make improvements to social infrastructures for sheer enjoyment, curiosity, self-edification, or for the betterment of mankind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
It is not more civilized to take from the productive to give to those who are not--it is a recipe for universal poverty.[/b]
Again, I respectfully disagree. IMHO, I don't believe that man needs material influence over community and fellowship to be productive. I consider it civilized to have the intellectual and functional capability to solve a terminal event, but barbaric to charge others just to do so.
So, human beings are motivated by material wealth in order to be productive and effective? I guess this is why we manage illnesses as opposed to curing them, so that we can get long-term value (ie, money) instead of a short-term one.
No offense, but I think statements like this, which is shared by so many capitalism enthusiasts, undermine the human being. It is also erroneous. First, mankind on all continents have been progressive without capitalism.
So true.
Quote:
Contrary to devout capitalist's beliefs, there are still some people who will create new technology, conduct medical research or make improvements to social infrastructures for sheer enjoyment, curiosity, self-edification, or for the betterment of mankind.
Once again, that's true. I know people who would love to do things like that -- not for the money, just for the love of God and the good of humanity.
Quote:
Again, I respectfully disagree. IMHO, I don't believe that man needs material influence over community and fellowship to be productive. I consider it civilized to have the intellectual and functional capability to solve a terminal event, but barbaric to charge others just to do so.
You took the words right out of my mouth. One of the best posts I've ever read on this site!!!!
Exactly, this is why we need to bring the risk back to capitalism. What you describe is neither capitalism or free.
In my post, I never said I had a problem with capitalism. Then, again, I don't have a problem with socialism, communism, or an autocratic gov't either, if done properly. It's not about methodology, it's about execution.
But, I will disagree with you in regards to a "free", without some form of oversight, you are begging for trouble. Capitalism without some oversight from government is like watching a sports game with no referees. I guarantee that you, during some time in your life, have used the words "that's not fair", "I/we got robbed", or "they cheated". If you did, then I know you can't honestly believe that both "free" and "capitalism" belong in the same sentence.
In my post, I never said I had a problem with capitalism. Then, again, I don't have a problem with socialism, communism, or an autocratic gov't either, if done properly. It's not about methodology, it's about execution.
But, I will disagree with you in regards to a "free", without some form of oversight, you are begging for trouble. Capitalism without some oversight from government is like watching a sports game with no referees. I guarantee that you, during some time in your life, have used the words "that's not fair", "I/we got robbed", or "they cheated". If you did, then I know you can't honestly believe that both "free" and "capitalism" belong in the same sentence.
Exactly. If we're going to have capitalism, it needs to be under tight, and I mean TIGHT government control and regulation. I'd rather we just do away with capitalism altogether, but if we have to keep it, we need rules, regulations, tariffs and yes, the all-evil taxes.
Human value is not defined by how much money a person can make or how much she can contribute to the capitalist machine.
You need to find a job, get all the workers to unite and unionize, then fire the boss if he isn't willing to work with (for) you. Then vote for someone to lead, who will then be your boss, unless of course you're the boss. Then you'll be the fearless leader... and a capitalist.
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.
G0D help us!!!
