Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Capitalism

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 0:37

http://www.justiceplus.org/capitalist.htm

Poverty in the world is caused by a lack of capitalism.  China's economy is only now starting to grow because of AMERICAN corporations stepping in, and giving them jobs, and in general, income of capital.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 5:43

I guess poor bums on the street proves America isn't capitalist...

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 5:59

China owns half of america.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 6:16

>>2
In most cases it's their own fault. It's been researched that many bums in America aren't bums cause they had no other choice.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 6:20

Yeah. Homelessness in capitalist countries is really more of a lifestyle. Practically anyone can get work and hence a home these days if they honestly want it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 6:32

>>4
Source?

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 8:35

>>5
LOL it seems like you're living in a dream world. Or then you're some unexperienced 16-year-old who still lives off his parents. Either way.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 11:38

>>1
I like the emphasis on AMERICAN, as if the Chinese people aren't capitalistic.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 11:42

>>4
Whether or not it's their fault, >>2 trivially disproves the claim "poverty in the world is caused by a lack of capitalism".

Yes, I know I'm being a pedantic ass.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 12:08

>>9
Not sure about that, going by the article from >>1 it seems that "capitalists" mean it quite literally.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 14:08

>>8

China is a socialist country, or a mixed economy, if you want to look at the situation generously.  They have almost no freedom whatever (economically speaking), and almost no personal freedom either. 

China is not capitalist.  Capitalism, by Ayn Rand's definition is a social system in which all property is privately owned.  All the production, trade, everything else associated with capitalism follows from that definition. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 14:16

>>7 I'm 20 and living off my parents

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 15:39

Just a few thoughts:

I don't think that capitalism makes people/society richer.  What does are increases in technology.  Technological advances allow people to live life easier, they make harder tasks simpler, and they free up workers for other tasks. 

One great example of this is the move away from an agrarian society.  It is no longer necessary to have a majority of people grow/raise food.  The technological advances in agriculter, transportaion, preservation, etc.  have had the biggest influence on man kind ever. 

Now if that is not in contest, then the discussion should be what organization of people will tend to lead to these technological advances?  If this question can be answered then it should be clear which organization would be better to society as a whole. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 15:58

>>13

Yes.  And capitalism drives achievement and progress.  Have you read Ayn Rand?

The Fountainhead
Atlas Shrugged
Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal  <--non-fiction

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 16:14

>>14
Ayn Rand was a man traped in a man's body

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 16:36

>>3


Europe Owns the other half.

kekeke they dont know what hit em.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 16:38

>>15

shut the fuck up

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 21:57

And capitalism drives achievement and progress.  Have you read Ayn Rand?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Proof from Ayn Rand's novels? Pieces of fiction best known for their dichotomous caricatures?

The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 22:18

>>18

She wrote plenty of non-fiction.  You are clearly misinformed.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 22:48

>>11
To summarize it China is country where nationalistic and capitalistic elite abuse the socialist system for their own gain. Kinda even worse than typical socialism.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 22:50

>>7
You too are misinformed. Plenty of jobs available in America. Even I got decent paying one(fixing computers) and I didn't even go to highschool.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 23:20

Economic freedom prevents tyrants from taking away people's money, but it doesn't stop property owners from forming monopolies and extorting their community.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-15 23:30

>>22
The mechanics of the free market work fine.  Read Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-16 1:30

People you need to realize that America has a mixed economy at best and a Socialist economy at worst.  We have capitalistic tendencies of being able to make and spend money, but we also have social programs galore such as soical security, medicare, medicade, and welfare among others, and we are constantly trying to socialize healthcare.  This is not a pure capitialist system as we have anti-trust laws to stop monopolies, and employment laws to prevent harsh treatment of employees.  We hand the government control over 50 percent of our average income, and more than that after sales and property taxes, and we give them control over our retirement options, and everything else that they believe we aren't capable of handleing ourselves.  WE ARE IN A SOCIALIST SYSTEM, stop trying to point out otherwise both sides.  Socialists there is no huge capitalist block keeping you down, in fact you have achived most of what you wanted to thoughout the 80s and 90s.  You are actually keeping yourselves down (those in power are holding down those without) because the socialist agenda only makes sence when people feel downtrodden.  Capitalists: we had our day, now it is the day of the socialists.  I am not saying be quiet, but just relax a bit more.  History has shown that socialism falls apart under it's own weight after a while, and capitalism forms from people picking up the pieces.  It may be an ugly collapse comming to us, but it will happen.  debt mounts and the dollar no longer has anything backing it.  The upside down piramid that is a socialist system eventually topples from bad foundation.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-16 2:10

>>19
Everything she wrote was fiction.  You are clearly misinformed.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-16 12:18

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-16 12:20

>>25

Talk about ignorant, sheesh.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-16 12:34

>>11
That is why I referred to the Chinese people, and not to the government or its economic system. Honestly, there are plenty of native ambitious and capitalistic entrepreneurs springing up all over that country. If one is to claim that China's wealth is being produced by Americans, it is true concerning the input of huge sums of capital, but not necessarily the hard work that is put into creating infrastructure and commodities. The proof is that China's domestic and export market is served by many Chinese owned companies.

"They have almost no freedom whatever (economically speaking)" <-- and this statement is a load of shit. True that millions are restricted, but no freedom whatsoever? bullshit.

>>20
Not sure what you're getting at there, don't the capitalistic elite abuse the capitalistic system as well?

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-16 12:41

>>24
I agree with much of what you say, though I doubt your prophecies about the socialist system falling... I guess it happened to the Soviets eventually.. but China, for example, is growing, not falling, and they are more socialist than the United States. 

I think it is because they apply a few of the things that make capitalism work to their shoddy system, and it is then somehow able to keep itself functioning.  With this thought in mind, unless the US government grows a LOT MORE, and we see real, hardliner socialism here, I couldn't see a socialist-style collapse in the near future. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-16 13:00

>>26
Geez, no matter how obvious I make things, there's always some idiot who takes it at face value.

Hint: it's a snide remark about her writing, you illiterate retard. Next time I'll stand outside your door with a amp screaming "I'm not entirely serious" just to make things extra obvious for you.

But let's rewind a bit, shall we? Take a close look at >>14. Do you see those books? Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead? Last I checked, that's fiction, yet this is being advanced as some form of proof that "capitalism drives achievement and progress".

Thank god nobody who thinks objectivism is the shit gets in power. With their one-dimensional thinking and utter insensitivity to a nuanced reality, they'd drive us all off a cliff while fapping to their ideology.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-16 13:17

>>30
LOL? Once again you prove how misinformed you are. 

"Thank god nobody who thinks objectivism is the shit gets in power. With their one-dimensional thinking and utter insensitivity to a nuanced reality, they'd drive us all off a cliff while fapping to their ideology."

One of the objectivists who wrote some of those books--ALAN GREENSPAN, was in the fucking Federal Reserve.

"But let's rewind a bit, shall we? Take a close look at >>14. Do you see those books? Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead? Last I checked, that's fiction, yet this is being advanced as some form of proof that "capitalism drives achievement and progress""

I never cited those books as proof that capitalism drives achievement and progress.  That much is self evident.  Greed leads people to start businesses, expand them, research and develop new things to make people's lives better and easier, etc.  You just assumed that.

Anyways, the last of the three cited there happens to be NON-FICTION, dumbass.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-16 14:21

>>29
      China is growing economically by allowing capitalistic influences and outside trade and profit.  this is not socialism, in fact they are growing by droping the barriers created by pure socialism.  And you can't refute that our debt climbs to all time highs, propelled by our social programs not getting paid for and the buracratic choke it is causing on the money.  Even elliminateling every governemnt program that isn't "socially progressive" we would still be in debt over our head.  Socialism just can't be maintained forever, it eventually collapses from lack of solid founadation in revenue. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-16 17:09

>>30
Like Bush driving us off a cliff while fapping to his religion.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-16 19:00

One of the objectivists who wrote some of those books--ALAN GREENSPAN, was in the fucking Federal Reserve.

He's objectivist only in name. He didn't get along too well with Ayn Rand, and his economic policies are anything but. And then there's this:

http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/peikoff/green.html

That little outburst was a culmination of Greenspan doing things his way for nearly fourty years. Even rudimentary research on the matter leaves a lot of room for doubt about how much of her dogma he bought, and how long he bought it. Fourty years is a long time...

You just assumed that.

Yeah? So why did >>14 (you?) list them? Just for shits'n'giggles?

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-17 20:54

For those of you who said mexicos president bush if fapping off to religion and selling out america, nicely put.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-18 0:10

>>34
So the fuck what? I guess someone doesn't know what the fuck neo-objectivism is, eh?

Just because Greenspan wasn't a fucking hardliner orthodox objectivist doesn't mean he couldn't be described as an "Objectivist." 

Just because you are not a hardliner conservative doesn't necessarilly mean the label "conservative" would be inapropriate. 

"Yeah? So why did >>14 (you) list them?  Just for shits'n'giggles?"

The non-fiction gives many valid arguments as to why Capitalism is not only morally sound as an economics system, but also why it drives achievement. 

Capitalism does drive achievement though.  That much should be self-evident.  Most advances in the world were made by selfish people, who made them for selfish reasons, be it money, love of their work, etc.

Aside from that, maybe I thought they were good books?

Not every religious person buys into all the shit in the bible.   What makes you think all Objectivists agree with Ayn Rand on every given issue?

Objectivism is based on reason, rationality, and individuality.  If, based on these principles, you arrive at /slightly/ different political conclusions, you could still consider yourself at least a neo-objectivist. 

You seem to think that all objectivsts must follow the will of Rand like a bunch of robots, which clearly shows how little you actually know about her works.

Greenspan still agrees with much of of Objectivist ideals, or at least the political ones.  Sure, he may not be the most consistant one in the bunch, but he is likely more an "objectivist," or a "neo-objectivist," than anything else. 

I think someone is just a religious fuckhead who got their panties in a bunch at the mention of an athiest conservative like Rand. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-18 11:38

The non-fiction gives many valid arguments as to why Capitalism is not only morally sound as an economics system, but also why it drives achievement.

You didn't explain why you listed two pieces of fiction. A couple of literary caricatures do not prove a thing. Try three pieces of non-fiction next time, and preferrably from a variety of respected authors. You can't compare Joseph Stiglitz or John Rawls with a hack like Rand, although I can at least respect Greenspan.

Objectivism is based on reason, rationality, and individuality.

A whole lot of shit is based on reason, rationality, and individuality. Rand's little world only pays lip-service to the first two ideals.

You seem to think that all objectivsts must follow the will of Rand like a bunch of robots, which clearly shows how little you actually know about her works.

Or your wishful thinking. In my experience most wannabie objectivists, which almost certainly includes you, think of Rand like the next coming. Why did you list two of her novels otherwise? fapfapfap

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-18 18:41

>>37
"Or your wishful thinking. In my experience most wannabie wiobjectivists, which almost certainly includes you, think of Rand like the next coming. Why did you list two of her novels otherwise? fapfapfap"

Because they were good books.  I liked them.  I recommend them. 
Interpret them how you want, but I put them there.  The simple fact that you are making such a big deal over my putting them clearly shows that you are just an overzealous religious prick who can't take the promotion of a non-religious conservative.

"A whole lot of shit is based on reason, rationality, and individuality. Rand's little world only pays lip-service to the first two ideals."

A lot of things are.  However, not many other things are as consistant, or as principled.  Even if there were a lot of things, just the fact that I decided to show Rand shouldn't mean that much to you.  I think someone has a political axe to grind.

"You didn't explain why you listed two pieces of fiction. A couple of literary caricatures do not prove a thing. Try three pieces of non-fiction next time, and preferrably from a variety of respected authors. You can't compare Joseph Stiglitz or John Rawls with a hack like Rand, although I can at least respect Greenspan."

A 'hack' like Rand? So I should listen to a random dipshit like you whom I met on the internet instead of actually reading what she has to say, and making the judgement for myself?

For the record, I'll list whatever the fuck I want to list.  The proof that Capitalism drives achievement is self-evident.  The world over, to the degree that a nation is free, is generally speaking, the degree to which it is prosperous and successful. 

"Or your wishful thinking. In my experience most wannabie objectivists, which almost certainly includes you, think of Rand like the next coming. Why did you list two of her novels otherwise? fapfapfap"

Generally speaking, I'm a libertarian.  That said, considering Ayn Rand's unfavorable viewpoints regarding them, I think it is quite clear that your blanket generalization was bullshit.

Joseph Stiglitz? I agree with a lot of what he has to say, though as far as writers go he is nothing next to Ayn Rand.  Ayn Rand is classic.  Stiglitz, while his positions on a couple issues I'd agree with, is just another writer.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-18 23:43

Because they were good books.

No, they weren't. I know this sounds elitist, but please, for your own sake, read more. Even as a fifteen year-old I recognized Rand's literature for crap, and today I shake my head at many of the books I did like at that age.

I think someone has a political axe to grind.

Yes, I do. Rand was a bitch who bent or broke her ideals whenever it suited, her literature was garbage, and her "theories" were expounded better by any number of writers before and after. The only reason anyone has heard of her is because of the Ayn Rand Institute, and because she was bright enough to write easily-accessible material.

I'm not being entirely fair, because there's nothing wrong with Objectivism per se (albeit too simple), but I am sick and tired of people claiming to be Objectivists. To a one they were all selfish egocentric idiots with a large helping of unwarranted conceit playing make-believe. Doubtless there are exceptions, but I have yet to meet one.

Name: Anonymous 2006-06-19 0:07

>>39
"No, they weren't."

Yes they were.


"I'm not being entirely fair"

That much is obvious.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List