In defense of Capitalism...

Throw me your arguments against capitalism. Keep it on topic as well.

>>1
mailto:noko

It assumes to heavily that the consumer is not a moron.

>>3
*too

>>1
What we have today isn't actually capitalism, or at least not the type of capitalism that is optimal for a free society. Too much of the wealth is held in a few corporations, and there's many duopolies and triopolies and mostly crony competition going on. I'm against the "capitalism" that exists now, but not it in its purest form.

>>3
No, it takes into account the fact consumers are morons by protecting their property rights thus protecting against fraud and giving them many choices if they are unhappy with a product or service.
>>5
There is corruption in every system, the fact these oligopolies and cartels are not in complete control over the government is the result of capitalism, though as you say, capitalism would be better if this corruption was dealt with. The inequality of capitalism is meaningless if you consider the fact the poorest are richer, just not as "richer" as the rich, a rising tide floats all boats.

>>6
There is corruption in every system
Very true, no arguing that.
the fact these oligopolies and cartels are not in complete control over the government is the result of capitalism
No, but they do use the government, especially its printing press and central bank as leverage, which most definitely is a corrupting mechanism. But I would say they use the state as a tool, rather than having complete control over it.
The inequality of capitalism is meaningless if you consider the fact the poorest are richer, just not as "richer" as the rich, a rising tide floats all boats.
While true, this is unsustainable.

There is nothing "communistic" about the government of a nation giving hundreds of billions to corporations and big business so that they can continue their same greedy, risky, and self-destructive practices under the guise of "free-markets." What a communist society would do, and certainly any socialist one, would not be to hand a blank check of trillions from the public to save corporate institutions...instead we would nationalize them, so that the public could have a minimal a say in how they are run... Giving billions to capitalists is the last thing anything or anyone "communistic" would do.

It depends on what you mean by "capitalism".
If "capitalism" means that I can grow tomatoes in my garden and sell them to you, or vice versa, i'm for it!
But if "capitalism" means you can force me off my land, raze my house to the ground, plant a bajillion tomatoes with pig genes in them and sell them to me for an arm and a leg (meanwhile controlling the prices of all other tomatoes), no go.
I think I like capitalism with ethics and morals. If we need government involvement to make sure everyone plays fair, then so be it.

It depends on what you mean by "capitalism".
If "capitalism" means that I can grow tomatoes in my garden and sell them to you, or vice versa, i'm for it!
But if "capitalism" means you can force me off my land, raze my house to the ground, plant a bajillion tomatoes with pig genes in them and sell them to me for an arm and a leg (meanwhile controlling the prices of all other tomatoes), no go.
I think I like capitalism with ethics and morals. If we need government involvement to make sure everyone plays fair, then so be it.

I find it odd that the so caleld "laissez-faire" capitalists do not mind the government interfering if it somehow benefits their own profits.

"I find it odd that the so caleld "laissez-faire" capitalists do not mind the government interfering if it somehow benefits their own profits."

They are obviously hypocritical.

---

"There is nothing "communistic" about the government of a nation giving hundreds of billions to corporations and big business so that they can continue their same greedy, risky, and self-destructive practices under the guise of "free-markets." What a communist society would do, and certainly any socialist one, would not be to hand a blank check of trillions from the public to save corporate institutions...instead we would nationalize them, so that the public could have a minimal a say in how they are run... Giving billions to capitalists is the last thing anything or anyone "communistic" would do. "

Actually, those bailouts ended up giving the government massive (Negative) influence on the companies that recived the bailouts. Not to mention the fact that the government over-regulated these companies in the first place with shit like fuel standards and whatnot.

-----

But if "capitalism" means you can force me off my land, raze my house to the ground, plant a bajillion tomatoes with pig genes in them and sell them to me for an arm and a leg (meanwhile controlling the prices of all other tomatoes), no go.
I think I like capitalism with ethics and morals. If we need government involvement to make sure everyone plays fair, then so be it.

Actually, private companies can buy your land, but they can't force you off. The government unconstitutionally does that. GM foods should be banned, they are toxic. Compnies also can't exert controll over the prices of competitors, unless they are lowering their price, in which case the competitor does the same thing.

companies SHOULDN'T exert control over the prices of competitors, but corrupt government officials with stock in the company sure can.
plus they can control access to competitors products.

People seem to think that capitalism means that absolutely anything goes, as long as it makes money.
If that's what it means, then I'm against it.

Okay "capitalist". Would you have anything against uneducated people calling themselves "doctors" and opening a "clinic" where they perform unqualified surgery on people? Or do you support licenses? That's not very libertarian of you.

The problem with capitalism and Americans is that they don't actually boycott faulty products. They continue buying and buying.

Many religions have criticized or opposed specific elements of capitalism; traditional Judaism, Christianity, and Islam forbid lending money at interest. Christianity has been a source of both praise and criticism for capitalism, particularly its materialist aspects. The first socialists drew many of their principles from Christian values, against "bourgeois" values of profiteering, greed, selfishness, and hoarding.

Some Christian critics of capitalism may not oppose capitalism entirely, but support a mixed economy in order to ensure adequate labor standards and relations, as well as economic justice. Pope Benedict XVI issued an encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) in 2009; he stated: "The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require, particularly today, that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner." and "Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution."

Islamic law recognizes the right to private property but regulates economic activities. A 2.5% alms tax (Zakat) is levied on all gold, crops, and cattle. Shia Twelver Muslims pay an additional 20% on all savings (defined as income minus expenses on necessities like food and shelter.) Usury or riba is forbidden, and religious law encourages the use of capital to spur economic activity while placing the burden of risk along with the benefit of profit with the owner of the capital. Methods of Islamic banking have been developed. The Islamic constitution of Iran, which was drafted mostly by Islamic clerics, criticizes "materialist schools of thought" that encourage "concentration and accumulation of wealth and maximization of profit." Sayyid Qutb, an Islamist writer, criticized capitalism in his 1951 book The Battle Between Islam and Capitalism.

Indian philosopher P.R. Sarkar, founder of the Ananda Marga movement, developed the Law of Social Cycle to identify the problems of capitalism and proposed the Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT) as a solution to its ills.

Historically America has practiced protectionism and mercantilism. So much for "free trade" making up the backbone of American history.

Not OP, but just want to throw in my 2 cents.

Pure laissez faire capitalism is in the strictest sense the true capitalism. Other version such as corporate capitalism and what not is basically the result of free market mixed with socialist economic policies..etc. in simple words they are just corrupted semi free markets and cannot be considered capitalism in the strictest sense.

>>17
>Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.

Pursuing justice through redistribution? Wealth is created by individuals though work, not some cosmic gold rain down from the sky to be equally distributed. When a man earns his wealth through honest work, he is the one who brought that wealth into existence from nothingness. Whether it's a lone farmer or a thousand employee corporation, this sample fact of reality holds true. Political justice is achieved when the society recognizes that each of it's individual member takes full responsibility for the fruit of his actions; if a person succeeds in his work, he has the right to all he has earned, if he fails, he is the only one who bears the loss of his failure. That is justice. When you forcefully redistribute the achievement created by one person who earned it and give it to another who did not, that's precisely injustice.

On the subject of interest rate, in a free market (without some socialistic central bank manipulating it artificially) interest rate is a fact of reality, not some arbitrary convention. If I have a sack of seed I can plant and grow into 50 apples by the same time next year, the difference in value between those 50 apples and that sack of seed would be the interest rate I'd charge on someone who want to borrow that sack of seed. Same goes with money. But the bottom line is, I'm free to charge whatever rate I want on the cash I earned, and you are free to not borrow from me and check out other lenders.

>>15
You are free to practice without a license. And patients are free to not visit unlicensed practitioners.

>>16
That's a problem with Americans, not a problem with capitalism.

>>20 it IS an inherent problem with capitalism, because humans are subject to peer pressure and brainwashing.
"the market" isn't fail-proof, unless you are in a vacuum.

>>21
If we're going to judge any system based on its merits than we have to rot out examples of human deviance from that system's implementation.  Capitalism has both merits covered and subverted in turn: the cheaper product can succeed, the better made product can succeed, but never the twain shall meet.  In fact, it should never artificially be made to meet - that's the start of a system where choice gets removed as far up and down the line as it can.  The problem with a market is that it naturally comes into existence; until you move into that post-scarcity system where the only currencies are motivation and responsibility, a market will always exist lurking under the surface, even if you don't try to count it.

So, I'd like to correct >>21: it's not a problem with Americans, it's a problem with PEOPLE.  There's no one single definition of "what is best" and no system that can cover all forms of manipulation or exploitation we are capable of imagining.  I commented once that if we're saying capitalism has failed because of this country, why are people permitted to believe socialism works despite its misguided and outright disastrous attempts in other countries?

>>21
HUMAN isn't fail-proof.

That's what you are not getting. Human begins have free will and is fallible. This is a fact of reality that cannot be changed. A human is fallible whether he is a citizen or an official of a government. Having a sit on the government does not give a person the omniscience to know better how to spent the money of another for his best interest than that other himself. The attempt to substitute the mind of the majority with the mind of a few minority self proclaimed elites in order to achieve this fake omniscience is precisely the essence of Utopian stories and catastrophic failures.

Capitalism and free market is good not because they somehow magically wills people to make the right choices. Capitalism and free market recognizes the fundamental fact that humans are fallible and what the system does is delivery justice. It promises that IF you do make the right choice, you will reap the full of your reward. If you fail, the only ones pay are you and those who willingly followed you (no government bailouts..etc.).

To put things into perspective. 100 hardworking men under a socialist system will still yield higher net wealth than 100 lazy bum in a capitalistic system. But 100 hardworking men under capitalistic system will always yield higher net wealth for themselves than the same 100 hardworking men under a socialist system.

>>8
instead we would nationalize them, so that the public could have a minimal a say in how they are run
Why would the communists act any more benevolently than the corporatists? Because they are communists? Both the current corporatist system and your theoretical planned economy are democratic, we the people can pile as many laws and regulations as we want onto corporations, yet obviously this accomplishes nothing, even though the state is democratic it is still hopeless corrupt such that corporations can embezzle trillions of tax dollars from it every year. It is self-justification to assume it would be better if we centralized more economic power under the state just because the people doing it are communist, you might revenge the plutocrats in this system that we all have a special hating for, but all you would be doing is replacing them with another group of plutocrats with more power.

We need to stop relying on the state now, it's been decades and it has accomplished nothing. We must instead rely more on direct democratic local governments (the same as your communes except without the semantics and silly marxist abstractions), cooperatives (the same as worker's councils except without the semantics and silly marxist abstractions) and individual freedom (the same as anarchism except without the semantics and silly marxist abstractions).
>>9
Distinguish between capitalism and corporatocracy. Corporations may be privately owned, yet corporations are granted special tax codes, legal statuses and various other privileges by the state that are not confered onto the majority of the population, it's not capitalism if it's not equal, essentially the corporatocrats are part of the state, like feudal lords from the middle ages.

Monsanto is one such corporatocrat, what with their fuckton of agricultural subsidies and bizarre patent laws, and not really capitalist.
>>11
People who support keynesian economics also support dubious subsidies, licenses, regulations, tariffs and taxes. There will always be hypocrites in every system, the point is to leave them with less options, capitalism accomplishes this by allowing people to vote with their wallets and making it more difficult for the state to interfere in the economy arbitrarily.
>>13
What would they do if they had complete control over "competitors"? Capitalism limits corruption considerably, getting rid of capitalism because it does not get rid of all corruption is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
>>14
That's the definition of "rule by the strongest" which capitalism is not, capitalism protects the property rights of others, so you cannot do absolutely everything. As for the actual systems, organizations and policies needed to prevent fraud and theft, capitalism makes preserving justice much easier by assigning property to people and allowing transactions to be monitored.
>>15
Fraud harms people's property rights, their body is their property. What you are describing is not capitalism but Karl Marx's dream of a stateless classless communist dystopia where people don't even own their own bodies, such a world would be a horrible place to live in.
>>16
Maybe they just don't boycott the products you want them to boycott. One negative news story and sales can plummet, toys "made in China" suffered a huge hit a few years ago, China even started dishing out death penalties by the dozen to anyone even remotely associated with corruption and fraud because the shock to their exports was so dangerous to their political stability.
>>17
I am of the belief that is religious prophets were around today they would not act like their followers, they would care more about ending poverty than trying to ban gay marriage and so forth. Now while I'm not a saint and I don't claim to know exactly how they would act, I am capable of logic and reasoning to a certain extent and I am fairly certain they would recognize the merits of the capitalist system, especially it's role in seperating powers.
>>18
Protectionism and mercantilism are justified as a response to protectionism and mercantilism by other countries, essentially taxing foreign merchants the amount which has been taxed from our merchants by the respective country of origin of the particular product. Protectionism against a country that wishes to conduct free trade with us is counter-productive in the long term, in the few instance it is productive for the state it is not productive for the individual. America has prospered due to it's policy of seeking free trade agreements and thus getting rid of pointless economic arrangements that favor the prosperity of states over the individual and prevent comparitive advantage.

With capitalism it's all about "who is rich first".

How is economic nationalism or as someone else said protectionism in any-way-shape-or-form "communistic"? Communists want a one-world economy with one currency.

>>25
Because apparently making more money and creating more wealth is evil right?

For only a but few exceptions. This thread stinks of Republicunt misinfomation! lies and talking points made to confuse more than to address truth. The rich through out the world need to be put into forced labor camps everything taken from them and any assosites of theirs that have profited from crimes

 Your a obombnation of god. rich mens blood will gush through the streets like crimson rivrs. We'll swim backstrokes in rich mens blood! class vengeance will be taken. I for one plan to be an unholy harbinger of the rich mans apocolypse.

>>28

3/10 for effort, would troll again

Try to loose the exclamation marks for starters so it's not bluntly obvious.

Greed has never motivated any inventions. It's a sin. The only thing greed has advanced is how to trick sheep with commercials into buying your product.

>>29
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

>>30

Wrong in all accounts.

All inventions that's not created under the threat of a gun is motivated by greed and ambition. If every single inventor great or small in the past did not apply patent for his/her invention, then your statement might have merit.

Greed is neither a virtue nor a sin, it just is, a natural part of man. If you value something as good, you will want more of it. The method chosen by the individual to satisfy his greed and ambition is the only place where moral judgment can and need to be passed. He can either create wealth, or steal wealth created by others. And if that individual thought things through, he'll know only the first choice will work out in the end.

If some arbitrary convention is your standard (bible, public opinion..etc.), then anything can be a sin, greed, ambition, sex, use of condom.

If a person's moral standard is reason, is what will work out in the end, then there is no sin except stupidity.

(misclick)

>>32
GREED HAS NO HEART

More republicunt Theory it doesnt have to be true just keep repeating it until everyone agrees

Why not go back to glenn becks the blazed fags they will shake thier head an agree with you. You fat ass sausage sucking Nazi-whipped fages Tell them we wouldn't fall for it, It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these thruths we know to be self evident

Greed is EVIL

>>33 well... at least there should be some balance. Evil only exists as an agreed upon value...
And greed can be tempered with conscience.
But unchecked greed horrifies me, to be sure.

Like: is it possible to be too rich? I believe so. Some don't...

I think it depends perhaps on the care for other humans. If I'm getting rich by oppressing others and treating them like shit, or if I contribute to my community and give back.
Some would base wealth on what is given, rather than on what is owned/kept.

Interesting. If you look at all the richest people in the world not a single one actually invented anything. They became wealthy through entrepreneurship and marketing aka exploiting people.

GOP = Party of God. GOP says greed is good? Every major denomination of Christianity considers greed a sin...

I base wealth on happiness. Fuck money. Give me friends, music, good food and health any day over fucking numbers.

>>35

>Entrepreneurship, marketing = exploiting people
>Entrepreneurship has nothing to do with invention.

Are you trolling? I have a hard time believing people are actually this ignorant.

>>36

Because those who champions capitalism has to be GOP right?

Both Republicans and Democrats have half their policies right and half of them wrong. None of them follows any s principles and flapflops depends on mood. Then you have the libertarians who is better, but they want anarchy.

Oh, and fuck religion.

>>33

Take your pills pal before you choke yourself from your own foams.

I'm not republican, nor affiliated with any parties for that matter, they are all junks.

Instead of repeating some incoherent nonsenses they taught you at bible school or what not and raging like a 14 year old, how about you start stating your reasons WHY greed by itself is evil? A man who wants a bigger house opens a new business and succeeds in earning the money needed; he's greedy, is that evil? A man who wants a bigger house decides to rob a bank, is the wanting part, the greed part, what's evil? what will cause his downfall? Or is it something else.

If the only reason why something is evil you can call out is because IT JUST IS, then I got nothing else to say to you. Go back to your Sunday school.


>>34

>Evil only exists as an agreed upon value...

That depends on your definition is Evil. If its definition is something is evil because God says so, or because the public opinion says so, then yeah, it's just some meaningless arbitrary convention. If your definition of Evil is something objective like something that is destructive to human life, then no it's not just some agreed upon value.

>If I'm getting rich by oppressing others and treating them like shit,

You can't get rich like that, not on a free market.

>>39
 You can't get rich like that on a free market??? what?
Obviously you've never seen a free market.
A true free market means you have the freedom to:
 a) treat people (and employees) well,
or
b) treat them like shit,

or cdefg...whatever you want, and the market decides if they like it.
C'mon, please can we talk about REAL free markets here, and not some theoretical utopia?

>>40

And how exactly does treating your employees and your customers like shit make you rich? Last time I checked people don't exactly pay others to treat they like shit. And I'm pretty sure both customers and talented employees will want to go to your competitors if you treated them like shit.

C'mon, how about we started talking SENSE here instead of some kneejerking crap.

>> 40
If I have the only store that's hiring in the neighborhood, like oh, hypothetically, how about WALMART, and you need to buy food for for your family and can't get a job anywhere else, and you get a job with me, and I treat you like, well, just about shit; you're fucked  'cuz there aren't any other jobs since all the mom and pop stores are out of business.(employee)
And then, since there aren't any other stores that you can afford to shop at since I pay you shit wages, I can sell you processed crap to feed your kids, and you can't really do anything about it since you can't afford anything else. (customer)
God forbid I should ever do anything like like that to you or anyone else. But many folks wouldn't think twice about it. It's happening everywhere in the "free market" : open your eyes.
But, of course, with ethical people, free markets work just fine.
Problem is, you can't have one system for ethical people, and one for those without ethics, 'cause it's not that black and white, and a lot of folks are many different shades of grey.

oops, i meant >>41

>>42

You (or whoever posted 34) said if I get rich BY oppressing others and treating them like shit. You don't, oppressing others and treating them like shit don't act to generate additional revenue. CAN you get rich while been an asshole? It's possible, but unlikely, considering how important communication and professional relationships are at high capital businesses.

As for 42, that's a completely different subject. But I'll comment on it.

>But, of course, with ethical people, free markets work just fine [if people are unethical, free market doesn't work]

Refer to what I posted on >>23.

Your standard for a social system to "work" is that everyone is happy and people can't be assholes by law. THAT is exactly what it meant trying to achieve Utopia. And we all know where that goes.

Can people be assholes in a free market? Sure. Is it a problem with the system? No. Will someone succeed in a free market BECAUSE he is an asshole? No. Does free market encourage or make people into be assholes? No.

>> 44
"Can people be assholes in a free market? Sure. Is it a problem with the system? No. Will someone succeed in a free market BECAUSE he is an asshole? No. Does free market encourage or make people into be assholes? No."

says who? I say it IS a problem with the system, and i say that someone MAY succeed because he is an asshole, or a hard-ass, or however you want to put it.
Look, systems aren't perfect: therefore there is a need for some kind of oversight, which won't be perfect either, of course.
Ultimately, everyone being free is my ideal, and I assume yours, so however that can best be achieved may be a better system. I think I like collectives and co-ops, myself, but I don't see capitalism as evil. Neither do I see it as perfect and ideal.

and yes, i did post  >>34

>>45

If the system doesn't encourage people to be unethical, then people been unethical is not a problem of the system.

In a free market, if someone is an asshole and gets rich, that means despite the fact that the immoral choice of been an asshole pulling him down, his other choices and abilities (those in his trade) is so great that the net affect still makes him successful. That's what it means. And that's just.

Human begins have free will, no political system can change that fact, nor make someone who wishes to act unethical ethical. Attempts to force people to act ethical by using law is the attempt to achieve Utopia. It will never work, and it will always drag society downward (I can elaborate and give examples if you wish).

To create a political system for human begins, the goal is not to create one that attempts to force ethical choices by law (to any degree), that doesn't work. The goal is to create a system that delivers justice, that if someone's net choices is positive and he succeeds in his goals, he will keep all he earned. If he fails, he's the only one responsible for his losses.

Capitalism is dying

>>48
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,969321,00.html
    *
    *
    * 0diggsdigg

Sixteen-year-old Nadya Vanova listens intently as a customer orders a Big Mak, kartofel-fries and an ice-cream koktel, or milkshake. After punching the order into one of 29 computerized cash registers, she nods and says, "Thank you. Please come again." But assistant manager Sergei Skvortsov, 25, shakes his head unhappily as he observes her trial run. "Nyet," he tells the nervous trainee. "Try again. You must look each customer in the eye and smile."

Young Nadya is one of 605 employees chosen from 27,000 Soviet applicants who responded to a small help-wanted ad that McDonald's officials placed last November.

The biggest problem has been dealing with the Soviet ministries, which still adhere to rigid regulations in doling out precious supplies. Explains Cohon: "When we need more sand or gravel for building and go to the department in charge, they say, 'Sorry, you're not in my five-year plan.' "

The venture intends to buy virtually all its raw materials from Soviet producers, no small order in a country where many food products are rationed and the term quality control is not in the lexicon. The Moscow managers have imported potato and cucumber seeds from the Netherlands and have trained Soviet farmers to harvest and pack the produce without bruising it. They have taught Soviet cattle farmers that they can raise leaner beef by castrating their cattle a month later than usual and slaughtering them a month earlier. To maintain food standards and keep the supply flowing, the company has built a $40 million food-distribution plant just outside Moscow, with its own bakery, dairy and meat-processing units as well as a microbiology lab.

Deal with it.

>>39
Hey pal you should pop a glock in your mouth an make your brain squishy

WHY greed by itself is evil? Are you really this dumb? Or another distraction. How on earth you can not understand somein as simple as greed is evil. You need splainin why greed is evil? Its seems an atttempt to derail the subject. I can see from your remark you probably dont understand "A man who wants a bigger house opens a new business and succeeds in earning the money needed; he's greedy, is that evil?" than your next statement. It seems to me you dont have the moral standards or common resoning to continue. You must be plain stupid or in need preacher. I think discussing this simple premiss would I think distract from OP's intent of the discusstion here open a new thread on this if you need help understanding common sense. 4chaners are here to help you with this!

If your stament was a troll. I must compliment you! Clever construction but basic "I am 12 an wut is this"

>>50

9/10 if troll, terri-bad grammar/sentence structure and high subtlety level really sets you apart from the average run of the mill trolls, bravo.

If not, then go back and finish school first kid so you can actually be literate before even thinking about making any serious comments on ethical and political subjects.

The connection between the subject of greed and free-market is simple. If greed is evil (evil as in destructive to human life, not as in evil because my preacher told me god said so), then free-market, which is the only system that does not attempt to limit human ambition, human greed, would be evil too. That's the connection, the connection between ethics and politics, try wrap your head around it kid.

As for the rest of the your illiterate garbage and pathetic attempts at personal insults, they deserve no reply.

>>51
But that is a point.  Greed by itself is not evil.  Greed being fulfilled by explicit and illicit activity unto another is evil.  Greed through any other means leading to such consequences is short-sightedness, a common affliction of people world-wide regardless of what activity they are performing; ignoring or shunning those consequences can become evil again, though that is not an absolute depending on the "consequences" in question.  Greed is just wanting something or a lot of something; when it goes beyond all other possible morality, then it becomes evil.

>>52

Pretty much that except for the last part.

Greed doesn't become anything, greed just is. If a guy decides to rob a bank instead of working hard to satisfy his ambition, his choice of method is what's evil and what will cause his downfall.

The old proverb "there is no sin except stupidity" is the truest statement ever. All wrongs can be traced back to people not thinking things through, that is the root of all evil.

But anyhow, the point is, the method to satisfy one's greed and ambition is where good and evil resides.

Like I said before, there are only two fundamental ways to gain more wealth: you create more though work/trade/business, or you steal them from others. One good, the other evil.

A good system therefore is one that allows for free trading/business/work..etc. in all areas, and bans robbery, thieft, fraud..etc. in all versions. And that is free market.

>>51
Eventually you will admit defeat and make mes you're King, and shower me with gifts and money and naked chicks.

>>55
This is 4Chan in all-text mode; we have neither money nor chicks, clothed or otherwise.

>>54

Okay. okay. I would argue that unfettered capitalism is now detrimental to life.
Why?
Look at the state of the whole fucking world!!!!
Clean water, clean air, nutritious food. Basic necessities for life, right?
Well, capitalism _ and greed _ have gotten so out of control that instead of birthrights, these have become commodities, available only to the well off.
Believe me, I fucking know, working my ass off to provide these basic necessities for my family while living below the poverty line. Why, because I happen to not be greedy, for whatever reason. Because I would rather work with my hands, be artistic, enjoy my son's childhood, and live simply. But in this world, such a thing has become a luxury.
By my standards, that is evil.

>>57

The food that you eat doesn't arrive at your table by magic.  Other people work to produce it and to get it to you.  Likewise with the water you drink, the house or flat you live in, the clothes that you wear, and all of the other necessities of life.  All of these are produced by the efforts of your neighbours.

You have no more of a natural right to consume the efforts others that the French aristocracy had to consume the produce of their serfs or the White plantation owners had to sweat and bleed labour out of their slaves.

We must all produce at least as much value for our neighbours as we consume, or else we are little more than parasites who live purely at the expense of others.  In a truly free market the price we get for our labour is unlying indicator of how well we are serving the wants of others.

If your artistic efforts are not well rewarded then it is because the honest and un-honeyed opinion of your potential customers is that your work is not good enough for them to want it.  You would serve your son better if were less petulant and more honest about your lack of talent.  Then you would see that you serve the world best by applying your talents however great or small in whatever direction delivers the best rewards.

In capitalism, rewards follow the wants of others.

>>58
1)Bullshit.
Water doesn't come from other's work, water is produced free of charge by our planet. The polluting and bottling and selling of it is capitalism at its worst.
The air we breathe has become corrupted: children don't even have the right to good health because capitalists have destroyed that too.
And food... you yourself have stated that GMO's are evil. Well, guess what: they're everywhere, thanks to pollination. Plus most folks don't have access to decent food anymore, at least not affordably.
So.Evil.Refute that.

2)I would prefer to make my own clothes, build my own house, grow my own food. Serving the wants of others?? SERVING??? There's my problem with capitalism right there. I'm not here to serve anyone, fuck that. I'll serve those whom I choose, and not for pay. I much prefer trade.

Your utopian perspective of pure capitalism is reeally outdated. We've already seen that it doesn't work very well. Why are you opposed to modified capitalism, hmmm?

>>57
THIS GUY GETS IT!!!
That is a guy I'd be proud to call a bro.

All you fat fucking rich better allways remeber theres more of us then you.

Sometimes I sit and wonoder how many times greed has destroyed civiliztion.

The rich and elites seem to be taking pride in the division of humanity. We use to unite to form a more perfect union. NOw is time take our wealth back.

Kill the Rich and Eat Their Children

The poor are poorer because the rich are getting richer. DONT LET THEM DISTRACT YOU FROM THIS SIMPLE FACT!!!

poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them". give them reasons to fear us again and things will change quick

The result is that wealth accumulation is the product of carefully manipulated transfers that harm the working class. The ‘trickle-down’ effect peters out quickly as you descend the income ladder, with gains spreading little further than to the already affluent.

If you really want to see trickle down economics at work we need to kill off the rich people who are hording all the money. This monetary system that we live in is complete BS and forces people to live in a giant pyramid scheme. And the richer the guy is on top, the more poor people have to exist on the bottom. We need to balance that out by getting rid of all billionaires. They will never give up the money on their own, so we should just get rid of them all. The good of the many outweighs the luxury of the few.

FL School Board Shooter Posted Suicide Note Railing Against the Rich, Linking to Media Matters

December 15, 2010

Clay Duke, the man who opened fire on a Florida school board Tuesday, posted a “last testament” on Facebook decrying the wealthy and linking to a slew of progressive sites including theprogressivemind.info and MediaMatters.org.

The chilling Facebook statement, posted under the “About Clay” section, talks about being born poor and how the rich “take turns fleecing us”:

My Testament: Some people (the government sponsored media) will say I was evil, a monster (V)… no… I was just born poor in a country where the Wealthy manipulate, use, abuse, and economically enslave 95% of the population. Rich Republicans, Rich Democrats… same-same… rich… they take turns fleecing us… our few dollars… pyramiding the wealth for themselves. The 95%… the us, in US of A, are the neo slaves of the Global South. Our Masters, the Wealthy, do, as they like to us…

In addition to the note, Duke also includes a reference to class warfare:

“There’s class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class that’s making war and we’re winning”
- Warren Buffet

Besides the writings, Duke also includes an exhaustive list of links under the quote “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!” The page includes a link dedicated to Wikileaks, another to a progressive 9/11 truther site, and even Media Matters:

http://metanoia-films.org/index.php

http://www.theprogressivemind.info/

http://www.axisoflogic.com/

http://carolynbaker.net/

http://www.accountabilitycircle.org/

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com

http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

http://mediamatters.org/

http://www.medialens.org/

http://redpill8.blogspot.com/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Disinfopedia

http://www.stoplying.ca/

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/

http://luvsite.org/natsec.html

http://www.wearechange.org/

http://wikileaks.indymedia.org/mirrors.html

Is capitalism compatible with autarky? No because we give people "the choice" to import commodities from Chinamen instead of finding ways to create them ourselves.

My fellow Americans (as you like to be called), you now have the opportunity to prove that you are not passive slaves, the “sheeple” that they say you are. Over the past few months you’ve been forced to face the awful fact that you’ve been robbed blind on a scale that makes the Russian oligarchy look like squeamish Swedish socialists by comparison. So far, you haven’t done a fucking thing. Haven’t lifted a finger against them. The best you can come up with is either suicide (oo, that’ll teach the plutocrats not to steal your money and ruin you!) or burning your foreclosed houses down (a nice start, but still, why not burn down the bankers’ houses?).

>>59

1) Sure, there's loads of water around for free.  You can drink it by the puddle-full every time it rains.  But if you want clean water from a tap or a bottle, then someone has to work to make that available to you.  The only way that you can have a right to water bottled or on tap is if another living, breathing human being is obligated to provide that right to you.  In short - someone else must be your bound servant.  Do you have claim this as a right?

2) Congratulations, your preference for trade is the very embodiment of capitalism in the tradition of Adam Smith, Frederck Bastiat, F.A.Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, et al.

The fetid mess that currently gets called capitalism is actually a mix of crony corporatism, mercantilism, fascism and a little capitalism.  So much force and fraud is mixed in to the market in order to sustain vested interests.

In capitalism, the banks would never have been bailed out when the credit bubble burst.  But then, a truly capitalist market place would not have had a Federal Reserve Bank to pump easy credit for housing loans into the economy.  It was this credit - unbacked by a real demand - that drove the housing boom.  Entrepreneurs saw this credit and thought that it represented real demand on the part of housebuyers and so they invested in housing.  Housing prices and all related costs soared while scarce resources were misdirected away from other sectors of the economy causing declines all around.  Eventually, the central bank credit turned sour as lenders realised that borrowers couldn't meet the costs of their borrowing - they had been given more credit than they could afford.  And so the boom turned to bust.  And believe me, its got a long way to go yet.

>>63
But there’s still time to prove that you’re not passive, pathetic serfs. That’s right Americans, here’s your chance to prove that you’re not slaves, that you won’t just sit there and take it when they steal from you. We know who stole everything from you. They don’t even hide—they’re all over the TV networks, bragging, strutting, laughing at you. We know where they work, and we know what they look like. They’re literally asking for it. Shouldn’t you, Americans, with your guns and your high and mighty talk about how you protect your rights and your property and your families—shouldn’t you, like, do something? They’re responsible for throwing you out of work, out of your house, bankrupting your retirement, destroying your life and your family and everything you’ve worked for. And they don’t even hide it! So, what’re you gonna do about it? Sit there and complain? Call another fucking rightwing radio talkshow and kvetch like an old Jewish grandmother? Do you have any fucking balls left at all?

What all decent people want to see right now is these rich fucks being dragged out of their mansions by a mob, shitting and pissing themselves with terror, then watching it again and again on Youtube with your friends

>>57

>Look at the state of the whole fucking world!!!!

Because the world right now is a free-market right?

All the shitty economic happenings are the result of socialist policies. None of them the result of free market.

>>59

1) Water delivery and purification system cost quite a lot pal. So if you want clean water delivered right to your tab, then yeah, it costs money.

If you think the service to delivery clean water right to your tab is evil and capitalism at its worst, you are free to bottle your own unpurified water from a river, I'm pretty sure that's free.

As for air pollution, that's a crime in free-market. You are free to pollute your own property as much as you want, but as soon as any of that pollution gets into other people's property, you can be sued.

>children don't even have the right to good health because capitalists have destroyed that too.

Everybody has the right to pursue a good, nobody has the right to a good. Since a good (house, health care..etc.) requires the work of other people, having a right to them meant you have an absolute claim to the work of some others, meaning they are your slave. Child or no child, nobody have such a right. There is a reason why Declaration of Independence states the right to "the pursuit of happiness" and not the right to happiness.

As for GM food, there is no scientific bases that the GM food served in today's market is harmful to health. But the bottom line is if for whatever reason don't like it, then don't buy it. You think there is not enough non-GM food on the market (those that are there are too expensive) and think there are a lot of people including yourself who want non-GM food? Open your own organic farm business or invest in one. This used to be what America was about, people making things happen. But unfortunately now we have fucking whiners like you everywhere.

2) Strictly he did mean trading. The last time you worked for no pay would be the time you truly served someone.

I would explain things in a more calm manner if you weren't such a shrill. Bottomline is you know nothing about Capitalism and nothing about the root of today's problems.

>>60
>The poor are poorer because the rich are getting richer.
>The result is that wealth accumulation is the product of carefully manipulated transfers that harm the working class.

At last you show your true color, and states the fundamental reasoning behind all your bullshits.

Your post shows a COMPLETELY fucking misunderstanding and ignorance of economics and the nature of wealth.

The only way someone gets richer by making another poorer is if HE COMMITS THEFT. Is that what you are trying to say? That every human begins all to have equal ability to produce wealth and if someone becomes richer than others, he have to have committed some sort theft by some deceit?

Or maybe you think the economy is actually a closed system, a zero-sum game, theft or not a person can only get rich by somehow hoarding more than their fair share? If economy is a closed zero-sum system then why the hell are we not still at stone age? Why the hell does this number called GDP rise?

>If you really want to see trickle down economics at work we need to kill off the rich people who are hording all the money.

What you think you are the first one who thought this BRILLIANT idea dumbshit? Soviet Russia did it, and countless other societies before them. Guess what happened after ward? They found out the hard way that wealth doesn't rain down from the sky and the economy isn't some zero-sum game.

Fucking ignorant bigot like you that pose as intellectuals are the fukcing reason why so much shit happened in the past 100 years.

i want to kill a rich man
to make up for the blood he shed
i want to kill a rich man
and paint the walls in red
i want to kill a rich man
to starve him of his rights
i want to kill a rich man
and make him fight his fights
i want to kill a rich man
just to make him see
i want to kill a rich man
then maybe we'd be free

>>68
apparently i have much pent-up rage inside of me

>>69

"I"

>>69
Just cool, that is :)

>>71
NO i cause i = legion

>>73

L = I right?

>>69  There are three ancient Chinese curses:

1) May you live in interesting times

2) May you come to the attention of important people

3) May your fondest dream be fulfilled

The last was written with you in mind.

>>68

People like him are not the reason for thing like Soviet Russia.

Uneducated masses who followed are.

>>69

You reminds me of those poor bloody commies who destroyed their own country by killing all the legit rich guys only to find out afterward that those rich guys didn't get wealthy by somehow magically hax'ing wealth away from others.

It's funny how after every wealthy professionals with legit skills in their trade dies, the wealth they produced when they lived doesn't trickle anymore. I wonder why is that hmmmmmm.

Well no matter, those commies had years of famines and starvation ahead of them to figure it out. Although it seems even to today, their small intellectual still couldn't grasp why.

My friends, I have the perfect solution
Guillotine
If it was good enough for Marie Antoinette, surely it is good enough for these people

We could kill the rich and feed them to the poor

>>68

You dumbshit, you don't get pissed no matter how bad the other guy is or else the thread turns into troll bait.

Ohh shiit, here they come.

It's called "capitalism" for a reason. Capital. Most of the consuming classes don't have any

Capitalism I aint smart as youall but heres how I see it. Put lip stick on a pig its still a pig!

Where's the classsic Frankenstein mob with the torches, pitchforks and rope when you need 'em anyway?!

>>82
I don't even know which side of the argument you're making fun of at this point.  Anyway.

The population of the United States is about 310,000,000.  20% of that population earns over $100k and there are about 2,886,200 resident millionaires and 5 listed billionaire residents.  (A long time ago I quoted statistics that about 90% of people who would be called "the rich" pay most of federal income tax revenue; though it's not important to my current argument, please keep it in mind.)  The combined US billionaires are worth about $171.2B and let's assume the millionaires are each worth $100m each - $288.62B - and those 20% I mentioned before have an individual worth of $125k each - $7,750B.  Together, $8209.82B.  Even if you divide that out for every citizen of the United states that's only one check worth $26500. $26500.  If you use the population distribution used by sociologist Leonard Beeghley and only distribute that amount to the 45% working class (as opposed to "middle class;" refer to his model) and 12% lower class that's a single redistribution of $46500.  The amount of money you'd get is a one-time working class annual paycheck's worth that you could burn through easily.

Additionally, those who have these incomes have a high chance of running, managing, owning, or otherwise making internal policies for a part of whole of one of the major businesses that operates in the United States (or worldwide).  For many, that business IS the reason they're wealthy and provides a renewable supply of products to other people.  Removing them from the equation will either accomplish nothing or disrupt these systems that ("common") people use.

Targeting the rich for virtue of them being "the rich" doesn't accomplish anything.  It'd be the perfect demonstration of a house divided not being able to stand.

>>84
Sorry, some poor math.
- US billionaires - 5 - $171.2B
- US millionaires - 2,886,000 - $2,886,200B (assumption: $100m net worth; also, many people in this group are retirees, sports, entertainment, politicians)
- US "the rich" (notwithstanding the above) - 20% @ $125k per - $7,750B

That would be a redistribution of a single $9.336 million check to every US citizen (or $16.380 million as per Beeghley's figures).  Admittedly, that is much better than my previous numbers and almost makes me say the tactic actually looks good now. BUT--and it's a big "but"--that leaves a lot of the complications that would ensue because of the change, including the aforementioned disruption to both private and public services, and that it would only work this way once.  There's also the problem of the inflation offset this kind of sudden redistribution of finances would cause (that would be a problem regardless of socialism or capitalism trends; it's a problem of "stuff" in general), possibly even rendering the single check pointless and, next year, making the whole of the nation poor when everything is adjusted to just that much more money and no one can afford it anymore.  [dry]Won't that be fun.[/dry]

Actually, if you were going to use a cockamammy scheme like this, you may as well use the money to pay our international and national debts off first.  We could pay them off thrice, at least.

>>84
>>85
nosense your numbers are lies richman little bitch you are!!

>>84
>>85
Ayn Rand’s bastard child

>>84
>>85

Trolled hard..you seriously fall for those comments?

Trolls are tsundere for free-market.

:)

>>64
>>67
You are going to lose this water argument: give up.
Seriously, you don't know that not that long ago, springs, creeks, and rivers had water we could actually drink? Guess who fucked that up? Water should be free. I don't want bottled water shit. If I'm going have tap water, I have no problem paying the laborers who make it happen. But I would rather do the labor myself: not an option.
>>67
No right to health? I'm not talking about healthcare... I'm talking about the right to live in an enviroment that isn't toxic. I strongly disagree with you. We all have that right, or we should.
>>84
>>85
Quick, confuse them all with numbers so they forget reality!

>>90
>Water should be free

And water is free, like I said, you can go bottle your own water from rivers or rain drops, you don't have to pay anyone a dime.

But if you want purified water from a water reservoir that's supplied through a series of tubes directly to your house, your tab water, then that's going to cost you.

Your old posts seem to suggest that tab water should be free. And I'm telling you why it isn't. If you agree with this then there is no argument.

As for pollution water or air, you tell me exactly how does the free-market cause those things huh? I already stated a few post back that it's a crime to pollute other people's property in a free-market.

As for the pollution happening NOW in certain places of the world, it's precisely caused by a LACK of property right. Since most governments are socialistic to various degrees, the rivers and air are public property that is owned by the government, not individuals, what this becomes is as long as someone has a strong enough special-interest influence in the government, they can lobby legislators to pass laws that allow them to shit in those rivers or airspace as they wish.

As for rights, you are still mistaken. No matter how kneejerking it is there is no such thing as a positive right. The right to live in an none toxic environment, assume a person's house suddenly becomes toxic because of a natural disaster, does that mean he has a right to make professionals to clean his house or others to pay the fee with or without their consent?

The only right a person have in regard to this is property right, that is if he own a property, then no one else has the right to pollute it.

Screw both capitalism and socialism. Feudalism is what works.

>>87
I've actually never read Ayn Rand but, as long as I keep getting told this, I may as well read one book for comparison.  Which do you recommend as most thorough?

>>88
My fetish is responding to trolls seriously with the intent/hope of sparking decent conversation.  I know where I am but that's no excuse to not try.

>>91
Hmmm, property...
Yeah, I guess my belief is that certain things are common property, such as water and air.
Therefore polluting any of it is a violation of those rights: of ALL of our rights, yours, mine and etc.
I wasn't intending that to mean tap water, I can see how that could be misunderstood.... No, I'm talking about the actual water that by birthright is all of ours who live here on this planet. Of course I would recompense someone who brings it to me in some way, that is only fair.
Your extreme example of forcing people to clean a house is just that: an extreme example. However, companies, and the people who run and work for them should be held accountable for fucking things up. And common property should be commonly cared for.

By the way, telling me I am mistaken is completely fallacious. I could tell you you are mistaken, and we could go round and round... the fact is we disagree.

>>93
clearly a gleen beek fad

>>95
I you hunt yuou sown ad silll you fagggggot

fuck the worls fucking trolls rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuck you rich little bitches kiss my big white ass you dtupid fucking fairy ass sluts

>>94

The concept of public property is flawed at the root. Right is an absolute claim. If two or more people have an absolute claim to the same property, and their interest differ, then who is to say whose interest should prevail? You say a common property should be commonly cared for, but the fact is ethical or not person A has just as much right to shit on it as person B to plant flowers, all that's left is for them to duke it out.

Reason can't solve this, the only thing left is contest of might in the government. It becomes a situation where might makes right, whether that be by vote or money or even guns.

As for my example, extreme or not that is a valid example for a right to live in an none toxic environment. You might not meant it to be this way, but that's exactly what such a right would entail. A right is an absolute claim. If a person have an absolute claim to live in an none toxic environment, that means if his living space gets polluted for whatever reason, then SOMEONE gotta clean it for him.

Fact is, a lot of people today think legit political right is just any arbitrarily fashioned right with enough public support. That might makes a right. That anyone's idea of a right is valid as long as they can get enough vote behind it. That is wrong, a contradiction to reality.

A political right has to be foremost non-contradictory, can be applied to every single person in a society and without violating any other individual rights. Any positive right whether that be a right to medical care or a right to none-toxic environment is not a valid right, they are contradictory.

>>99
Everyone has the right to live how they see fit as long as they don't hurt anyone else. The minute they hurt someone else they violate their rights. Not that hard to figure out.
Your shit/flower commons is silly. Have you ever had a common space? These things do get worked out, with reason, over time. It is possible to build consensus, to have an outcome that everyone is satisfied with. If someone wants to be a power tripping asshole, the community (who have equal ownership rights) will censure that person as it isn't in the interest of all concerned. And before you go being sad for that individual, remember that he was the one that brought power into the equation in the first place. He can go do his own thing if he doesn't want to play fair.

aaaaaaawWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW FUCK I GOT DRUNK LAST NITE HOW ABOUT YOU
Me thinks i kill the one brain cell that was working

>>100

>Everyone has the right to live how they see fit as long as they don't hurt anyone else. The minute they hurt someone else they violate their rights.

I'll give a more suitable example. Person A and person B both have absolute claim a river. Person A wants to build a watermill over the river to work his grains. Person B on the other hand wants to river to stay virgin so he can admire its natural beauty. Now both have claim over the whole of the river due to public ownership, and there you have it. If person A build that watermill, he violates person B's right to the river. If person B succeeds in stopping A from building the mill, he violates A's right.

Common space (I assume you mean a common between roommates) belongs to the landlord. That landlord is the one who owns it and makes the rule on how it should be used by the tenants.

As for things working out over time, that's the wrong way to put it. It's possible for the dust to settle when the interest coincides or when the power struggle comes to a stalemate or when one side just stops caring, but the root of the problem is still there, that more than two individuals have an absolute claim to the same property and that only might can determine the victor if their interest differs.

Things are fundamentally the same even if the ownership is claimed by more than two people, and is the same if the outcome is decided by a vote. A vote in such a situation where everyone has the claim to the WHOLE property would mean the majority can vote away the right of a minority, a victory by might.

Point been, public ownership is flawed conceptually at the root. It's contradictory for a group of people to have the same absolute claim on the same property. Such a political policy is to openly invite inevitable conflict.

I think this is on topic and I would like hear your thoughts, as in the context of, if there is a problem with the rich taking to much from the poor. I am a little off with wording I figure you smart people here know what I mean.

“There’s class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class that’s making war and we’re winning”
- Warren Buffet

I have not heard him retract this or heard that it was taken out of context.

I have seen this around and dont know the souce on it but if any one out there know I would like to read, veiw, or listen to the oringanl source

N/b/4 learn to google

////b////

I a /b/ motherfucker!!!!!!!!!!

>>103

>if there is a problem with the rich taking to much from the poor

You are basically implying right off the bat that people can only get rich by making someone else poor. That economy is a closed zero sum system and wealth is just intrinsic in raw materials.

That's the biggest and the old misconception about wealth in the history of mankind.

The simplest example to illustrate this is a farmer growing wheat. After one year that farmer is $50,000 richer. That 50k is wealth he CREATED out of NOTHING (before physics freaks jump me, by nothing I mean no wheat). Nobody else is somehow 50k poorer now this farmer is 50k richer.

I posted before, the only way to get rich BY making someone else poor, is through theft/robbery/fraud..etc. (and that's prohibited) Anyone getting rich not though these acts meant they got rich the legit way, by creating wealth for themselves that hadn't been there.

As for Warren Buffet, what he probably meant is the power struggle in the current semi-socialistic government between interest groups vying for illegitimate right by might. Some of these groups are perceived to represent the rich, other the poor. The ones perceived to represent the rich are winning in his opinion.

Buffet is an investor, not a philosopher. He's a genius at capital allocation, but that doesn't automatically translate him into a genius political scientist. Just something to keep in mind.

>>103

As soon as you plant wheat, you've put more wheat into the economy. This causes the price of wheat to drop.

>>102
Okay, I guess you haven't experienced a co-op or collective.
No-one has "absolute claim" , that wouldn't make any sense. Ownership is held collectively.

So: watermill: A and B (and whoever else is in that community) discuss the idea. B presents hi points, A presents her points. At some point it is decided whether this mill would be beneficial to all.  Long discussions ensue. Eventually, some kind of agreement is reached. Perhaps the mill is placed around the bend from B's house. Perhaps the mill is made is such a way that B is pleased enough by the aesthetic to offset his feelings about the "virgin river"... Or perhaps B offers to do the extra work to grind the grain in a different way (windmill, perhaps?), in order to "save " the river. 
It is possible to reach decisions by consensus: in which no decision is made until everyone agrees on something. Compromises are reached, minds are changed... definitely not a quick process, but worthwhile. Surprisingly, it IS possible for everyone to be satisfied, maybe not thrilled, but content, with the outcome.
This is happening all the time, all around the world, and presents, in my mind, a much better alternative for public space.

>>106

You are looking at it wrong, it's not the value of wheat going down, it's the value of the currency going up.

By selling his wheat for 50k in currency, the farmer is changing his newly created wealth from the form of wheat to the form of currency. And, assume no new bills are printed (no inflation), the current amount of $ floating in the market increases in their purchasing power against wheat.

It's entirely possible that the other farmers could earn less quantity of $ now for the same amount of wheat what they would have earned in previous years. But that's not because their wheat lost in value, it's because the $ is more valuable now than the $ before.

>>103
Warren Buffet meant exactly what he said. Don't let anyone spin that to mean something else. Simple, direct, and to the point.

>>109

If Buffet actually meant exactly what you believe or want him to mean, that rich gets rich by making others poor, then that just means he doesn't what the hell he was talking about and he is wrong. But then again, you don't know that anymore than I do.

Like I said the guy is an investor, the same amount of authority he has over capital allocation doesn't translate into legit political knowledge.

>>110
You may be a really nice guy and a capitalist. Doesn't mean some capitalists aren't assholes who don't give a shit about anyone else.
Warren Buffet isn't an idiot. he knows what he said, and how it sounds, and he meant it.

>>107

No, what's happening around the world is that those with a strong special interest presence in the government gets what they want, those that doesn't gets nothing. And if any compromises were made, they are between politicians and lobbyists behind closed doors cutting deals among themselves.

The example I presented with river was just to illustrate that conflict of interest is inevitable with any property that is deemed to be owned by everyone at the same time. If you want to talk about how these conflicts will actually play out in the real world, that's a completely different story, and a grim one.

If private property policies were established in the river example, there would be no conflict to start with. Everyone who lives beside the river owns the strip of the river beside their house. Whatever others do with their strip is their business, as long as it doesn't affect your strip (upstream polluting down stream..etc.). Person B wouldn't have any claim over what person A does with his strip to begin with, there would be no ground for conflict.

>>111

And he's wrong.

>>112
Ah, but then B gets screwed, see, because he loses his pristine river. The private ownership of small plots is not satisfactory to everyone, not by a long shot.

Playing out in the real world, as I showed, is not always grim, not at all. There are other possibilities out there besides absolute capitalism and tyrannical communism/socialism. Collective anarchy, for example, and there are many others. Privatizing land isn't optimal for a lot of us. Many people do like it... but what about those of us who don't?

It would be so cool if could solve the worlds problems here on 4chan FTW CHANNER-4-LIFE!!!

>>114

B can always talk to A and work out a compensation plan for B's wish to work out, just like all the possibilities you posted. But B can't stop A by force to not build a watermill on his own property, A still has the final say.

Point is, the goal of a successful system is to deliver non-contradictory justice, not to make everyone happy (making a system for that would be going for Utopia). There's always people that want something they have no valid claim at, (wealth they did not earn...etc.) A successful system is one that can objectivly determine how validity is to be established. The point is not to try pacify people with both valid and invalid claims.

The reason why right to property exist and extends from right to life is because human begins live by working/thinking. In order to live in a society, people need both the right to own tools and the right to own the fruit of their labour. If someone settles by the river, it's just that a reasonable area around his house which he uses be recognized as his private property. He has valid claim to it because it's a wild area before he came and he build improvements that he uses to sustain his life on it (house, yard..etc.).

That's how property right is fundamentally justified. If someone is not happy under a system that is objectively just, then that's his problem, not the system's.

>> 116
right to property; sure, if you make it yourself i.e. the house that you build, or the sweater that you knit... but, at the risk of sounding overly sentimental (although, why not?) how can someone "own" a piece of Earth? or river? or mountain? or wild trees? (note: wild)
Really? just because it's wild, it's first come first serve? What about the folks who were here first? Don't they, then, really "own" the land? (although they don't see it that way...)
Why is the goal non-contradictory justice? Why not everyone being content? It's easy enough to call: "Utopia" when it's the other guy's opinion, but what about your own? Aren't you a bit utopic in your idealism of capitalism?

The price mechanism is almost mathematically perfect at serving the needs of those with spending power, any flaws are either flaws that are present in every system or negligible in importance like the inability to have currency smaller than a cent.

Autonomy is not the best method of organization in every system, however it is the best in most situations, we are limited in intelligence, which means it is impossible for one person to plan everything, we are also immoral which means centralizing power into a few individuals or for an elected super-intelligent official to communicate with millions of voters.

Then there's individual freedom, we are individuals not collectives as the socialists would have us believe, we can cooperate for mutual gain and try systems of representation but ultimately the most direct system of representation is the individual making a decision themselves, voting with their wallet for instance.

All of these factors make capitalism the perfect economic system.

>>117

>how can someone "own" a piece of Earth? or river? or mountain? or wild trees?

You are thinking of some intrinsic ownage. The right of property applies only within a society among your peers. If you own a piece of land, what it means is that you have a political sanction to use it however you like and other people within the same society can't tell you what to do on it. The right is political. If a person is all alone, rights wouldn't apply.


>Really? just because it's wild, it's first come first serve?

Yeah, really, first come first serve. The cost of exploration plus the effort it takes to get there and build an improvement earns you the right to that property among your peers.


>What about the folks who were here first? Don't they, then, really "own" the land?

What folks? The natives? Assume you are talking about the natives, they don't recognize property right in their pre-colonial collectivist societies. It was all right by might.


>Why is the goal non-contradictory justice? Why not everyone being content?

Because human begins have free will. Some people will choose unreasonable goals and won't be content unless they have their way. An Utopia is a society where everyone is happy regardless of their choices in life and related consequences. That is a physical impossibility for humans.

When people come together to form a society, their goal is to better their own lives by trading with each other in all manners. The political rules of a society for humans should be made for this goal, to designate objective rights to it's members and draw just lines on economic claims. A good political system is one that delivers objective justice which allows people to run their own lives smoothly, no more, no less.


>Aren't you a bit utopic in your idealism of capitalism?

If you mean unrealistic, no. Capitalism won't somehow magically make people happy, anyone truly defending free-market should know this. What capitalism does is deliver stern justice. You earn what you sow.

I bet republitard is samefagging

>>120
How can you tell who is samefagging in this discussion anymore?  I've hedged my bet that the last thirty or so posts have been made by one person in varying states of intoxication.  I also thought he might start singing "Colors of the Wind" at >>117.

>>121
hahaha
"Colors of the Wind"
someone's samefagging anyway.

>>121
Because he's a fucking retarded troll.

>>121
25 years of simmalr fourms we used to call something else back then but its still the same game

A 9-year-old girl died at the hospital.

I am sure He will be tied to this right-wing media machine screaming commies socialist and all for greed. Come on and spin this like this isnt a Glenn Beck fans work!

These screwballs on the right are terrorist led by there pundits and the rich FOR GREED!

"Get on Target for Victory" and "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office." Kelly's campaign slogan guess what party hes from? "tea party"

>>126
Umm, it's not an actual party, ya know, like one you can be registered to..

>>127
I have lost all respect polititions I was talking to my city elected offical. just in the last two weeks about Gleen and sara and rush. I told him he needs to to listen to beck and like because I knew this was going to happen again. Sad but I think this has just began. All our elected officals(state&fed) are pawn for the rich. The more we kill each other over issues they help or alone constructed. The less of us there are to deal with the real problem the rich capitalist

I think this jared thing is all 4chan falts I know when he in court he will stand up and say he did it for the lulz!

WE ARE SO FUCKED

>>128
No, you're wrong.
It's pretty obvious that poor people are to blame. We must rise up as a nation and have the courage to round up the scum and put them in concentration camps.

For the glory of /lounge/, everyone must be put in a concentration camp.

I think I just peed myself

>>131
This isn't /lounge/. And, no.

>>133
SILENCE! YOU FILTHY BAG OF HUMAN FECES!

ALL HONOR AND GLORY TO THE FIFTH REICH!

Capitalism isn't too bad of a system if properly regulated to protect labor and consumers, but not over-regulated to hurt the business itself.

A free market is possible, but it would only lead to monopolies in almost everything, and newer, small businesses would only be hurt.

As for greed; let them. As long as they're not harming or using their labor like slaves. I don't care.

Domestic free markets are good. International free markets are gay.

>>136
International free markets are gay
Why? This favors the state over the individual. If it's cheaper to roast coffee in Brazil but some plutocrat wants the coffee roasting factory in America and puts up tariffs on roast coffee then coffee will be more expensive for everyone else, everyone will be subsidizing a few ultra-rich crony socialists.

Why do you hate poor people so much?

WELL the stupid capitalist virmin are back kill any 9 year olds for freemarkets lately

>>138
u mad?

>>139
Hell yes Im MAD! I know in court he will stand up and say he did it for Glenn or the lulz! If its the later i WILL POINT THE FINGER AT YOU! FAG!

>>140
He listed the communist manifesto as his favorite book, I wouldn't put a dollar on it.

>>141
In the youtube acc I seen that book as well Ayn rand and others Hey should you be in here? Dont you have some 9 year old to kill?

>>142
One drop rule applies to commies too.

The trickle down effect of Capitalism doesn't work very well. Sure, there's a correlation between the rich getting richer and the poor/middle class getting richer, but there is a huge gap between them and that gap won't ever close.

The only example I can really give is of the world here: A country like the US will improve, and a country like Zimbabwe will improve with it, but it's miles and miles behind, and since it improves at the same rate or slower there is no difference or an increasing gap.

How is a country like Zimbabwe, where hyperinflation runs rampant, supposed to pull out of its economic struggles?

Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule though, such as India and China.

>>144
Zimbabwe isn't capitalist at all, ZANU PF is decidedly marxist.

A better example of a capitalist country primarily engaged in the production of raw materials is Botswana which is right next to Zimbabwe and has a standard of living comparable to Bolivia or Egypt, when compared to the medieval conditions found in most of sub-saharran Africa this is decidedly high.

Most people who list "Mein Kampf" in their list of favorite books are trolling. If you asked any of them "Where was Hitler born" which is discussed in the first chapter, they wouldn't know the answer.

>>143
As do Nazis (he listed Mein Kampf as a favorite as well).

>>1
Selfishness is not a virtue.

Also, big business shits all over people when it's completely unchecked. You free market zealots are delusional if you think that the forces of pure capitalism are enough make businesses act ethically.

>>148
Aren't most corporations given hand-outs by government, or at the very least its central bank, which was arguably created by banking and corporate interests and made into law by Congress? There was recent news where the Federal Reserve gave a bunch of money to corporations like McDonald's and Harley-Davidson, in a desperate effort to continue propping up this failing economy. That sure as hell ain't free market, if you ask me.

>>146
How would you expect them to remember every technical detail? Not everyone has asperger's syndrome.

Off the top of my head hitler was born in austria in a place called branau or something, I'm probably about right even though I'm not exactly right but if you wanted to split hairs you could claim whatever you want.

>>149
You have a point but hand outs and regulation are two different things. And an institution becoming "too big to fail" is possible and, hell, probably even more likely without government regulation.

>>151
More likely? How does giving TBTFs taxpayer money make it less likely for them to exist?

well the rich get welfare while the poor get theres cut capitalism at its finest!

Austerity cuts...socialism at its finest

>>152
How does giving TBTFs taxpayer money make it less likely for them to exist?
Whoa, whoa. I never said that. You're still equating regulation to bailouts automatically. I'm talking about laws designed to prevent a company from reaching that point in the first place.

<--- check my dubs

>Fervently support laissez-faire capitalism.
>Demand that the federal government has a duty to bail my company out when my unethical practices cause me to go bankrupt.

Capitalism is economic liberalism. Anything with the word liberalism is faggotry. I believe kings and bishops should control every aspect of society including the market.

Whatever Japan is doing seems to work.

>>157
Republicans are retarded but don't forget democrats are in the same intellectual ball park.
Fervently oppose laissez-faire capitalism.
Get mad when the fed hands over billions to big corporations.*
Noam Chomsky is the intellectual equal of Glenn Beck.

>>137
I look after my nation and my race. There are more important things than you making a few extra dollars so you can snort cocaine and sleep with prostitutes.

Why can't I buy my water and electricity from the government? Instead I have to buy them from evil privately owned monopolies.

>>91
I'd gladly drink from a stream but its full of litter that you faggot capitalists created.

>>163
I swear >>91 is paid to be in here spreading propaganda like that!

>>163
>>164
Whether you agree with 91 or not it's ignorant not to look at autonomy and bureaucracy impartially. In theory if everything were run democratically the world would be a utopia, the thing is we can't do that, all we can do is create a collection of self-interested individuals in a bureaucracy with imperfect systems of representation and oversight.

Private property is vastly different from public property, if some evil corporation dumped mercury in my back yard I would have legions of lawyers begging me to let them have the case and I would probably a receive a 7 digit settlement overnight, if the evil corporation dumped it on public property then whoever was affected would have to go through miles of red tape and bureaucracy just to get the message out and most likely the evil corporation will have had far more experience in such matters than the few individuals opposing them.

>>165
Private property is vastly different from public property, if some evil corporation dumped mercury in my back yard I would have legions of lawyers begging me to let them have the case and I would probably a receive a 7 digit settlement overnight, if the evil corporation dumped it on public property then whoever was affected would have to go through miles of red tape and bureaucracy just to get the message out and most likely the evil corporation will have had far more experience in such matters than the few individuals opposing them.
This still has some problems. For instance, farmers in Pennsylvania have their natural creek water supply polluted from drilling for natural gas nearby. It's not considered polluting on their property since waste from the gas drilling is not dumped directly onto their property, rather the company dumps it onto their own property. (instead, it's being carried by the flow of water onto their property). There's no law in the book either state or Federal that can stop it, and the farmer has to purify his water just so he can have clean drinking and shower water for him and his family. Now, in such a case, what is the libertarian solution then?

>>166
being carried by the flow of water onto their property
There's no law in the book either state or Federal that can stop it
If there was a social democracy lacking that law then nothing could be done either, regardless, in this situation libertarianism would be more beneficial to the farmers due to strong direct democratic local government and, failing that, the right to bear arms.

This is a bad example though, it is pretty basic property law for it to be illegal to pollute someone else's property, a creek isn't exactly an ambiguous or poorly understood method of transmission.

>>163
>>164
maybe 91 is Glenn Beck!!!

>>168
Glenn Beck is a mormon fundamentalist, not a libertarian.

failing that, the right to bear arms.
ಠ_ಠ

>>169
He's a better libertarian than he is a Mormon fundamentalist in that case.

>>171
Libertarianism is such a threat to my religion of marxism I am willing to take huge logical leaps to slander them.
Sure thing bro.

US health care.
/thread

>>172
I wasn't aware you were taking that to be an insult as I meant it amicably.  Just to get the point out of the way before future replies, though, neither Marxism nor Libertarianism is (considered) a religion.

>>174
Marxism is a goofy Christian splinter cult, complete with apocalyptic siege-mentality worldview, that attempts to immanentize the Eschaton.

>>175
Marxism is a goofy Christian splinter cult
When put into practice and application, destroyed churches, ousted and tortured priests, pastors and theologians, and created the Society of the Godless, to assist in carrying out the early Soviet Union's radical atheist agenda, yet Marxism is a "goofy Christian splinter cult". Riiiiight.

>>176
YHBT

>>177
I have been crushed in debate and am now pretending I was a troll for emotional comfort against the enormous humiliation.
snap snap puppy

Why is economic liberalism considered to be part of conservatism? Only faggots support anything with the word liberal in it.

>>179
It is true most things with the world "liberal" in them turn out to be marxist drivel, this is not one of them though. You see they never pick up a dictionary, they think claiming words like "progressive" for their own makes them progressive, in the same way the democratic people's republic of North Korea thinks it is a democratic people's republic.

>>180

Yes! Watch OUT!! It's "us" vs "them"...
You can only really trust Glenn Beck, and him only when he's got a really really sincere face, or when he is crying.

>>181
I never said anything about us, for all you know I could be a libertarian and not a conservative like Glenn Beck.

Beck is pretty libertarian in a lot of ways.  He's advocating a return to religion, not a government regulation of human behavior.  I've honestly never seen beck advocate for government control of ANYTHING

>>183
I haven't seen Glenn Beck's manifesto but I'm pretty sure he's not strong on social freedom.

He didn't right a manifesto.  But there is a huge difference between saying that you personally should live by the Bible and saying that the government should FORCE you to live right.

He has advocated the former, but not the latter.

>>185
Wikipedia says Glenn Beck supports right to life.

>>185
not so.

>>187
That is a very informative reply.

>>185

>>185

thats the MORMON bible mind you, Glenn Beck is a mormon!

To quote Dogbert "Capitalism is a beautiful thing"

>>187
thank-you. I try to be succinct.

yeah of course capitalism is good, my country adopt capitalism and I enjoy my life just fine. lucky me.
I should be thankful that I were not born in those mindless families that works their ass off and still being sucked of their poor life.

if you mean " free trade" then fuck yeah!
if you mean the current financial system dominated by mercantilist powers and mega banks AND THE FUCKING FEDERAL RESERVE
then no, fuck no

>>194
Those things are "free trade" though.

Globalization and the neoliberal agenda are based exactly on this: Use 'free trade' to gain access to new markets and then use their economic advantage to buy everyone else out and set up monopolies. It's all a premeditated strategy for economic conquest - nothing less, nothing more.

>>194
Let me shake your hand. I agree 1000%

>>195
Didn't you mean to say: "a word means just what  I say it means: nothing more and nothing less."

>> 194
" those things are free trade though"

yeah...those things are all trade that is free from coercive intervention via the violence of states, paramilitary coproations, and individuals




OH WAIT NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

twats

>>197 ASTRAL HIGH FIVE

>>198
Yeah! Anal fist bump to you, my brother!

feels good man

>>196
So? It's a step up from the CIA starting a coup and installing a sociopathic dictator.

Countries being globalised aren't getting poorer, the fact the asian tigers were being exploited is innocuous when you compared North Korea with South Korea or Vietnam with Taiwan, they would have been exploited anyway, just by a ruling class with a totally different set of behaviour. North Korea has a ruling class that just wants to stay in power. South Korea has a ruling class that wants to turn the country into a 1st world country, live in opulent splendor in that country and be considered intelligent entrepeneurs who rebuilt the country.

This is the difference between idealists and realists, idealists want to pretend they have found a way to eliminate corruption, realists accept it exists, accept they are fallible and instead get their priorities straight and realize what's important is not some pointless revolution that results in years of bloody civil war only to replace one tyrant with another but to get fathers in the factories so they can feed their kids.

>>198

>oh wait, NOOOOOOOOOOO

HAHAHAHAHA

>>202

Twat.

>>12
Actually, private companies can buy your land, but they can't force you off. The government unconstitutionally does that.
At the behest of corporations. It all boils down to who really controls who, faceless corporations controlling faceless bureaucrats, or faceless bureaucrats controlling faceless corporations? Or do they see themselves as equals and simply don't give a fuck and just do things on a whim under the name of "profits", "progress", whatever the term, and just pat themselves on the back at the end of the day?

>>203

Twit