EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,153
- 1,100
translation: as a liberal I lack the IQ to answer
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why Capitalism is Doomed
- Thread starter Dragon
- Start date
translation: as a liberal I lack the IQ to answer
Hello all great forum, could not sleep an decided to read a bit. Read about 4 pages of posts , I will read the rest but jus have to say that in all the post I have not read a single comment about the economy in realation to the environment. Okay don't call me a tree hugger jus here me out . I have a theory that the current economy and system that we have in place will collapse completely. I have worked in construction field remodeling. I have ffriends who work union new construction trades. I have mostly worked on small scale remodel projects. I was often wondering at times I would visit a friend on job site . I was amazed at the scope of projects buildings and wondered??? Can we continue to provide jobs that are baased on mass production. Contrary to what most believe a union worker produces an amazing amount of work in 8 hours to fuel his wage an benefits.in order to pay him an make profit he must produce!!! Carpenter, hang an install so many doors etc, painter spray paint so many rooms, electricion etc.. >>> I always wondered can this continue??? Fast forward 20 years most trades people I know are layed off. Over built condos, houses, youe get the picture. All the comments I have read talk politics in a way, capitalism, corporatism, which is ? High tech jobs will be here , or are there enough lower skilln labor jobs? All very interesting an great questions. The question I feel needs to be expanded. Can an economy based on mass production an mass expansion continue??? Throw in corporatiions that look at people as little more than a unit to be plugged in to a formula an u have disaster. I feel we are at a cross roads. The economy will collapse as we know it. It can not continue in a mass production manner as we have it. To keep a trades person busy with new construction jobs would over build and deplete the earth . We can not continue on thjs path jus to give a worker jobs .the eart will not allow it. Scuse the type errrors , small key board on my phone. I find this very interesting an something that must be disscussed if humans are going to coexist with eart as well as have. "Jobs"?? I personally feel barter an trade is way under rated system , It allows natural talent an interaction between people as well as not being made a slave or worker drone for some corporation whoe views people as a unit. Corporation with no head , jus policies in place no rational only survival of th beats it has become, enter walmarts an the like.
Not2BSubjugated
Callous Individualist
Quibbling over definitions?? Holy good grace.
Here, decipher this statement for me.
Our current anarchy is in danger because there isn't enough wild fires to wipe out the capital of Texas.
Does it make any sense? Fuck no, it doesn't. We have definitions of terminology in order to clarify what we mean when we say something. Are you going to start re-writing the dictionary for us here and then telling us to just accept what you say and not worry about your terminology, just try and grasp the main point when the terminology used creates a fatal flaw in coherent argument?
I've seen it all now.
Just make up some words.
Here is one. I'm going to invest in some gooble dee bop next time I have some free shnoz berries to gurple durple.
As long as the shnoz berries taste like shnoz berries, you should be able to get a pretty lucrative conversion rate for that gooble dee bop.
Not2BSubjugated
Callous Individualist
Now, for a bigger response to the OP, I think there's a couple of things you're missing in your assessment.
First off, with the technological advancements to manufacturing, less and less labor is in demand, granted. However, the only reason human labor in capitalist manufacturing is ever replaced by machine labor is if it simplifies the manufacturing process IN A PROFITABLE MANNER. What does this mean? Every technological advance in manufacturing makes the products cheaper to produce. Combine that aspect with basic anti-monopoly laws to ensure competition in every market and you end up with a trend of technology driving down prices. When everything costs less, less labor is required for each person's necessary upkeep. This is exactly the aspect of technology as it relates to capitalism that allowed the industrial revolution to increase our basic standards of living so drastically over such a relatively short period of time. This is one of the few things that I believe the Marxists got correct.
Where I begin to fork from the common opinion among that crowd is that I also believe that those advances in technology that sacrifice the need for human labor simply for convenience also further this end. ATM's, for instance (and I still say Obama was a jackass for trying to blame our economic woes on these), save everyone time that might otherwise be spent traveling to a bank. These little conveniences add up.
Between the time people no longer have to spend laboring to pay for their basic necessities because those necessities are increasingly easier to produce and, thus, increasingly cheaper (prices driven down by competition that can profit with less and less cost per unit), and the time people save through technologies making basic process like acquiring meals and groceries, banking, etc less time intensive, you end up with people who have more time. More of their labor time can be spent moving toward non-essentials once their needs are met, and they end up with more free time to kill in a standard 16 hour day (assuming we're all sleeping well and getting our solid 8). With more free time to kill, people need more stuff to do. . . hobbies and entertainment. This is why occupations like actor and professional athlete have become so lucrative in recent years when, through the VAST majority of human history, these sort of entertainer roles were hardly a path to significant economic prosperity. More free time creates demand for more non essentials. This is also why we live in a country that has a poverty line at which people can afford to live in an apartment with internet access, a flat screen, and a smart phone. If you honestly acknowledge what is and is not a human necessity and take a look back at the labor hours that once had to be dedicated to acquiring -just- those bare basics, it's pretty hard to make the argument that technology slowly chokes out the masses in a capitalist system.
Next, I won't argue particulars in the definitions with you, but I will argue that if various levels of regulation can all be called "capitalism", then our current down-turn isn't definitive proof that capitalism is doomed to failure. The argument can be made that our current regulatory, tax, and currency environment can account for a great deal of the stagnation of capital in the hands of the super rich that you've cited. Environmental regulations (some good, some bad in my opinion. . . different argument) have nearly frozen the development of natural resources in our country while we drain tax money from our own economy to help other countries engage in the sort of resource development that we've deemed unclean (Brazilian oil rigs, for instance). Without a strong domestic supply of the base materials that such development facilitates, manufacturing requires the import of base materials, which increases the cost of doing business in the US. We've got one of the highest corporate tax rates on the planet, last I heard. . . also makes it more expensive to do business here.
We're now setting the precedent that the government can force a company to suffer an economic disadvantage by not allowing it to allocate resources from state to state in favor of lower overhead. . . essentially, set the precedent that if whoever's currently in government decides that there's now a moral imperative that makes it justifiable to hamstring a corporation and prevent its economic expansion, they're gonna go ahead and use the force of the government to do that. Business people look at that as the sort of thing that increases the overall risk in doing business somewhere.
We've also set the precedent that, if the government decides your business is too big to go through the bankruptcy and restructuring process because you'll have to lay off too many people, then they can go ahead and take over and restructure it as -they- see fit. In the case of GM, that involved telling the bond holders to take a f'in hike. Now, in case you don't understand the bond holder concept, it goes like this. . . A company wants to expand to fill a larger portion of a perceived economic demand, so they sell these things called bonds. They work like the bonds the govt sells. You buy them at one price and, some predetermined amount of time down the road, that bond entitles you to a return on the investment, complete with a predetermined margin of profit. When the people buy the bonds, the company uses that influx of capital to expand (which in turn creates more jobs). This expansion, if the company is a successful one, also expands its profits. This expansion of profit enables it to pay back the bondholders down the road with that margin of profit, and then still profit itself. If, rather than allowing every company to go through the standard bankruptcy and restructuring process, the government can decide that it has a moral incentive to favor the employees universally over the investors and tell the bondholders to take a f'in hike and eat their losses, they create an entire new dimension of investment risk.
On top of that, there's now talk about potentially doubling the capital investment rate, which, like risk, would stifle investment. Less potential profit margin means less incentive to invest. More risk means less incentive to invest. Less incentive to invest means less investment. Less investment means less expansion and, thus, less jobs. Less investment also means that those people who are raking in the money have more incentive to sit on it and less incentive to spend it.
There's a couple of assumptions you can make about virtually all of the super rich. They want to use their money to make even more money and they're good at using their money to make more money. If they've stopped investing it's not because they wanted to have a Ducktales style money bin and swim around in a shitload of loose change. . . it's because they don't feel that the potential rewards of investment are worth the risk, and given their typical proficiency in such manners, it's safe to say that the opinions are, by en large, well informed. If the argument can be made that various aspects of government involvement in the economy are the cause of a good deal of the stagnation of wealth at the top, then its hard to say definitively that capitalism in all its degrees has failed.
First off, with the technological advancements to manufacturing, less and less labor is in demand, granted. However, the only reason human labor in capitalist manufacturing is ever replaced by machine labor is if it simplifies the manufacturing process IN A PROFITABLE MANNER. What does this mean? Every technological advance in manufacturing makes the products cheaper to produce. Combine that aspect with basic anti-monopoly laws to ensure competition in every market and you end up with a trend of technology driving down prices. When everything costs less, less labor is required for each person's necessary upkeep. This is exactly the aspect of technology as it relates to capitalism that allowed the industrial revolution to increase our basic standards of living so drastically over such a relatively short period of time. This is one of the few things that I believe the Marxists got correct.
Where I begin to fork from the common opinion among that crowd is that I also believe that those advances in technology that sacrifice the need for human labor simply for convenience also further this end. ATM's, for instance (and I still say Obama was a jackass for trying to blame our economic woes on these), save everyone time that might otherwise be spent traveling to a bank. These little conveniences add up.
Between the time people no longer have to spend laboring to pay for their basic necessities because those necessities are increasingly easier to produce and, thus, increasingly cheaper (prices driven down by competition that can profit with less and less cost per unit), and the time people save through technologies making basic process like acquiring meals and groceries, banking, etc less time intensive, you end up with people who have more time. More of their labor time can be spent moving toward non-essentials once their needs are met, and they end up with more free time to kill in a standard 16 hour day (assuming we're all sleeping well and getting our solid 8). With more free time to kill, people need more stuff to do. . . hobbies and entertainment. This is why occupations like actor and professional athlete have become so lucrative in recent years when, through the VAST majority of human history, these sort of entertainer roles were hardly a path to significant economic prosperity. More free time creates demand for more non essentials. This is also why we live in a country that has a poverty line at which people can afford to live in an apartment with internet access, a flat screen, and a smart phone. If you honestly acknowledge what is and is not a human necessity and take a look back at the labor hours that once had to be dedicated to acquiring -just- those bare basics, it's pretty hard to make the argument that technology slowly chokes out the masses in a capitalist system.
Next, I won't argue particulars in the definitions with you, but I will argue that if various levels of regulation can all be called "capitalism", then our current down-turn isn't definitive proof that capitalism is doomed to failure. The argument can be made that our current regulatory, tax, and currency environment can account for a great deal of the stagnation of capital in the hands of the super rich that you've cited. Environmental regulations (some good, some bad in my opinion. . . different argument) have nearly frozen the development of natural resources in our country while we drain tax money from our own economy to help other countries engage in the sort of resource development that we've deemed unclean (Brazilian oil rigs, for instance). Without a strong domestic supply of the base materials that such development facilitates, manufacturing requires the import of base materials, which increases the cost of doing business in the US. We've got one of the highest corporate tax rates on the planet, last I heard. . . also makes it more expensive to do business here.
We're now setting the precedent that the government can force a company to suffer an economic disadvantage by not allowing it to allocate resources from state to state in favor of lower overhead. . . essentially, set the precedent that if whoever's currently in government decides that there's now a moral imperative that makes it justifiable to hamstring a corporation and prevent its economic expansion, they're gonna go ahead and use the force of the government to do that. Business people look at that as the sort of thing that increases the overall risk in doing business somewhere.
We've also set the precedent that, if the government decides your business is too big to go through the bankruptcy and restructuring process because you'll have to lay off too many people, then they can go ahead and take over and restructure it as -they- see fit. In the case of GM, that involved telling the bond holders to take a f'in hike. Now, in case you don't understand the bond holder concept, it goes like this. . . A company wants to expand to fill a larger portion of a perceived economic demand, so they sell these things called bonds. They work like the bonds the govt sells. You buy them at one price and, some predetermined amount of time down the road, that bond entitles you to a return on the investment, complete with a predetermined margin of profit. When the people buy the bonds, the company uses that influx of capital to expand (which in turn creates more jobs). This expansion, if the company is a successful one, also expands its profits. This expansion of profit enables it to pay back the bondholders down the road with that margin of profit, and then still profit itself. If, rather than allowing every company to go through the standard bankruptcy and restructuring process, the government can decide that it has a moral incentive to favor the employees universally over the investors and tell the bondholders to take a f'in hike and eat their losses, they create an entire new dimension of investment risk.
On top of that, there's now talk about potentially doubling the capital investment rate, which, like risk, would stifle investment. Less potential profit margin means less incentive to invest. More risk means less incentive to invest. Less incentive to invest means less investment. Less investment means less expansion and, thus, less jobs. Less investment also means that those people who are raking in the money have more incentive to sit on it and less incentive to spend it.
There's a couple of assumptions you can make about virtually all of the super rich. They want to use their money to make even more money and they're good at using their money to make more money. If they've stopped investing it's not because they wanted to have a Ducktales style money bin and swim around in a shitload of loose change. . . it's because they don't feel that the potential rewards of investment are worth the risk, and given their typical proficiency in such manners, it's safe to say that the opinions are, by en large, well informed. If the argument can be made that various aspects of government involvement in the economy are the cause of a good deal of the stagnation of wealth at the top, then its hard to say definitively that capitalism in all its degrees has failed.
Last edited:
Not2BSubjugated
Callous Individualist
Fuck man... paragraphs are your friends.
Good call.
Hope the edit helped
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,153
- 1,100
I'm not really very interested in quibbling over definitions, or speculative prediction. Underlying all this is the question of whether capital should be controlled by individuals, or by the state. Allowing government to co-opt economic power sounds like a very bad idea to me.
yes, the idea that a few make-work, liberal, soviet bureaucrats would know how to spend the nation's money better than the millions who actually earned it in a million different ways is obviously absurd... and perfectly liberal.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,153
- 1,100
its hard to say definitively that capitalism in all its degrees has failed.
especially since there is so little capitalism. The current Great Recession is perfect evidence that liberalism has failed, not capitalism.
Can anyone say with a straight face that FanFred and Federal Reserve were not at heart of crisis?
its hard to say definitively that capitalism in all its degrees has failed.
especially since there is so little capitalism. The current Great Recession is perfect evidence that liberalism has failed, not capitalism.
Can anyone say with a straight face that FanFred and Federal Reserve were not at heart of crisis?
Wiseacre
Retired USAF Chief
its hard to say definitively that capitalism in all its degrees has failed.
especially since there is so little capitalism. The current Great Recession is perfect evidence that liberalism has failed, not capitalism.
Can anyone say with a straight face that FanFred and Federal Reserve were not at heart of crisis?
Congress and a few presidents were at the heart of the whole mess. Fannie, Freddie, and the Fed were merely the tools they used to really fuck things up.
DSGE
VIP Member
- Dec 24, 2011
- 1,062
- 30
- 71
mass production, mass consumption in order to provide jobs,, can it continue???? No gorilla in the room look the other way. Just talk politics an economy class 101
It's not "in order to provide jobs". Obviously. People don't want to work. They work in order to consume. If people were satiated with consumption then there'd be no need to mass consume in order to provide jobs, since there wouldn't need to be more jobs per capita since people don't want to consume more. So that reason makes no sense. Consumption is the end itself, not a means. It happens because people want to consume.
hipeter924
Not a zombie yet
Capitalism hasn't failed, rather the focus of politicians and economists has failed. To begin with capitalism was meant to be a system that lifted people out of poverty and brought prosperity to all levels of society, people held the dream that one day everyone would be rich.
Economists and politicians however are not interested in making everyone rich, instead keeping a small minority rich, its irrational to believe that poverty and low income is anything but an inefficiency holding the economy back. Capitalism needs to be reformed, so the focus is on eliminating the lower and middle class, and bringing everyone into wealth, and the wealthy elite have to realize that the more money there is in the economy, the more they will profit; feudalism aka a minority keeping the wealth and property is not a viable economic model.
Economists and politicians however are not interested in making everyone rich, instead keeping a small minority rich, its irrational to believe that poverty and low income is anything but an inefficiency holding the economy back. Capitalism needs to be reformed, so the focus is on eliminating the lower and middle class, and bringing everyone into wealth, and the wealthy elite have to realize that the more money there is in the economy, the more they will profit; feudalism aka a minority keeping the wealth and property is not a viable economic model.
DSGE
VIP Member
- Dec 24, 2011
- 1,062
- 30
- 71
Economists and politicians however are not interested in making everyone rich, instead keeping a small minority rich,
Economists are interested in how the economy works. Politicians are interested, at the end of the day, in retaining their power status. That may involve voting in the interests of a small minority of rich people to obtain funding, whose interests are in keeping said small minority rich.
Capitalism needs to be reformed, so the focus is on eliminating the lower and middle class, and bringing everyone into wealth
And how do you imagine that would happen?
TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
Imagine it happening is about all one can do.
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #120
I'm waiting to read a 'true' definition of capitalism. So far the only statements made assert what we have today is not capitalism. How about defining what is capitalism.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 365
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 399
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 497
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 200
- Replies
- 189
- Views
- 768
- Replies
- 70
- Views
- 296
- Replies
- 62
- Views
- 278
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8605
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-