Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

I believe persons can simply purchase the best morals money can buy, under any form of capitalism.

 

Individuals are compensated for their labor in a capitalist system. It's an exchange.

 

No, sorry to dissent from the pompous professors, but familyism is more primitive and destructive than tribalism. Birth privileges deserve the death penalty. The brutal hulks who tell us to do it on our own better tell that to their sons or (*)(*)(*)(*). Only a gutless moron would listen to economic bullies anyway. Their hypocrisy on individualism discredits their claim that they earned their money.

But brown-noses will always try to make us ignore bluebloods. If you're not where you are because of Daddy's Money, you support spoiled brats and their Daddies because you hate your own father for not getting rich and spoiling you. If you try to hide the fact that hereditary privileges are the #1 evil, which the phony Leftists also do, then you are a traitor.

 

How so?

 

Under your class-biased indentured-servitude system, all your degree means is that you lived like a child until you were 22 because you were afraid to grow up. We don't need your kind taking jobs from those talented who also happen to have self-respect and are not afraid to grow up.

If you get cancer, you will die because you are relying on an oncologist who didn't earn a living until he was 30 years old. Honestly, how many childish freaks do you expect to do that? Only 1% of people are self-hating social outcasts who could put up with becoming an oncologist. And 0% of them are capable of curing your cancer, because if someone has no pride, he has no talent to be proud of.

The real reason you are against highly paid education is that would only get the most talented and you wouldn't make the cut. Now the talented pool is a puddle, so all the no-talent brown-noses are accepted to fill the shortages. As with cancer, you are totally reliant on Diploma Dumboes, so your failure to reward talent is costing you more than the lords of this system will ever let you know. What if the talented man up and take revenge for your insults? That may be the only way to get you to wake up about not paying people for their grades.

Preparation is the most important part of production. Even with the talent puddle we have today, each college graduate contributes half a million dollars to the economy. You know perfectly well that if we paid them to go, we'd get far more talented students. How dare you call this educational system of work without pay anything but slavery? The talented should make the rules about education, or use their talent to destroy those who support such slavery.

 

The Capitaliban created that in order to break up the unions through incompatible integration. Another goal it achieved for your heroes was to humiliate the White working class so they would accept economic elitism, knowing that if the majority can't even defend its race, it can't defend wages either.

 

Here, I think you lost something.

 

Oh. I don't really classify that as socialism, just good government. I see it as socialism when the government starts doing things at the expense of private business (presumably, in their own terminology, for the good of everyone else) - unnecessary regulation, allowing union dominance over businesses, income redistribution, targeted taxation based on what they think is "fair", that kind of thing. For example, I'm not against government healthcare. But don't do what a lot of countries do and prevent private business from being in the healthcare sector, or saddling them with so much regulation it's not viable to do so (and especially don't give them subsidies). Let the people, individually, decide whether their government or someone else should handle their healthcare.

Me personally, considering how mismanaged government healthcare can become, I'd be willing to go private and see how it works out, see if it's worth my money. Hell, if I were in the business I'd be marketing to people who were disappointed with socialized medicine and wanted something better.

 

The OP would have us all working on a communal farm or a government-run factory, forced to do calisthentics by a government bureaucrat, and forced to wear a gray uniform.

 

Capitalism cannot exist without government intervention, because without that intervention you can have no landownership. Land is the primary in the “means of production” which capitalism requires ownership over. Who do you think issues and enforces land titles and ownership of land? Don’t take my word for it, here Thomas Jefferson will explain it to you:

"A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till after that establishment.... He who plants a field keeps possession of it till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated and their owner protected in his possession. Till then the property is in the body of the nation."
--Thomas Jefferson

So, in order to get capitalism off the ground, the first thing you need to do is to create a strong government to appropriate the land to favored interests, so that a monopoly can be formed over natural resources. After that the "capitalist" can just sit back and let everyone else do the dirty work, and charge the producers to use the land; land which nature provided for free, but which GOVERNMENT privileged the capitalist to own.

 

The contracts are imposed under an imbalance of power, so they are invalid. You don't mention how much they are compensated, which makes all the difference. They aren't compensated enough. The workers have to "take it or leave it," but the other side can always hire someone else, making the individual subject to submission to the employer's greed. Without unions, it is Man Against Millionaire. The status quo has no moral force; you have no right to claim that because people don't rebel, they must be satisfied. People give in under helplessness and hopelessness; this is not consent.

 

A Mama's Boy who sucked his thumb in college, working without pay and living like a child, would make reference to a child's game. You prove once again that if you live like a child, you will wind up with the mind of a child.

 

The fact that nearly half the population is on some form of government dole is what is threatening our future.

Once again, Socrates is vindicated in his gloomy prediction about democracy.

 

There is a fundamental problem with the analysis that that is the the US government isn't following any recognized form of "capitalistic" economic philosophy and that is the core problem. Many like to cite Keynesianism but our government doesn't follow the economic philosophy proposed by Keynes.

For example Keynes proposed that government should build a surplus during times of economic prosperity to mitigate downturns in the ecomony that always occur but the US government has never done that. Our government borrows during times of economic prosperity and then borrows more during times of economic downturns and Keynes would would role in his grave over this practice by government.

Additionally Keynes never supported imposing the highest tax burden relative to income on those with less income but both our state and federal government do that.

Keynes never endorsed the violation of contract law in his economic philosophy but the Federal Reserve is issuing Federal Reserve notes, that are promissory notes under contract law, without any intention of redeeming those notes is violating contract law and committing fraud but the US government will not enforce contract law related to the Federal Reserve.

I don't know what form of "capitalism" we have in the United States today but it certainly isn't Keynesianism. From all observations it is an economic policy intended to benefit the wealthy individual and large corporations by government favoritism as the wealth of America is steadily being transferred from those that create the wealth (i.e. the workers of America) to those that don't contribute to the creation of the wealth but merely profit from the wealth created by others.

The OWS has a point that "capitalism" as established by the US government isn't working but the problem is that no one can actually define what form of "capitalism" that is as it is certainly isn't any form of capitalism as defined by any known economic philosophy.

I challenge anyone to provide a copy of a recognized economic philosophy the US government is engaged in.

 

Capitalism is immoral when it allows the rich to pillage the poor, but competition is suppose to enrich the poor and create jobs., All examples of capitalism today have oppressed the poor to work for terrible wages to make their employer wealthy.

Socialism mandates morality through government authority, as Capitalism allows Capitalists the freedom to police themselves but they are too often tempted by greed to be good.

 

The closest I can come is referring to the maxim that has been around for over half a century.
The business of America is business.
Our economic philosophy seems designed to cater to those who are well off and to protect their wealth.
Look at our bailout of the banks. Look at the recent ruling on Monsanto.

 

We should always beware of unchecked, laissez-faire capitalism. Mandated safeguards and appropriate forms of examination of the economic system BY THE PEOPLE is a decent way to ensure proper balance overall.

 

In every economic system that has ever existed people have tried to get more for themselves. I don't know a single person who has everything they want. Tell me what economic system either provides for everyones wants or stops people from wanting more than mere necessities? The answer none! Thus how can these symptoms be the fault of capitalism if every economic system sees them?

In history the number of gadgets and luxury items were never so widespread and affordable to lower income people. Only the rich and noble had toys. You can thank capitalism for the fact that almost anyone can have iphones, personal computers, cars, etc and so on.

People who start threads that blame capitalism for the failure of human nature are so funny... and always appear extremely ignorant in my mind.

 

I'm not against people starting threads and questioning the form(s) of capitalism that exist in this society. I am certain that we are all better-off if that is allowed.

 

This is actually a straw man argument. What we have is economic favoritism by our government that corrupts the free market. Instead of having a vibrant market based upon consumerism we have the wealth being channeled to the wealthy that spend a lower percentage of income on consumption. If the government favoritism for the wealthy didn't exist then the ecomomy would expand based upon the additional consumption by the workers increasing the demand for labor and the demand for labor would increase the wages paid for labor.

Capitalism is based upon the Law of Supply and Demand and our government by its favoritism in the tax treatments of the wealthy is corrupting the Law of Supply and Demand. The only way to eliminate this government favoritism is to ensure that the tax burden based upon gross income for the individual is equal to or less than the tax burden realtive to gross income for those with higher gross incomes.

I've already addressed this in another thread related to the regressive taxation imposed by State governments.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...not-paying-fair-share-taxes-state-either.html

As I've noted in that thread low income workers in Washington where I live carry over 16-times the State tax burden when compared to high income workers and that violates a fundamental requirement of capitalism where individuals should receive equal treatment by the government. In that thread the issue of federal taxation is also addressed where the capital gains tax rate that is applicable predominately to wealthy investors is substantally lower than the tax rates on earned income. Both of these tax policies, at the state and federal level, violate a fundamental requirement of capitalism because they reflect an unfair tax burden being imposed on the workers of America.

End the favorable tax treatment of the wealthy and that will allow more disposable income for the workers. As the disposable income of the workers increases then so will consumption. With more consumption more demands for labor are created. With more demand for labor the cost of labor increases. Favoritism by our government is actually depressing the economy, reducing consumption, and with that it reduces the demand for labor which reduces the cost of labor and wages.

 

I have no problem with people criticizing capitalism and its forms, I have plenty of gripes with our current form. But at least I make valid ones unlike the OP which is a joke, Materialism and profit seeking is not a bi-product of capitalism as people want more for themselves under any economic system and they exist under any real economic system that has ever been. Of course that is because of human nature which is ignored in many theoretical economic systems. We have to realize because of human nature systems like laissez faire capitalism, everyone equal communism, and empowered worker socialism are utopian ideas that cannot exist. They may work on small community scale but no large scale will ever work. Maybe if we were drone like creatures such as bees or ants.

 

Laizze-faire capitalism requires regulation to protect the Rights of the People but does not allow govenment interventionism in the economy where the government engages in favoritism. Many falsely believe that laizze-faire capitalism is devoid of regulation but I can cite a recent disaster that laizze-faire capitalism should have prevented.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/fertilizer-plant-explosion-texas_n_3106023.html

Under laizze-faire capitalism the government would have been mandated to impose regulations to ensure safe working conditions that would have prevented the possibility of this explosion from happening. The belief that laizze-faire capitalism is devoid of regulation is false as in many cases it would actually mandate far more regulation than what we have today.

The difference being that regulation under laizze-faire capitalism revolves around the protection of the People as opposed to regulations that manipulate the economy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

 

The people are not in control of the government, only the wealthy are because of lobbying. America is an example of Capitalism, not Socialism as Europe is.

Business men who work hard and get rich, have the luxury to lobby for policies in government that favor them. Middle Class and poor people may work hard, but they don't work smart so they cannot benefit from the same privileges as their economic betters.

Capitalism is survival of the fittest, because it rewards the winners of competition. Therefore the people must be ruled under the winners of this competition, not with, or far worst below them as a minority in a democracy.

 

It is my opinion that the American people (working Americans particularly) should be better represented. Money has corrupted too many things and that aspect of this society needs to be reformed.

 

Working folks AREN'T represent....AT ALL. Big dollars control absolutely EVERYTHING (and still, they're not satisfied). It's impossible to have a representative democracy at this point (unless we could somehow boot corporations from the corruption they induce on our government, but, we know that ain't going to happen anytime soon).