Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

Why should we inspire Greedhead thieves? And the fact that they don't earn their money is proved by their belief that they can set their brats up, which legitimizes luck and cheating. Again, if we allow NFL players to pass on their positions to their sons, is that supposed to make them play harder?

Those who ruin the playing field by pre-positioning their brats on it are demanding more than they themselves are worth. Destroying the next generation's opportunities is too high a price to pay for the upper classes' supposed value to society. So an employer shouldn't promote someone until he has kids? Any questions allowed about this primitive custom show how absurd it is. If we have to do it on our own, so must these privileged nobodies. Birth privileges deserve the death penalty.

 

Mind is capital, money is a compactor squeezing the mind dry.

 

Any system taken to the extreme is dangerous. I think a good system would be a mixture of all. Religion should be personal as to how I live my life not yours.
Capitalism is great for the type A people who can and will climb to the top and make their money and creat jobs for others. As some capitlist are not fair with empoyees, some unions may be required (rich people have laywers to write contracts, why shouldn't the working guy). Government will always be needed to build roads, bridges, and wars and the social safetynet.
If you don't have fair wages and a social safetynet you will end up looking like Egypt where only the rich stood with the government.

 

The OWS crminals are the byproduct of the left. They have been immersed in the libocrat mantra that they are all victims and it is the right's fault. They lockstep in adherence to comrade Saul's edicts. Just like Obama did.

 

Our fiat money is merely a convenient medium of exchange.

 

And how was the United States removed from the "gold standard" might I ask?

Many falsely believe that President Nixon removed the US from the gold standard but that is a myth. President Nixon withdrew the US from the Bretton Woods treaty that required the US to redeem foreign debt in gold at $32/oz and was completely unconcerned with the gold standard as it applied to the citizens of the United States. In 1972 the US was still under the Emergency Banking Act from the 1930's and Americans couldn't possess gold at the time. The Emergency Banking Act was repealed in 1975 and the "gold clause" was re-instated in 1977, both under President Ford, re-instating the "Gold Standard" in the United States. Even today Title 12 requires the Federal Reserve to redeem Federal Reserve notes in "lawful money" which is ONLY Legal Tender US gold and silver coins produced by the US Mint that remain the "lawful money of the United States. The Federal Reserve refuses to comply with Title 12 and the US government refused to enforce it but under the Law and the US Constitution we're still on the gold standard.

The only thing that a Federal Reserve (promissory) note can be redeemed for is another promissory note and none of these promissory notes can be redeemed in the "lawful money" of the United States which is what they promise redemption in. This is criminal fraud and a violation of contract law.

 

Fiat currency is not "money" and when issued by a central bank is fundamentally no different than a person writing bad checks that can't be cashed by the holder of the check. Why should a private banking institution be allowed to write "checks" that can't be redeemed but a person cannot?

 

danielpalos is correct, any kind of medium of exchange is just a medium used to easily barter one product for another. If you wanted something from someone else and had something they wanted, you could just exchange for those things even up or even labor on your part. The problem is if the barter is not of equal value or you cannot supply labor on the day needed a medium of exchange is used for ease of trasaction which negates the inadequacies of barter.

Banks supply a service which is increasing your "labor" pool by lending you money but for that service you will pay a fee since it is now their "labor" you are using until you can pay back with enough labor of your own. This again negates some of the inadequacies of barter where you would have to supply all of the "labor" up front meaning you will have to wait for the trade.

Now that would actually be the smart thing to do, but we have become too used to borrowing to make us feel better instantly and now blame the banks for our own weaknesses. It is always easier to blame someone else.

 

There is the letter of the law, and then there is the spirit of the law. The Government does not have to abide by arbitrary outdated laws set by past leaders, as it has the authority to act above the law when it serves the best interests of the country and economy. This is seen in wartime, and it can also be seen during economic emergencies as well.

It is not practical to back the entire monetary system on Gold, there is not enough Gold to redistribute equitably in society.

For wealth redistribution to be effective or moral whichever, the supply or value of money has to be Diluted with more printing so that it can be spread around for more welfare expenditures during hard times when Capitalism fails us.

 

And then there's the US Constitution and in reading the US Supreme Court decision in Juilliard v Greenman that declared "legal tender currency" Constitutional it affirms that species money (gold and silver) are the lawful money of the United States.

This is a false belief. While it would be impossible based upon the currently established rate $50/oz pof gold established by the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1986 it would require about 300 billion ounce of gold to back the national debt and that's many times the amount of gold ever recovered from the Earth the Congress, under Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution, has the authority to "regulate" the value of the gold and silver coins produced by the US Mint. I have proposed elsewhere that revaluation of the gold standard can be accomplished based upon a $5000 one ounce gold coin and would merely require redemption of Federal Reserve notes in species coinage based upon that rate of exchange. The US already has enough gold supplies to make this happen and all the government is responsible for is the national debt. I don't know if the Federal Reserve would be able to come up with enough gold for all of the Federal Reserve notes it's created but the US government and American People are not responsible for Federal Reserve debt.

Of note the US government does not have to redeem foreign debt in gold coins as the "gold standard" can be exclusively for use in the US based upon a prior Supreme Court decision.

The only "wealth redistribution" that occurs with increasing the currency in circulation is the transfer of wealth from the average American to the wealthy American. Inflationary monetary policies are one of the primary reasons that the wealth of America is moving to the wealthy over time. People don't like to believe this but I will provide a hypothetical example.

Ten people each have $100K in the bank (Federal Reserve notes) and one person owns a lumber yard that has 1M board feet of lumber worth $1M (comparing $1M in FRN's with $1M in a commodity). The ten people could purchase all of the 1M board feet of lumber. If the currency supply doubles with "printing" by the Federal Reserve then the $1M held in the ten banking accounts loses 1/2 of it's purchasing power because of inflation and they could only purchase 1/2 million board feet of lumber. The person that owns the lumber yard has "doubled" there assets because now it would take $2M to purchase the lumber they own while the ten people have lost 1/2 assets because they can only purchase 1/2 of the lumber that they could have previously purchased with the money they had in the bank. The wealthy have their "capital" stored in "capital assets" while the average person has far more of their "capital" stored in "dollars" that have lost over 97% of their purchasing power. Those with "dollars" have lost wealth while those with "capital assets" have increased their percentage of wealth of America.

While I'm not a believer in Keynesian economic philosophy he did propose how the government can mitigate the highs and lows of the economy without any necessity to be removed from the gold standard. It is rather simple as the government should collect excess revenues during economic prosperity and spend during economic recession on the national infrastructure. In some extreme cases a "recession" might even require borrowing to mitigate the effects of the economic downturn but when the recovery is accomplished then the government would collect excess revenue to pay of the prior borrowing. By analogy it would be like a person using a credit card to help financially carry them through a period of temporary unemployment but when they are re-employed they pay off the debt they incurred while unemployed.

In the end we have those that support a corrupt form of Capitalism and then have the balls to complain that it doesn't work. Before people complain about Capitalism they need to understand that they're the one's that demand a corrupted form of Capitalism and it's that corrupted form of Capitalism that doesn't work. Its the Corrupt Crony Capitalism that isn't working and the same people complaining about it are the same people that demand Corrupt Crony Capitalism.

We cannot have a corrupt monetary system and expect it to work and our current monetary system based upon "fiat currency" is corrupt and it will fail. No monetary system based upon "fiat currency" has ever survived the test of time. Not one. We haven't been able to afford to produce a copper penny for years and now I've read that we can't afford to continue to print fiat dollars. As noted only the average "American" is adversely effected by fiat currency so those that support it can't complain about the transfer of America's wealth to the wealthy and can't complain about the fact that average Americans are going to become poorer and poorer over time as the value of their labor stored in "dollars" is slowly taken away from them by inflation.

 

The bottom line is that those supporting a fiat based monetary system are the same ones complaining that capitalism doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work because labor stored in "dollars" is lost through inflation. That doesn't happen when labor is exchanged for a commodity (i.e. how capitalism works) such as gold or silver. Money is technically a commodity that is exchanged for labor in Capitalism and commodities, while they may fluctuate slightly in relative value to other commodities, have instrinsic value but fiat currency does not.

Of note "currency" isn't inherently "bad" and does serve a viable purpose in a capitalistic economy. Historically many people preferred currency over carrying species money in the US. After the Civil War the US government authorized the redemption of currency created to fund the Civil War in gold coins but much of that currency was not redeemed because people preferred the currency over carrying gold coins. There was no real problem with this as the people could redeem the currency in gold coins on demand if they wanted to. The problem only arises if the currency can't be redeemed because then it loses any intrinsic value because the currency is not a receipt for a commodity. Currency isn't inherently bad for Capitalism but "fiat" currency is because it doesn't represent a commodity. Captialism, as noted, depends upon the voluntary exchange of commodities for commodities and labor for commodities and fiat currency is not a receipt for a commodity. Fiat currency is not a component of Capitalism.

 

I will have to agree with you. That is the current real danger of all the unprecedented Fed pumping. I have no idea what my savings will buy when I retire but it may not buy much as it will be worth much less than when I paid in. This may work for government because it makes government debt worth less but screws the people. Much like all equity bubbles like the housing bubble that collapse there is always great enthusiasm before the bubble pops, and they always do. Right now there is the idea in government that the Fed can pump forever and it will work. It is an experiment that is destined to fail. These are the same class/age/education of people that bundled all those derivatives that caused so many problems.

 

Not my argument, at all. I believe our wealthier politicians should fix a secular and temporal Standard of merely purchasing the best solutions money can buy with an official Mint at their disposal.

 

I've already pointed out why the NFL is actually more indicative of most businesses. At most, you typically only see smaller businesses engage in nepotism.

Once a business reaches a certain size, nepotism isn't feasible, because the authority for hiring is spread among a larger group of people.

And again, inheritance is a matter of property rights. If you eliminate it, you remove a significant component of property rights (and motivation for ambition).

 

That is incorrect, capital assets depreciate with the devaluation of money. For example oil machinery is worthless to the oil companies if they can only sell their oil in return for cheap diluted dollars.

This is only possible with Fiat Currency, it is virtually impossible to assault the wealthy and rip their enterprises off under the Gold Standard. And If they should think of raising prices to compensate for their devalued medium of exchange, then it will only provoke the wrath of Ben Bernanke who was appointed by President Obama, to continue to stimulate them with more paper money.

What this does is reduce demand for their products, because as they raise prices to compensate for Government intervention, demand for their products falls lower.

The Immoral, wealthy Capitalists, cannot escape the wrath of the government, and they will not be able to continue to hide their money offshore in stronger currencies like the Swiss franc. Socialist countries in Europe are beginning to enforce US government policies, as the US moves towards their shared ideology of the Socialist welfare state.

 

Liberals are agents of the Right Wing; that's why they are called "Limousine Liberals." Our politics is nothing but a food fight at a prep school. Liberal means "Conservative, Jr."

Admit it, the disgusting act that the pseudo-Left purposely puts on drives you further to the Right. You can't handle the fact that you've been tricked into your assigned politics.

Upper-class spoiled brats run "Liberalism" because, living off Daddy's Money, only they have the free time to spend taking it over. They don't have minds of their own; they are driven totally by class instinct. Their pushiness demonstrates a "born to rule" attitude. Lying to themselves about what really motivates them is the lowest form of insincerity. They want to provoke you into supporting their Right Wing classmates, and you prove that their strategy works.

 

It seems hopeless to continue driving home this point about a society based on birth and not worth. But the hereditary classes control information and debate, so I have to leave something that exposes their illegitimate practices so that future generations will not let you off the hook for never seeing an alternative to the required ways of thinking.



The competitive marketplace for jobs is owned by the next generation and is not private property. But the Heirheads are set up in unearned positions within it because their fathers claim they can do that. It doesn't matter if it is someone's own money if he uses it anti-socially. If he bribes the referee, can his excuse be that it is his own money being used, not the Gubmint with Affirmative Action? Legacy college admissions are just as unfair and destructive as Affirmative Action admissions. From there we go to legacy professions, legacy financing, legacy political nominations.

You try to distort my proposal by claiming I'm talking about getting to work for Daddy's company. No, it is class nepotism, where Daddy's Money gives his children better credentials. His fellow employers give preference to their own kind. In fact, if it is hopeless to abolish birth privileges, other groups should get together and give preference to their own kind. My grandfather could have gotten me the job that multi-millionaire Rich Dennis got, but our family believed in getting ahead the way the rich told us to do instead of using connections, which is exactly what the rich do to maintain their heriditary dominance.

 

If you were a rich dude, what would be the downside of being in denial?

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but that is just simply a bunch of crap.

 

We are already bland same-bots and it has to do with corporate control. We live in Wal-Mart heaven.

 

PB - I'm not sure wtf is going on anymore, as in who really controls this country. There are so many powerful interests and so much money being passed around that it can be bewildering trying to get a handle on it. I know one thing for certain - an awful lot of what takes place behind the scenes isn't quite like what we see presented to the public in the official statements, press conferences, interviews, and other means of bs.

 

I have yet to find alleged conservatives who are willing to have enough Faith in Capitalism to merely and simply purchase the best solutions money can buy, with an official Mint at their disposal.

 

You're talking about different things from what I was talking about then.

When you said inheritance, I had assumed that you were referring to private finances in addition to nepotism in job placement.

We agree that legacy is a problem. When it comes to government, we can reform that by holding government more accountable to the people.

When it comes to the private sector, that's a hard one to fix. Ultimately, a company performs better by hiring the best man or woman for the job, but unfortunately, upper management has the same flaws as most humans do in that they place higher value on familiarity and social standing than on actual business acumen.

It's hard to find people in power that are truly meritocratic in nature, so the best that usually occurs is that the most talented people within the privileged class tend to get jobs quicker. That still leaves out the people who aren't part of that social group.

So, I think we agree on this particular point.

 

Sacrifice has no merit, it is merely brown-nosing; so I distrust those who define "meritocracy." If people aren't paid in college, they aren't worth anything.

You hit on the key to the Free Market fallacy. People do not know their own best interests; what they like may not be good for them. Libretardians would say that if paying people in college produced better employees, the employers would automatically do that, because of the magic of the market.

Even in a matter of life and death, aristocrats would rather die than let anybody have the same support they give their sons. Cancer would be cured if people were paid to study it. There's not much chance now, since we rely on childish, escapist freaks who have no self-respect and are willing to work without pay in college until they are 30 years old. If I were a multibillionaire, I wouldn't give one cent to the American Cancer Society. Instead, I'd take the smartest 16-year-olds and pay them to study the biological sciences, starting at $30,000 a year plus free tuition. In fact, I'd hire the teachers too, since I'd eliminate all unrelated courses. Universities wouldn't stand for that; they have to appease all their professors of Leisure Class escapist drivel.

 

On a side note, Finland does actually give college students a wage while they study. Sorry, random tangent...

Well, I think that's more of a matter of what is socially expected. An intern isn't in a position of leverage.

While we might not pay med students a wage, a lot of medical advances come from public universities. Giving them a wage might help them somewhat, although I'm not sure if that would result in faster advances.

Instead of wages, what we typically do is distribute endowments used for the associated expenses of research. It seems to work pretty well.

Granted, it shows that socialization of research is superior to letting the market handle all R&D.

 

You are confusing cronyism by plutocracy with capitalism. Two completely different animals.