"Capitalism: A Love Story"...Michael Moore's latest film.

[Meatball]

Socialism, in the way that Marx describes, is a pipe dream. It's not feasible.

I appreciate that things like Marxism exist because they provide an extreme that gravitates popular thought. We can look at pure socialism and see aspects that we can apply in practical ways to our own society. Things like employment insurance, public roads, public healthcare all take great aspects of socialism and apply to our system. Things like across-the-board equal wealth and price fixing don't work so well.

I agree with Adrian's suggestion that competition is part of the human spirit. I'll extrapolate from that and assert that socialism stifles and oppresses that critical human trait.

[Violet]

Capitalism is one of the best monetary systems available. I am more of a fan of credit per work/time*quality with its basis as a meritocratical (Best hands get the tools) government.

However, capitalism is much simpler and easier to implement.

Would you care to explain the other monetary systems that are available to us?
Capitalism is merely another system that has evolved since feudalism. It will eventually give way to another system, the nature of which is a big imponderable.

Formulae: work/time*quality(of the best [Work type determined by prior testing, and quality by personal reputation given by patients {revokable at any time}]) = Credit number (Money value from outside and inside is controlled and maintained by the government, and the credit number is the portion to which a person is entitled for their work quality/time, thereby eliminating the rich/poor and establishing only the working/non-working). (Numbers are arbitrary) There are no taxes because the government controls the money (And only the best accountants, economists, and other such are placed in charge of it, and none of them can steal it because all credit is watched and maintained by all the others, and their credit is very stable.).

Shortly: work/time*quality=credit number=how much value you have access to=the government does what it must do with its money without taking it from you.

Again, this is a much better system... but it is horribly difficult to change a capitalistic society into it (The rich would hate it, and the unworking would not be paid). Only the best work their jobs in this system, probably excluding such jobs as garbage duty, which are low end jobs, and should be done by machines and ourselves and few individuals to manage it.

I have a few kinks to work out still (Such as should the formulae be work*quality/time, or as is, and a few other minor problems that are nonetheless important).


See how much better, but harder to implement this is than:

Unpredictable cost*time*taxes*unpredictable additional rates=payment

Which is Capitalism.

And certainly better than:

Work/needs(additional removed by government)=payment.

Which is the model of Communism (as I think it is done at any rate).

[bozo]

Socialism, in the way that Marx describes, is a pipe dream. It's not feasible.

I appreciate that things like Marxism exist because they provide an extreme that gravitates popular thought. We can look at pure socialism and see aspects that we can apply in practical ways to our own society. Things like employment insurance, public roads, public healthcare all take great aspects of socialism and apply to our system. Things like across-the-board equal wealth and price fixing don't work so well.

I agree with Adrian's suggestion that competition is part of the human spirit. I'll extrapolate from that and assert that socialism stifles and oppresses that critical human trait.

You say Marxism is " Extreme". Do you not find a small minority owning the combined wealth of the planet ( whilst millions starve ) " extreme "?
Adrian is a capitalist who chooses to label himself " left " but also is a " libertarian " which is capitalist. So, be careful is my caveat.

[Rhizomorph13]

Saerules,

I was wondering what your system was when I first read it and now I see that it is your own devising. I would have to see how you apply it to everchanging needs of the populace i.e. establish a rate of pay for a wagon wheel maker then react to the change when no wagon wheels are needed. It sounds like your system would require a host of people to adjust pay rates to respond to changes in the economy. Capitalism and a fiat money system adjust for this nicely due to market forces, without a formula because supply and demand are controled by the whim of the people in the system.

It is an interesting system. I'm thinking of a way to make money four dimensional so it will lose value over time thus eliminating the inevitable inflation that historically destroys fiat money. We are at the end of one of those cycles right now although the EU has made efforts to stave off that end by unifying money in the area into the Euro. It seems like it was a good move. Maybe us 'Mericans will form our own union and a competing America Dollar will birth onto the scene to stabalize our economy or at least restart the process that causes fiat money to become worthless.

Who knows,
Rhizo

[Meatball]

You say Marxism is " Extreme". Do you not find a small minority owning the combined wealth of the planet ( whilst millions starve ) " extreme "?

Yep. I support progressive personal income taxes and heavy regulation of private markets. I think that's a healthier way for a society to function than the Marxist ideal of equality.

[Minimalist]

Capitalism isn't perfect. We need regulations to keep greed in check.

Then, it isn't "capitalism." I'd like someone to name me one "ism" that has ever worked in its pure form.

[Tiberius]

You made the assertion that you will do what it takes to get into the 1% fatcat club. Why would you even want to go there? You don't strike me as being that unpleasant.

That statements makes the assumption that all members of the "fatcat club" are unpleasant. It is your opinion, not a logically valid argument.

Capitalism is no advert for developing society. Capitalism breeds selfishness,greed,envy,competitiveness,hostility to others and other unenviable traits.
It is inhuman...witness the vast imbalance of the world's resources, look to the third world, to the starving millions and contrast the lives of those people to the mega-rich. Abomination.

Blaming this on capitalism is simply ridiculous. Capitalism does not breed selfishness, greed, envy, or any of the other traits; those traits are present to begin with. I could equally hold that you are envious of the success of others, and thereby hold the selfish view of socialism because you want to live in a society where you don't have to work. Hostility to others? Complete garbage. Human beings are human beings; we aren't perfect, and we certainly won't be made perfect by an economic system (especially one that fails so miserably as socialism).

The third world has it's own problems. If you compare the richest man in the most developed country to the poorest child in the least developed country, you are making a faulty comparison. You will find that in developed countries, poverty is much less of a problem, because capitalism is supported by the rich who are the people creating the jobs. In less economically developed countries, there aren't many rich to support poor with jobs. The economics of a country is individual to that country. Comparing the highest attribute of one to the lowest attribute of another only shows you the difference in the countries themselves, not the internal differences (which is what matters).

You show your true colours, Adrian, in calling socialism, a system that would seek to redress the imbalance and create REAL equality, a " disease ". It is you that is diseased, I fear, only interested in your own development.

When have I not shown my true colours? Socialism is not equal at all; I have always maintained this. Socialism punishes the rich (the people who have earned their money) and gives everything to the poor; the people who either refuse to work, lost all their money somehow, or do not have the qualifications to get employment anywhere. In short, the people who out of everyone do not deserve it in any way, let alone earned it. Society should only support people who are prepared to contribute to society. If a poor person cannot work (physically) then they should be supported. People who have no qualifications should be encouraged to get them. People who refuse to work or cannot be bothered should not receive any of societies help. This isn't looking out for my own development, this is looking out for the development of the society that wishes to contribute to itself. I could easily go on the dole and benefit from your socialistic society, but I'm studying at university (racking up debt) because I don't want to be a burden on society; I want to contribute to society.

Adrian is a capitalist who chooses to label himself " left " but also is a " libertarian " which is capitalist. So, be careful is my caveat.

You need a great big political dictionary thrown at your head bozo. The terms "left" and "right" can refer to both social and economic issues. I don't classify myself as left at all. I classify myself as "socially left, economically right". I believe in the social freedoms of left-wing politics and the economic freedoms of right-wing politics. Secondly, Libertarianism is not capitalist. At the heart of Libertarianism stand the three ideals of life, liberty, and prosperity. Libertarians value liberty more than anything else, so all Libertarians are socially left. What we disagree on is how best to distribute wealth amongst the people. Socialist Libertarians think that socialism is the best economic system for doing this, Capitalist Libertarians think that capitalism is the best.

So yes, I am a capitalist and also a libertarian, but it does not follow that being a libertarian means I am capitalist. It's a fallacy, a non-sequitur. Just as it does not follow from "Adrian is a man" to "therefore Adrian is an atheist", it does not follow from "Adrian is a Libertarian" to "therefore Adrian is a capitalist".

[dry land fish]

I don't know where some of you are getting that a small minority owns the wealth of the planet. Most people I know that are well off are small business owners. Contractors, plummers, land scape engineers, farmers, etc. I know a lot of people who do things like that and make enough money to be considered above middle class. It doesn't matter how much money a corporation or a person makes as long as it's done fairly. It doesn't even matter if they have to do back breaking labor or sit behind a computer to do it. Don't knock people or companies for their wealth.

[Rhizomorph13]

DLF,

We are getting that idea from statistics based on national census information. I got my information from college, specifically University of Phoenix. It is an undeniable fact that resources move toward those that know how to aquire them and most people lack the discipline to hold on to much. I spend most of my money bringing joy to myself in the form of beer and dancing WOOT!

Rhizo

[dry land fish]

Adrian and I have basically the same views. He seems to project them more diplomatically than I do. Rhizomorph, how you choose to spend your money is your business. If it makes you happy then spend every dime. Just as long as you don't put a strain on the taxpayers in doing so. I've noticed a few things. Younger people love socialism. Younger people usually have less money or no money, no health insurance, and are paying for school with their Mc job. Why wouldn't they support socialism? They have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. Older people seem to support capitalism. Once you have acquired some wealth and actually realized how the money cycle works then socialism just doesn't make sense. Most people get pissed at the thought of supporting someone who isn't their responsibility in the first place. I'm sure many of you will realize why capitalism works and how it's important for us to have corporations, small businesses, and mid size businesses once you actually find a career, get a home, have kids, or even try to start your own business. A free market works and in a free market the consumer controls the prices. When something is selling and prices are jacked up due to demand someone else can come out with the same product but with a different name and patent and drive the prices down again. Regulating a system like that would be financial suicide.