All economic systems end, including capitalism

[StateOfMind]

I watched all of the zeitgeist films, i agree with the social and economic aspects of the movie. Peter Joseph outlines very concerning flaws of our way of life, things that I have thought before in the past. He pretty much says to use strictly SCIENCE, using the Scientific Method for social problems.

Also Joseph does explain the economic flaws brilliantly(Watch the films)
He pretty much exposes the scam, how the failing system operates and that this economy is based on DEBT. Also he humors that our economy is really just the opposite. That bussinesses essentially, Create **** products for more money(Having us rebuy same products) I must say i totally agree, how is this an economy if almost every product is created cheaply? Its the total opposite of true economics. Its not pro economic to create a chair out of cheap products for it to just break easily. People call the Prius, "Economy Cars" Why? Because they are economically smart, saves money and reduces emissions to enviroment.

All in all... I take what the films are worth, that our social eqality is ****. You cant argue that(Watch parts 1-3 of the third film)

 

[n00bPimp]

I dont think pure capitalism really ever existed.

 

[r0cky]

Who is "they"? The Illuminati? Skull & Bones? The Trilateral Commission?

Businesses

You've got it backwards. Capitalism has made people rich beyond comparison throughout human history. Poor people in the US live like kings compared to poor people in centrally planned economies like North Korea. And the poorer people are, the more children they have

They have more children, but how many survive to working age? Capitalism has made a few people rich. Moreover, richness is relative. There have always been people with more resources than others. People in the US live like kings at the expense of the poor. For ex. billions of people in the 3rd world work their ass off for pennies an hour in sneaker factories just so that a few millions of us can have a nice pair of sneakers you will be throwing away in a few months. Again, CAPITALISM ENRICHES THE FEW AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MANY.

Huh? You're telling me every business has a team of actuaries studying population growth charts in order to determine just how many widgets to produce? And all businesses are secretly collaborating to make sure each one produces just the right amount?

Its called the law of supply and demand. You profit the most when demand and supply intersect, in other words, when demand is halfway met. In order to know the demand you must know the population. There's no secret meeting going on, its not needed, its all reflected in your profits. Do a little research on the invisible hand.

There will always be people who lack basic necessities no matter what. No system is perfect. But for some reason I don't see many people emigrating from the US to North Korea.

There is no perfect system, YET. I assume you did not watch the video.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

Capitalism is the only honest economic system because it is the only one that requires man to provide for his own survival. It is the only system that doesn't pretend that the values man requires for his survival can be wished (or printed) out of thin air.

One man grows corn, one man makes steel, another man makes clothes and so on, and money is the living symbol of their desire to deal with each other by means of reason. It is the physical, non-arbitrary value they trade for value. If you negate the principal of money, if you hold money as evil and productive work as a curse, the barrel of a gun is the only physical value that can take the place of money.

Blood or dollars? Prosperity or starvation? Life or death?

Look at what is happening in Europe now. Germany is the only country that could be called "thriving". Strangely, France is keeping its head above water. But the countries that produce nothing, that value sitting around rotting (or "experiencing") over living an honest and productive life, are producing nothing but debt and are begging their neighbors for handouts. Greece is the worst.

An individual must produce the values required for his own survival. My lungs cannot breathe in place of yours, my brain cannot think in place of yours. And the same is true for a nation as it is for a man-it must produce. There is honor in producing the bare minimum for your survival, as at least you are not begging or threatening someone else to provide for you. But is it not ironic that the man who carries the highest personal ambition is the same man who provides the opportunities for other men to live on their own two feet, as men rightly should? The man who knows that he can live only one life (his own) and who desires to go as far as he can take himself, is the man who pulls everyone else behind him.

I know who my heroes are and why I want to be like them-my heroes are industrialists. They are the men who move the world and, if you are religious, "take upon themselves the regeneration of the earth." Without industrialists the world would be a place of mindless ruins and tribal warfare. Before you are so quick to demonize the man who makes it his goal to make money, check your premises.

 

[JustLurk]

Germany is the only country that could be called "thriving".

You're a funny guy, really. Platitudes for Germany while you pine for -lasses- (spelled wrong I know, spellcheck) faire policy of hands-off government? Really?

Germany is the best-case scenario for economic improvement as a result of government regulation!

The brief story is that, despite its reputation for austerity, Germany has been far more willing than the United States to use the power of government to help its economy.
serious regulation. American regulators stood idle as the housing bubble inflated. German banks often required a down payment of 40 percent.
German laws and regulators have also prevented the decimation of their labor unions.The top 1 percent of German households earns about 11 percent of all income, virtually unchanged relative to 1970, according to recent estimates. In the United States, the top 1 percent makes more than 20 percent of all income, up from 9 percent in 1970.
Germany does not have a smaller budget deficit because it spends less. Germany, you’ll recall, is the original welfare state. It has a smaller deficit because it is more willing to match the benefits it wants with the needed taxes. The current deficit-reduction plan includes about 60 percent spending cuts and 40 percent tax increases

 

[robert Steves]

I have seen this .This documentary is very best effort but let me share my compliment with you that mixed economy is perfect solution now a days.
obedience training

 

[sstype]

Any economic system is doomed to fail when the people in the system become corrupted with vices like unbridled greed, laziness, and unearned entitlement.

Germany's economy is a powerhouse, even with strong workers rights, high progressive income/VAT taxation, and broad government intervention. By Julius's logic, the country would be a socialist hellhole.

The reason they flourish is because culturally, German people value hard work, efficiency, and the well-being of their society. If overnight, they swapped their mixed economy for a pure free market, they would still prosper.

Norway is the epitome of socialism and big government, yet they are ranked #1 in entrepreneurs per capita. Ranked one of the most transparent and least corrupt nations

And on the flip-side, free market economies in Singapore and Hong Kong prosper. Like Norway, both countries have strong anti-corruption measures.

Whereas here in our country, its all about "ME, ME, ME and my money at all costs, and everyone else can f*ck off" This mentality is prevalent in our culture, from the welfare cheat, to the corrupt government regulator receiving kickbacks, to the CEO getting a bonus for offshoring American jobs, to your neighbor cheating on his taxes. Is it any wonder we're in a such mess now?

The underlying culture of a nation drives the success of its economic system. A strong sense of national pride, civic duty, transparency, and zero tolerance against corruption is what allows innovation, entrepreneurship, and upward mobility to flourish.


It's easy to scapegoat government, the free market, capitalism, socialism, Obama, Bush, high taxes, evil bankers, welfare queens, illegal immigrants, lazy poor people, etc.

The problem with our country starts with looking in the mirror.

 

[n00bPimp]

I am sick to death of hearing the above statements by uneducated idiots.

Have you EVER been to a third world country? If so, tell me which? I have and I can tell you that your assumptions are quite wrong.

Do people in places like India and China get paid less? Yes. But do you think the cost of living there is anything close to the USA? It is NOT. Travel the world before you start making idiot statements.

Myself living the first decade of my life in Peru I have witnessed what it is putting your wife and underage kids to work just to pay for food and housing, forget clothing.

 

[JustLurk]

That problem exists everywhere. Third World countries do not have a monopoly on such problems. And they certainly are not caused by Business coming in to provide work. My main point though is that people say they get paid "pennies" and those same people have done little to no research, it is an urban myth at worst and downright wrong at best.

Has anyone every PRICED products in China or India? Or South Africa? I have been to these places and I can tell you that I bought a VERY nice leather jacket in India for $50. That same jacket would cost almost $400 in the US. In a mall in Durban, South Africa I saw a nice 57 inch flat screen tv for HALF the price you would find in Wal-mart. For god's sake people, stop perpetuating lies and myths.

Also, People need to remember that these third-world countries already had problems with a standard of living. "Greedy Businesses" did not cause that. They are actually providing jobs and making it easier to survive and attain wealth than it was prior to the Business ever arriving.

A rock rolls into a hard place. Will the rock be at fault, or the hard place?

 

[n00bPimp]

Ha, nice quote. My point is that Businesses bring wealth to places, the problem is that EVERYONE has become entitled and are incapable of seeing past this basic fact.

Imagine how poor these places would be without Businesses? How would these people get food or shelter then?

Before capitalism there was no such thing as businesses, people back then used a system of bartering. and ebfore bartering I'm sure people got around just fine. otherwise we wouldnt be here.

 

[JustLurk]

Ha, nice quote.

A modification of a quote. I don't recall seeing this exact quote anywhere. The point is similiar though, I think.

My point is that Businesses bring wealth to places,

Not always. Businesses can form either symbiotic or parasitic relationships with the places they visit. Sometimes they bring men with guns and take resources. Sometimes they pay people on the land to do it for them. Another example is in those various superrich areas surrounded by slums. The wealth in cases like this are very concentrated in a small segment of the population.

is that EVERYONE has become entitled and are incapable of seeing past this basic fact.

What do they feel entitled to?

Imagine how poor these places would be without Businesses? How would these people get food or shelter then?

Pretty damn poor. I don't deny that, in some cases, the advent of international business has increased quality of money. It's just not in every case. In some cases, businesses have taken advantage of power and a weak or manipulatable government to ruin the environment of certain countries and to harvest resources. They've also abused workers by ignoring safely concerns noted in more developed countries. Were they richer off in some cases? Sure. But their health, their land, and their resources were all depleted. Perhaps if they had self-developed they could have taken advantage of their own resources. And then there's the cases (Going back further in history to present times.) where a military, mercenary, or monetary force was brought to bear against 3rd world countries. I would argue, in these cases, that the quality of life and riches was lowered.

 

[r0cky]

I notice that my other thread about the June 14th rebellion was taken down. Wouldn't be surprised if this one does too. Anyways here's a link with the latest info and new sites of protests.
http://ampedstatus.org/activists-to...-met-operation-empire-state-rebellion-begins/

Ps. Largest attack in the history of information coming in the next few days. Make sure you dont use the same password for everything.

 

[JustLurk]

Just because you see a shiny object next to dull ones, it does not mean the shiny object made them that way. The same logic goes with Businesses. They did not get wealthy by seizing it, they got wealthy by producing items that people want or need and then selling it. Nothing wrong with that at all.

A power system was taken advantage of to sell the natural resources of an entire nation, with the proceeds pocketed by the ruling elite. Business, partly owned by these powerful elites, took resources and then used these resources as products in their business. When the people don't like that, well, then the men with guns. Or the order can just be switched on that. My point is that, while real businesses don't bring men with guns, a lot of businesses have taken advantage of the natural resources of various undeveloped countried through the direct or indirect use of men with guns or other political power system abuse. If these businesses do not quality as businesses under your definition, then your definition is unfortunately not the ones in use today. The history of several large businesses contain these actions, and are yet referred to as businesses and not pirates. (Amusningly enough, copyright violators are referred to as pirates instead.)

They did not get wealthy by seizing it, they got wealthy by producing items that people want or need and then selling it.

Some companies got wealthy by seizing resources. Some then used the resources and some just sold them. All businesses take advantage. Otherwise, they would fail. It may be that the advantage has a positive net effect for the society the business came to or it may not. In undeveloped countries with weak governments, the power of business often allowed them to take advantage in ways that had a negative net effect. You have to consider that this creation of value system and selling as needed has a slight catch sometimes, and it's the people at the bottom of the food chain that suffer for it. Sometimes, they get a good deal and get paid. Sometimes, businesses employ thugs or indirectly support dictators to uphold regimes in which it is more profitable for them to operate their business.

by producing items that people want or need and then selling it.

Look at businesses throughout history. Tell me that nothing's wrong with doing the above. Let's take some examples. IG Farben manufactued Zyklon B, used in concentration camps during the Holocause to kill Jews. By noting the for-profit nature of the companies, you may be trying to show them in a non-marvolent light, but the problem is the very for-profit nature of these large companies has led them to consider profit over their consumers, often deceiving them or cutting corners to turn larger profits. They also have a nasty tendency to not discriminate against whoever has the cash, even selling to some less-than-optimal people. Cisco, for example, just produces items that people, like China, needs to keep up censorship. Let's see your quote again:

they got wealthy by producing items that people want or need and then selling it. Nothing wrong with that at all.

EDIT:

I do not disagree that Businesses can purchase Government officials, but that begs the question of where the problem was in the first place? The officials were purchaseable long before the Business arrived I'm sure.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they were pressured. Either way, whether the door's open or you pick it when you break into a house to steal someone's plasma TV, it's still theft. Even if the officials were on the market, so to speak, it would still be the (Illegal) fault of businesses to buy them up.

 

[synergy1]

People are always asking, "What should the government do to fix the economy?" And then I hear a whole bunch of ridiculous sh!t. As far as the economy is concerned, all the government has to do is GET THE FVCK OUT OF THE WAY AND LET THE MEN OF VALUE PROVE THEIR WORTH. That is the only way to get America back on the right track; all the government has to do is get out of the way and do nothing! Damn!

I am going to finish atlas shrugged shortly, so i'll reserve my analysis for when I am complete. While I do not totally agree with the premise, I see many similarities. I understand alusions are used to make a point, one thing they do not mention is what some monopolistic companies do that are negative. As much as I hate government regulation, its not quite all or nothing. If there was no regulation what so ever, what would stop oil companies from making a mess where they were, or from natural gas companies fraking and not completely messing up the local water supplies? While I am not for the strong to support the leeching weak, but I don't think the weak deserve the shaft merely because they are in the way of companies resources. There has to be a little responsibility on the end of the corporations.

No ideological system is perfect. Capitolism has its merits, but its pitfalls too. Why? because all casts are greedy. People who do not deserve handouts will strive to get them. People at the heads of corporations will always try and make sure more money stays in the company rather than is wasted on salaries. Its a two way street which is something atlas shrugged does not cover.

There is a passage in the book that holds true, and its when they are ( I think) announcing weapon X - the professor keeps saying ' this is what happens when you are dealing with people' At the end of the day , its not so much an ideological system thats the problem so much as it is the people.

 

[JustLurk]

Your points above are well taken.

I should perhaps clarify what I mean when I say "Business". I mean a Corporation that employs the practice of free-market capitalism, which is the point of this thread. Of course any entity that steals from a populace by the point of a gun or enables the enslavement of people is not what I am talking about. That is not Capitalism!

Capitalism is not to blame for any of the items above, with perhaps the exception of Cisco and China, but again, the China Government is the root cause of that problem, although I would agree that Cisco is not blameless.

Capitalism is the savior of mankind, not the evil that so many ignorant people think it to be. EVERY single piece of wealth around you was created and permissable only by Capitalism. Take away Capitalism and welcome back to the Dark Ages, because it WILL come.

It most Certainly is not the fault of Businesses when Politicians are for sale. If you got rid of the Businesses, the Politicians are STILL for sale. THIS is why you limit Government power. By doing so, you limit the amount of favors for sale. This is why people that love freedom advocate LESS Government interference in Capitalism.

It is a simple equation.

More Government = More corruptable, purchaseable power
Less Capitalism = Less property rights, less generation of wealth

That is clearly the wrong direction for anyone who has a grasp on how wealth is created and retained in a society.

This is theoretically very true. In practice, capitalism can invest power in certain business structures and get them to do this: :kick" xD
It would be very nice if capitalism rewarded moral behaviours over profit-generating motivations. While this may be true for the long term of business (And some small/ethical businesses know that and can be helpful.) it does not apply for the majority of businesses to choose moral choices over profit. My point is that the capitalism system, without regulation by a hard-to-corrupt 3rd party, tends to fall into a profit-over-ethics mindset.

I should perhaps clarify what I mean when I say "Business". I mean a Corporation that employs the practice of free-market capitalism, which is the point of this thread. .

You're entirely correct in your post. The only problem is that your true corporations are rare.

 

[JustLurk]

The weakness of our Corporate structure, is that when things go bad, such as a Company dumping toxic chemicals, often there is only a fine involved and no criminal time served. Changing this to so that certain people in charge get prison time would go a LONG way in fixing those sorts of problems.

It would. But wouldn't that require a strong enough government? An interesting situation is like China's, where instead of time served, such a businessperson could be executed. Yet China is in posession of a strong government and, in some cases, poor regulation. Hmm.

But again, that comes down to Governments and corruption. As long as favors are for sale, and as long as we continually increase the size of Government, the problems will only get worse. There is no other alternative.

An uncorrupt government is very important, of course. On the other hand, too weak a government and they would have no teeth to rein in businesses that put profit over morals. Of course, then there's the big question: how do you have a government free of corruption?

But weaker government won't rein in bad business. That's the problem. Of course, strong governments are often in bed with bad businesses. :/

 

[Cry For Love]

It would. But wouldn't that require a strong enough government? An interesting situation is like China's, where instead of time served, such a businessperson could be executed. Yet China is in posession of a strong government and, in some cases, poor regulation. Hmm.
An uncorrupt government is very important, of course. On the other hand, too weak a government and they would have no teeth to rein in businesses that put profit over morals. Of course, then there's the big question: how do you have a government free of corruption?

But weaker government won't rein in bad business. That's the problem. Of course, strong governments are often in bed with bad businesses. :/

Hilarious argument. Reining in profit seeking firms. The whole reason why government fails at everything as a producer is because it doesnt have profits. A surplus in receits goes to no one, so even an accounting "profit" in a government isnt a profit. And without profit, it is impossible to guide allocation of capital to ends desired by consumers.

 

[Drdeee]

Capitalism will never end! Even during Soviet rule in USSR, now Russia, capitalism existed, there were always people who'd want to sell you something in deficit for a profit, they called them speculators, and they executed a lot of them, but at the end, those pesky speculators convinced some pensioners and students take down the government. Now every babushka has a place she could sell her sh1t at, to you! Capitalism even existed during our caveman times. They called it trade back then.

The problem is not Capitalism, not even Communism, Fascism, or Cannibalism. The problem is not the system that rules us. The problem is the treadmill system, we call money. A few wealthy people control how much money is printed, and thus they control governments, and us. They own the media which tells us exactly what and how to think, and we pay money for it, it's called cable bill. That's the real problem.

Money is debt, and debt is a modern form of slavery. I want money that does not depreciate! I want money based on gold standard. I want money which is issued by open and transparent system, NOT a private corporation! I don't want FEDEx people tell me when the next crisis happens. FEDEx, as in Federal Express the package shipping company, because the FED, is just a corporation, just like FEDEx. Bunch of rich people print money and invent policies. They dictate if you poor, doing good, rich, or homeless.

Watch this film called The American Dream http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU&feature=player_embedded

 

[synergy1]

call it money, gold back currency, wompum or whatever, human beings have an hierarchical structure wherein only a smaller few will control a larger percentage of the power. A true system of equality is a pipe dream as those with talent and ability to acquire will never abdicate what they have earned for the sake of the masses. While I don't agree with excessive greed in my own moral framework, it is a natural human instinct that we can not deny. While a good portion of money percolates to the top 10%, this is because the bottom 90% are unable to acquire it - they don't have the tools to do so otherwise they would. I feel some aspects of socialism are an attempt to seize power and is no different than the powerful trying to keep theirs.

Humans will always be in debt or slavery to others with more. It doesn't matter what medium you elect to use as a currency. There will always be the haves and have nots - those with minimal intelligence or drive will usually have not, and those with the means and drive will.

 

[r0cky]

call it money, gold back currency, wompum or whatever, human beings have an hierarchical structure wherein only a smaller few will control a larger percentage of the power. A true system of equality is a pipe dream as those with talent and ability to acquire will never abdicate what they have earned for the sake of the masses. While I don't agree with excessive greed in my own moral framework, it is a natural human instinct that we can not deny. While a good portion of money percolates to the top 10%, this is because the bottom 90% are unable to acquire it - they don't have the tools to do so otherwise they would. I feel some aspects of socialism are an attempt to seize power and is no different than the powerful trying to keep theirs.

Humans will always be in debt or slavery to others with more. It doesn't matter what medium you elect to use as a currency. There will always be the haves and have nots - those with minimal intelligence or drive will usually have not, and those with the means and drive will.

You've pretty much summarized the history of the world. I think anyone with a basic highschool education is aware of this.

The protests going on around the world shows that the people are waking up. They realize that capitalism has not made society any better than it was 600 years ago. The new paradigm is coming, and the people are slowly getting ready to accept it.