It is clear that capitalism is totally flawed, and does not work.
Every year statistics show that people that know how to work the system are taking more and more from the system. In essence, their pockets grow continuously larger while poverty and enviromental destruction continue to grow as well.


As long as the capitalist system exists the people doing the harshest labor will get the least pay. The people doing the most media manipulation will get the most pay.
Capitalism is not a system that awards great products. It is a system that awards great marketing tactics regardless of product quality.

Any system that uses the illusion of scarcity as its basis is intrinsicly corrupt. Corruption is the illusion of scarcity.

Capitalism is flawed from the inside out. No truly intellectual society would take such a primitive nonsensical corruption infected form of economics seriously. Intellects understand the the planet is the home of the life forms that occupy it. The planet has more than enough resources to support all lifeforms for generations. The planet furthermore has the ability to grow and regenerate resources. Corrupted illusions of scarcity is the ignorance of this.

Capitalism does not turn a blind eye to poverty, scarcity, and desperation. Capitalism ensures desperation exists.

It is clear that capitalism is totally flawed, and does not work.
Every year statistics show that people that know how to work the system are taking more and more from the system. In essence, their pockets grow continuously larger while poverty and enviromental destruction continue to grow as well.

It would appear that your logic is totally flawed, and does not work.

Capitalism works gloriously for the world's ruling 2%. The rest of us get the Trickle Down effect. The vast majority of the world's population reaps little or no benefit from a political system based on profiteering and turning people against eachother in the mad search for money. It is the lowest common denominator humans can reach. Works for the elite (so loved by the right) but doesn't work for the people that really work for a living.

I voted no because it only works for a small percentage of the worlds population.

I think that Capitalism as you see it should be called 'American Capitalism.' It has been flawed, and no longer works like it is supposed, because of the greed and cold heartedness of people. It is like how communism isn't really a bad idea, but Russian Communism didn't work at all.

Its not perfect, but its better than other systems since it enables entrepreneurship and is controlled by market forces. I think it may work more effectively with better regulation of both monopolistic organizations and of government enforced regulations on trade, commerce ad taxation.

The problem with capitalism is the invention of the corporation. As democracy replaced feudalism, government realized that it would no longer have an aristocracy to divert the attention of the populace from its own capers. So it invented the corporation, which is basically nothing more than the New Aristocracy. You can't execute a corporation no matter how evil it is, you can't throw it in jail, and if you fine it it just laughs and passes the costs on to you. We get so outraged watching the antics of corporations that we forget to see what's going on in Washington. They burned the Constitution seventy years ago and have been doing pretty much whatever the hell they feel like ever since.

Adam Smith's idea of the "invisible hand" of the marketplace was a good one. He envisioned it as a more or less level playing field with producers and consumers on roughly equal footing transacting business with each other. He did not foresee individual consumers and employees having to do business with corporations with as much money and power as Liechtenstein.

The only reason we had to suffer through the era of the labor union movement is that unions were the only way employees could get any bargaining power against a corporation with billions of dollars.

Consumer's Union was formed because they saw Big Business and Big Labor negotiating with each other and wondered why there was no such thing as Big Shopper to stick up for the multitudes.

Adam Smith would turn over in his grave if you explained the concept of the holding company. A corporation that produces nothing, contributes nothing to the GDP. It just owns the stock of subordinate corporations, just enough to have a controlling interest, and leverages that power down to the point where some kid with an MBA can shut down a factory without knowing what it makes or even understanding the industry it's in.

It isn't capitalism that's at fault. It's the laws that make corporations possible that are at fault.

capatilism... works fine... if you own capital which increaes in value..

people who have nothing, like myself... love to complain about taxes..
about inflation... about the crazy prices in the real estate market...

each year... everything gets more expensive... and we get so mad..

until... we own land... then suddenly.. we want inflation.

if we own buisnesses.. we want the price of our product to go up, and our costs down.....

so it depends on your position.


capitalism.. works... but only for so long as the majority of the masses are comfortable and have hope for a better tommorrow..

if the poor.. rise in number... then, it all can collapse.


communism... is worse... why??
cause it quarentees that everyone... is poor.. and stays that way.
thats why it has colapsed all around the world.

-MT

It is capitalism that is at fault. Corporations are the result of a capitalist system. The invisible hand takes money from the poor, and gives it to the rich. Corporations or no corporations.

YES.. but only capitalism, allows the poor.. to become rich.

socialism.. does not.
communism does not.
monarchys.. can.. if the king wants to.

fascism... might.. but who wants to find out?

-MT

You are flawed, bias, and ignorant.

STUPID PEOPLE: Base their comparisons on ineffective sytems.

Intellects compare everything to the ideal.

You are a total moron because you have the short sighted paradigm of only viewing capitalism relative to garbage like facism and communism.

You too dumb to have done this intentionally. You unintentionally compare capitalism to other flawed systems because you are too ignorant. If you thought for yourself for once in your life time, it might occur to you that viewing capitalism relative to flawed systems is flawed and idiotic.

ha..

then if you dislike capitalism... give us the better solution.!!!!!!!!!

if you cant.. then shut the fuck up.

-MT

ha..

then if you dislike capitalism... give us the better solution.!!!!!!!!!

if you cant.. then shut the fuck up.

-MT
LOL! Always nice to have these types around in a DISCUSSION forum.

Here is his reasoning:
If Cool Skill does not post designs for a better system than capitalism. Capitalism is the best system within the scope of Mosheh's pea sized brain. Therefore, solutions that real intellects have created do not exist.

The fact this idiot believes capitalism is the best system there is, and bases this by comparing it relative to other primitive systems rather than more advanced system shows what a total ignoramous life he lives.

Capitalism is fine as long as productivity is equaly up to par, its a direct function of productivity. When we ever start manufacturing motor vehicles in 15 minutes...then we'd be fully appreciating capitalism. In fact the idea started some time when humans were starting to perfect productivity- My guess is some time in the neolitic era. For now I think we don't have much of a choice but to adopt capitalism. Capitalism has its major con- it decentralizes socio-political jurisdiction, but since when has humans never needed a group of leaders to look up to. Besides if everybody was able to produce there will be no market, and no market means its impossible to produce, thats why everybody cannot produce in the first place, thats why we have third world countries- many thanks to good ole capitalism

FYi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic

The mentality between cummunism and capitalism is this "if you don't have enough you share, if you have enough why do you need to share?"

Captalism works unless you're looking for a free ride and aren't willing to compromise to get where you want to be. It takes discipline and sacrifice to get up from the bottom or thereabouts. We didn't want to be billionaires, we just wanted out of debt. We tightened our belts, changed our spending habits, budgetted our money, and learned to recognize financial opportunities which were available even at the level of "not enough money to live but too much money for welfare". All it took for us was not waiting for the finance fairy to come up and wave a wand. It was rough, but it only took us a few years of working, hitting setbacks, pushing through again, and just slugging away at it. We never filed bankruptcy, never wasted time with lottery tickets, and just rolled up our sleeves and got to it.

We eventually got into a position that allowed us to play the market for a little bit, but like any gamble we didn't do more than we could afford to lose. We researched stocks, chose our investments carefully, lost some, won some, and eventually cashed out enough for a downpayment on a nice little chunk of land.

Not bad for $30,000.00 total in debt while working in barely above minimum wage jobs.

Our other biiiiig helpful factor? No kids until we got out. We've been free for a couple of years now, and we're in no hurry to have kids. It's alot easier to make the sacrifices if you don't have them to worry about.

LOL! Always nice to have these types around in a DISCUSSION forum.

hea.. this is coolskills thread... and he... he.. started with the insults.

i only responded... in kind.

-MT

Here is his reasoning:
If Cool Skill does not post designs for a better system than capitalism. Capitalism is the best system within the scope of Mosheh's pea sized brain. Therefore, solutions that real intellects have created do not exist.

The fact this idiot believes capitalism is the best system there is, and bases this by comparing it relative to other primitive systems rather than more advanced system shows what a total ignoramous life he lives.

OK... SO WHAT IS THE BEST SYSTEM?????????????

unless you can offer one... then it is you who are a moron, since in fact... all you are doing is putting the system down...

its easy to protest.. its easy to say how bad it is...
but doing so without proposals for how to make it better shows that you...

you.. coolskill, are the idiot and moron.

im sorry...


you arent up to it.. you dont have any answers..

all you can do is complain... like a moron.

-MT

OH... AND IN THE ABOVE QUOTE.. you say..
"rather than more advanced system "

please, enlighten us to these systems.... hahahahaha

For 100-200 years, America had a good approximation to laissez faire capitalism. I view the end of it to have been initiated when the constitution was amended to allow a federal income tax, giving the central government great economic power (about 1913). Some believe its demise started with the Sheridan ant-trust act (about 1890) and the beginnings of government regulation.

At any rate, for that 100-200 years the standard of living of the average person grew by leaps and bounds. In the beginning of the 20th century, a factory worker had a life that would have been the envy of all but the very wealthy landed nobility of earlier eras. Their standard of living continued to increase until well into the middle of the 20th century due to the productivity resulting from laissez faire capitalism. The improvement in the standard of living of the average person was not accomplished by social legislation, labor unions, government regulation, or government redistribution of wealth.

We no longer have even a close approximation to laissez faire capitalism anymore. We have a society dominated by government and bureaucracy at all levels: Local, state, and national. The government and the bureaucracy has the power to ruin any business. Politicians buy votes by making deals brokered by lobbyists. The average person is led to believe that this is the fault of big business. Actually, it is a bit like a criminal protection racket. In the guise of protecting the average person from the bogeyman (big business), politicians are acquiring wealth and power and creating an ever growing and expensive bureaucracy. The system is slowly falling apart.

The maligned robber barons created jobs and produced products at prices that the average person could afford. Now we have some strange mixture of communism, fascism, and capitalism.

It is clear that capitalism is totally flawed, and does not work.
No. It is clear that formal (or the assumption of) education in a capitalist economy doesn't automatically guarantee the ability of any one person to actually know which vowel to buy.

Capitalism works for the same reasons nature works.

Elaborate please

Evolution through natural selection.
Survival of the fittest.
Bigger fish eats the smaller one.
The idealization of survival and procreation.

No scruples, no morality in the face of gain and success.
Need personified and given direction; need exploited and used to spark creativity and adaptation.

Capitalism works gloriously for the world's ruling 2%. The rest of us get the Trickle Down effect.
Did you miss the twentieth century? There was a controlled experiment. Communism v/s capitalism. Heck, some countries were even split right down the middle. One half communist, one half capitalist. In every case the communist nation/part was way worse off than the capitalist part. Not just economically, either. Communism goes hand in hand with authoritarianism. Capitalism is nothing but economic freedom. It goes hand in hand with political freedom. You can't long have one without the other.

Well Said.

Communism:
The attempt to surpass and control nature.
The attempt to heal nature’s ‘evil’s’ and injustices and bring compassion and care to an indifferent universe.
An upward battle to tame man’s nature and direct it with common moral systems and ideals.

The same can be said for Christianity.

Doomed to failure for three basic reasons:

1)It cannot compete with the more natural capitalism. Man’s psyche understands market economics.
Only hope is to isolate itself and grow to the point where it can resist.

2)Tampering with nature has consequences that must be, in turn, dealt with. This creates an endless struggle to deal with resistance and damages.

3)You cannot change a unity unless you first change its parts.
No matter how powerful the meme is the gene must adapt to its contexts; the foundation must be the correct kind to deal with the structure built upon it.

Capitalism seems more natural to man and so he feels comfortable in it.
He feels free when he’s simply a slave to his animal instincts, which he is intimate with.

Communism demands self-discipline and must be enforced for those that lack the will power and the mental/psychological strengths or the desire to do so.

Think of it this way:
To a fat person license to eat as much and what he wants will be considered liberating and comfortable.
Now impose a diet upon him and he’ll think it ‘authoritarian”, constricting and much too painful for what it promises in return.

Capitalism will always be attractive to the mind which does not want to suppress his own needs but just wants to give them free-reign – he will call it “freedom”.

Communism will always be attractive to the mind which fears he cannot measure up in the dog-eat-dog world of Capitalism or who has accepted a specific ideal – it’s another method towards empowerment.

Not quite. Communism requires absolute trust in the inherent goodness and self-discipline of the rest of the human race. It also requires the inclination to suppress all desire for anything better for youself or your family if it would put you the slightest bit ahead of other men.

In communism, if a man is doing better than the poorest and most unfortunate bastard in the world, it is presumed that he must be cheating that man somehow. The world is dragged down to the lowest common denominator.

The Old-world Empire in Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series comes to mind...

What is the objective of capitalism? If you can't answer that, then you can't answer this poll.

Assuming that the objective of capitalism is to maximize resource flow and efficiency, it works pretty well. In fact, it works as well as the population implementing it. This is by design.

Assuming that the objective of capitalism is to provide everyone an acceptable standard of living, that is not guaranteed, and for the same reason: it only works as well as the population implementing it. Not everyone is as greedy as economic theory likes to assume (unlimited wants). If you don't have that greed, the system tends to push you down as more competitive individuals rise to the top. This, I think, is a major problem with capitalism in the world today. Too much emphasis on competition and maximizing profit margins discourages trust and good will.

But capitalism is not explicitly concerned with good will (though they coincide sometimes). Capitalism's objective is to maximize economic efficiency, and to that end, yes. It works awesomely well.

Captalism works unless you're looking for a free ride and aren't willing to compromise to get where you want to be. It takes discipline and sacrifice to get up from the bottom or thereabouts. We didn't want to be billionaires, we just wanted out of debt. We tightened our belts, changed our spending habits, budgetted our money, and learned to recognize financial opportunities which were available even at the level of "not enough money to live but too much money for welfare". All it took for us was not waiting for the finance fairy to come up and wave a wand. It was rough, but it only took us a few years of working, hitting setbacks, pushing through again, and just slugging away at it. We never filed bankruptcy, never wasted time with lottery tickets, and just rolled up our sleeves and got to it.

We eventually got into a position that allowed us to play the market for a little bit, but like any gamble we didn't do more than we could afford to lose. We researched stocks, chose our investments carefully, lost some, won some, and eventually cashed out enough for a downpayment on a nice little chunk of land.

Not bad for $30,000.00 total in debt while working in barely above minimum wage jobs.

Our other biiiiig helpful factor? No kids until we got out. We've been free for a couple of years now, and we're in no hurry to have kids. It's alot easier to make the sacrifices if you don't have them to worry about.

False logic:

You were in debt because of capitalism.

(which doesn't diminish your accomplisment of getting our of debt)

Not just economically, either. Communism goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.
So does capitalism, it's just much more inventive and hidden. Do you really think that plutocracy would allow democratic circus, if it would not be 100% sure it can "guide and control it"?
Capitalism is nothing but economic freedom.
that's BS. 100% free capitalism = 100% monopolies = 0% of the so called economic freedoms. Somebody was saying about survival of the fittest?


Regarding all the rest of the freedoms, it's written, "you've got as much freedoms as you've got a jack to pay for it".

Besides the broad use of the term "economic freedoms" is WRONG. Obviously, those at the bottom/middle and those on the top have quite different sets of economic "freedoms". Looking from the bottom, those freedoms are basically the choice between starvation and degradation of the different magnitude. That's sweet carrot of "rags to riches" is usually far away in a dream world. The danger of being evicted, etc. is much closer at hand.

Capitalism is nothing but fear of poverty, sickness, old age, hunger, ... you name it sprinkled with great deal of greed and selfishness.

It goes hand in hand with political freedom. You can't long have one without the other.
Oh my, man, tell me you are kidding. Were you What political freedoms you've got? To choose between few barely distinguishable representatives of the monied elites (who've appeared hell knows from where and how) once in a while? Sure, hack media will keep create an illusion of choosing between "Heaven" and "hell". But common, it's theatre of absurd. It makes you feel better, that's about it.

Evolution through natural selection.
Survival of the fittest.
Bigger fish eats the smaller one.
The idealization of survival and procreation.

No scruples, no morality in the face of gain and success.
Need personified and given direction; need exploited and used to spark creativity and adaptation.


Let's say as a result of some kind of "divine intervention" you are 50% fitter (whatever that means) than me; me, on the other hand, have 100% more of "capital" at hands. Who will win in the rat race? I don't know for sure, but result is not that obvious because in this world, capital has "fittness" of its own. The definition of "fittness" is changing with times. In dark ages, I believe, the added fittness of capital was close to zero for the obvious reasons. But today, the added fittness of capital is greatly increased.

Survival of the fittest is a biological concept referring to evolution. That is not the biological level that human interaction works on.

Human interaction is based on social structure. Humans are a social species. Humans are primates.

Despite the popular notion that individuals of a species are always in competitiion with each other, there is the real life situation that social structures in primates is a lot more complicated and are supported largely by the concept of cooperation.

Last week I talked to an ecologist to confirm these notions.

Hence I think it is in order that the so-called 'capitalists' who think competition is normal and natural will put forward scientific references that competition is the underlying foundation of the human social structure.

I think the non-biologist is rather confused by the concept that non-competitive behaviour can increase evolutionary fitness. Do all social species huddle together in groups so they can compete better with each other? No.

But we cannot blame our fellow sciforumers for not being biologists and hence it is our duty to educate whenever.

We might refer here also to the eugenists movement. A biological idea was taken as the basis for a political movement giving it credibility. But only to the naive.

Capitalism works for the same reasons nature works.
you want to say to slave owning, feudal, primitive societies worked because of some kind of the unnatural reasons? Devil? Extraterrestials? Robot zombies? BTW, USSR worked for 70 years, that means it was natural for 70 years. In the nature, you are natural as long as you alive.

The question remains. Can capitalism work in isolation? Just imagine, a big glass dome is set on the USA. What will happen? Will capitalist paradise be stable or "great depression" will knock on the door each other year? Will slavery, sharecropping, "colonial" possesions reappear? After all those are natural things capitalism was built on.

Captalism works unless you're looking for a free ride and aren't willing to compromise to get where you want to be.
Wrong. Capitalism is about getting a free ride.
What planet are you on?
All winners in a capitalist economy know and understand how to get EVERYTHING for free. Capitalism is made for this.

It is not made for the people who believe that there is no such thing as a free ride. There are 2 types of people in capitalism. The ones who capitalize, and the ones who get capitalized.

Capitalism doesn't reward hard work. It rewards those that exploit hard workers.

The question remains. Can capitalism work in isolation? Just imagine, a big glass dome is set on the USA. What will happen? Will capitalist paradise be stable or "great depression" will knock on the door each other year? Will slavery, sharecropping, "colonial" possesions reappear? After all those are natural things capitalism was built on.
That would be far from capitalist paradise. Capitalists want free, unrestricted trade with other nations so that they can buy certain items cheap from countries that are better at producing them. The global economy makes businessmen happy.

That said, if the United States suddenly implemented an isolationist policy, there would be a severe recession. I don't think the country is overpopulated, however, and I believe it would eventually work. (This scenario would be challenging for *any* economic system, not just capitalism.)

Whether slavery and sharecropping would return in such a situation is a separate question. They could return, and capitalism would still be "working." Again, you have to ask yourself what the real objective of the economic system is. Capitalism comes from an arguably amoral premise, and it doesn't concern itself with human rights issues as long as they don't get in the way of maximizing production.

Wrong. Capitalism is about getting a free ride.
Funny, everyone tells me that socialism is about getting a free ride. Both points of view are wrong. The premise of any economic system is that free rides do not exist; otherwise we wouldn't need economic systems in the first place. You could just take what you wanted from the infinite abundance of natural resources about you.

All winners in a capitalist economy know and understand how to get EVERYTHING for free. Capitalism is made for this.
Please, take an economics class.

It is not made for the people who believe that there is no such thing as a free ride. There are 2 types of people in capitalism. The ones who capitalize, and the ones who get capitalized.
Have you ever spoken with one of the winners? How do you know what they believe?

communism... is worse... why??
cause it quarentees that everyone... is poor.. and stays that way.
thats why it has colapsed all around the world.

YES.. but only capitalism, allows the poor.. to become rich.

socialism.. does not.
communism does not.
monarchys.. can.. if the king wants to.

fascism... might.. but who wants to find out?

then if you dislike capitalism... give us the better solution.!!!!!!!!!

if you cant.. then shut the fuck up.

-MT

I would describe myself as a socialist that believes every man and woman should have the right to acquire as much wealth and power as they can. But I do believe that capitalism is the source of many problems in the world. I can't ignore the fact that poverty exists in this world because the rich and powerful allow it to exist.

The socialism that I would like to see in the near future is different from the communist and socialist policies of the past and present. I don't think a political party would be successful if it tried to force the wealthy individuals in the world to give up the privileges that their money has given them. It is in our nature to be greedy and selfish. The spread of democratic socialism through out the world would have to be a slow voluntary process.

I don’t think a socialist movement can be successful if the leaders of the movement can only think about the needs of the poor, the working class, and the middle class. They will also have to think about the needs of the rich. It is unfortunate that most people are incapable of thinking about the needs and desires of everyone on this planet. Everyone is looking out for their own interest. We take care of our own. The socialists are no better than the capitalists. There are very few people that are capable of thinking outside of their box. There are very few people that are trying to think of a solution that could make everyone happy.

I believe that I have a solution, but I am not going to write the entire solution in this post because actions speak louder than words and I am sure that most of you would disagree with what I wrote. I can tell you that my solution involves four things. #1 Transhumanism #2 Voluntary socialism on a large-scale #3 Effective socialism on a small-scale #4 A Global Political Party

#1 Transhumanism

I believe that Transhumanism is a new ideology that could eventually solve most of the problems in the world. Most of our problems would cease to exist if we use our technology to create better humans. We have to eliminate all of our genetic flaws that make us sick. We have to genetically engineer stronger, faster, smarter humans. We have to use computer technology to enhance our cognitive abilities. If we do create smarter humans we will surely be able to use nano technology to create all of the things that we need and desire atom by atom. This will eliminate our need for money. You can click on the links below if you would like to learn more about Transhumanism.

http://www.transhumanism.com

http://www.betterhumans.com

#2 Voluntary Socialism On A Large-Scale

Voluntary socialism is basically charity. I believe that charitable organizations do not do enough to help the people that are living in war torn impoverished nations. The world would definitely be a worse place without the charitable organizations, but they are all unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to help the poor impoverished people of the world. I would not give financial donations to most of the organizations that exist, because I have no way of knowing how the money is going to be spent. (I am not saying that people should not give money to charitable organizations) There are three problems that I have with charitable organizations. #1 A mismanagement of funds #2 The fact that food and other valuable goods often don’t get to the people that need them because of corrupt or incompetent government officials #3 Most charities are in the business of helping people exist or survive.

You may be wondering why #3 is a problem for me. I think there is a big difference between existing, surviving, and living. Most charities are allowing underprivileged people to survive and suffer a little longer. They are not doing what has to be done to allow these people to live without the excessive pain and misery that they experience everyday. I personally think it is better to spend an X amount of money on one person so they can potentially live a good life, than to spend an X amount of money on ten people so they can survive and suffer.

Warren Buffet recently gave over 30 billions dollars in stock to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. I wonder what they are going to do with all of that money. I know that Bill Gates is interested in helping people in Asia and Africa, but is he just going to do what everyone else has done in the past or is he going to try something new. You can build schools in poor countries but what are you going to teach the people? Are you going to teach them how to survive or are you going to teach them how to live? I can bet you that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is going to teach them how to survive. Sometimes survival is not enough. There has to be a certain standard of life for everyone on this planet. I am not saying that ivy league schools should be built in third world countries, but the citizens in these countries should be able to obtain enough knowledge in school so they can immigrate to North America or Europe and get a good job that doesn’t involve picking vegetables, or cleaning toilets.

#3 Effective Socialism On A Small-Scale

I think socialism works better on a small-scale. A small scale could be a family, a village, or a corporation. It is when different people with different talents and skills work together to achieve their goals. This world would be a much better place if we were capable of helping each other with the efficiency of an ant colony. Working with the efficiency of an ant colony on a large-scale may not be possible at the moment, but I think it is possible on a small-scale.

I think our society places too much importance on money. A large percentage of our population is willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill for it. We spend most of our lives trying to obtain it. And we are all competing with each other for it. Or are we? I am sure that you've already heard the phrase "money can't buy you happiness". What do you think is the most valuable thing in this world? Diamonds? NO. Oil? NO. Fresh water? NO. The most valuable thing in this world is pleasure. That is what we are really trying to obtain. Money is just a tool that we use to obtain things to experience pleasure.

I would personally like to be a member of a non-existent group of people that would work together to make life as pleasurable as possible for each other. This group could include Transhumanists, scientists, and other brilliant minds that are all working towards one goal. I like to call this goal being in complete control of our reality, or evolving into gods. It is basically using science and technology to obtain control of the molecules and atoms within us and around us. A small percentage of all of the net profits that the members earn could be put into a bank account. This money could be used for scientific research, private property, and investments like stocks and bonds. Over a period of time this group could grow from a few hundred people to millions people.

#4 A Global Political Party

I am not a patriotic person. I don’t have any national pride. I'm an earthling. I believe that borders just help to create a discrepancy of wealth and privileges amongst the citizens of earth. I would like to see the creation of a global political party in the near future. I would like this political party to be a party of science, reason, and rational thought. Some of their goals could be, #1 Assist The Scientists That Are Working To Make This World A Better Place, #2 Spread Democratic Socialism Through Out The World, (voluntary socialism) #3 Make Life As Pleasurable As Possible For The Citizens That Elected Them, #4 Reduce The Worlds Dependence Of Oil, #5 Create One Global Nation.

The number #5 goal could be accomplished by having their members represent the countries that they reside in. At some point in time there would be two presidents or prime ministers that are global political party members. That is when the citizens of the two countries could have a vote to become one country. This process could continue until there is one nation that we call earth. The different countries that exist today would be like a state, province, or parish.

There seems to be considerable vagueness about the nature of capitalism, due a misunderstanding of the concept of "capital" itself. Capital is the physical manifestation of a surplus. A surplus is the product of division of labor and economies of scale, which accrued to humans first by settling in permanent villages where a surplus could be stored, and later by enlarging those villages so that people with special skills that enriched the community and increased the surplus could work at them full-time.

"Capital" is therefore not a particularly important concept in the economics of farming communities. The surplus tends to be limited to food stored against hard times, an inventory of tools and clothing, and the rare work of art or other luxury good. The population of a village functions much like a tribe or extended family, since that is what it usually is, so the equitable distribution of its meager surplus does not require formal study or administration.

The need to manage capital came with civilization--literally "the building of cities." Economies of scale resulted in prodigious surpluses. Division of labor resulted in full-time teachers, musicians, historians, and other specialists who needed to be paid for their intangible products. And the mingling of thousands of people who were not related or even acquainted resulted in the need for the keeping of records, the adjudication of disputes... and the formal management of that prodigious surplus.

Who decides whether teenagers who are not needed in food production should be trained as shoemakers, roofers, gourmet chefs, or singers? Who decides whether the excess supply of bricks accumulated last year should be used to build larger houses, a market, or a theater--or left in a pile for emergency rebuilding in case there's an earthquake? Who decides whether the excess arable land within the growing area of protection of the city's military force should be devoted to grapes for wine, avocados for the gourmets, linen for nice clothes, or alfalfa to be fed to a larger herd of livestock that will increase the meat in the city's diet?

This is where it all started, folks. Back in the Bronze Age or perhaps earlier in the very first cities of a few hundred people. Many thousands of years ago. It's nothing new. Once your civilization advances to the point that you have capital, it must be managed.

For a long time it was done by decree, by the heads of government. Under feudalism their authority was delegated to the aristocrats. Economics as a field of study was unknown, and few people had any natural sense about it. As a result, capital was not well managed, surpluses did not grow--often not even as fast as population--and poverty was widespread as what little wealth there was remained in the hands of the heads of government and their delegates in the aristocracy.

Occasionally a bit of an experiment with democracy was performed, and the control of the government over the flow of goods and services was relaxed. No one realized what was happening, but this was the creation of a relatively free market. Capital was not "managed" by anyone. People produced or performed what they thought they could produce or perform expertly and what they thought other people would want to buy, and the evolution of the keeping of accounting records into monetary systems allowed individual decisions between producers/performers and consumers to direct the evolution of the surplus with no central, planned "management."

Everything that has happened since then in the realm of economics, including the study of economics itself, is the result of those early experiences. To this day we have two basic schools of thought.

One school says that a great and wise person--or a group of great and wise persons we call "the government"--should manage the entire civilization's capital because otherwise chaos will reign, and/or the proletarians will make foolish, thoughtless, selfish decisions about their share of the capital and end up dissipating it. This can be an old-fashioned monarchy or any form of despotism, it can be formalized under a benevolent dictatorship as communism, or it can even coexist with democracy as socialism.

The other school says that no one is great enough and wise enough to manage an entire civilization's capital and even if they were, the mechanism of central control by a government will by its nature respond so slowly and imperfectly to the dimly understood forces of civilization that the result will be worse than letting the market go free.

So "capitalism" is essentially just the collective decision to not attempt to centrally manage a civilization's surplus, to allow it to be managed virtually by a free market.

As I said in a previous post, the failure of what we call "capitalism" was brought about by government meddling: Their passage of laws that enabled the creation by wealthy individuals of institutions called corporations. This reestablished the old social class of the aristocracy, and gave the new aristocrats the power to manage the civilization's surplus. Or I should say to manipulate it, so as to get more of it into their own treasuries.

The evils of capitalism are not illustrated by the "squandering" of capital on goods and services some of us find foolish, such as drugs, designer water, rap music, SUVs, gold toilets, or pedigreed hamsters. They are illustrated by the concentration of capital in the hands of the people who manipulate the system. The multi-million dollar salaries of CEOs of big companies whose work is no more intrinsically valuable than that of the CEOs of small companies. The stock manipulation. The coziness between the king and his feudal lords--oops I mean between the President and the officers of the corporations who contributed to his campaign--so that the government siphons money to them in wholesale quantities. The laws that allow municipal governments to take private homes by eminent domain and donate the land to developers of shopping malls.

This is the fault of the corporation as an artifact of the Industrial Era. It is not a flaw in capitalism.

And despite its flaws, I still say that capitalism works better in the long run. Socialism is the natural economic system of a tribe, of an extended family. Everybody knows everybody else and cares about them and won't cheat them. It works, more or less, in small, homogeneous societies like Sweden and Bulgaria, where people feel a strong sense of kinship. But even there it doesn't work well. In the long run, empirical observation suggests that socialist economies don't foster ambition and creativity, and therefore their surplus decreases.

Slavery is not an attribute of any particular economic system. (The National Socialists used Jews and captured Slavs as slaves.) However, as economies mature it has invariably been found to simply not be efficient. A cold-hearted calculation of the value of the output of a slave compared to his "salary" and his "costs of overhead" (which are considerable despite his miserable living conditions) finds that when you evolve into an advanced, mechanized agricultural economy, much less into an industrial one, the use of market labor is more profitable than the keeping of slaves. This is why slavery ended peacefully in every country in the Americas except Haiti and the USA. It just petered out due to attrition and then its demise was made official by the governments. The same thing would have happened in the Confederacy if we had allowed it to; they could not have kept that nostalgic medieval economic system running for one more generation.

Capitalism was not built on slavery and sharecropping because slavery and sharecropping are features of an agricultural economy. They could no more compete with today's agribusiness than a chain gang could compete with diesel equipment on a civil engineering project.

Communism may have appeared "natural" to the Russian leaders and to the younger people who grew up with it and knew no better. But it was an aberration that burned itself out. When an industrialized country in the 20th century still had hospitals with no reliable hot water supply, it was difficult to conceal the failure from the populace. Unfortunately by the time it collapsed there was almost no one left who remembered the old days--and the old days in Russia were really feudalism, not capitalism. This is why, as hard as it is, the transition is going much more smoothly in most of the satellite countries. Communism came to them later and when it imploded there were lots of wise people alive who still remembered how to run a modern country.

What you refer to derisively as "competition" is not supposed to be the competition of a war or a football game. It is the competition of ideas and ambition. Whoever has the cleverest idea for how to produce something, and/or who is most eager to try it and puts the most into it, and/or who is the fairest minded and most willing to sell for a fair price, will on the average end up with a more popular product or service. It's still that way in many trades. The guy who does the best job of tending gardens for the best price ends up with the most customers. The other guy is free to adopt his gardening style, but if he is too clumsy, stupid, lazy, or selfish to provide a similar service for a similar price, he needs to go into a different line of work and none of us is hardly going to weep over him being a "victim of competition."

The reason "competition" has become such a dirty word is the dirty way that corporations practice it. They can use their deep pockets to temporarily lower their prices so that small businesses can't compete with them. They can use their influence to get monopoly franchises, fair-trade laws, zoning, and other favors from the government. This is unfair competition and it occurs because corporations are unfair by their very nature.

Show me one "evil" of capitalism that is actually a feature of capitalism. Not corporations, not imperial government, and not the agricultural economy that preceeded industrial capitalism.

I agree with what you wrote, but what is the solution to the problems that exist because of capitalism.

The evils of capitalism are not illustrated by the "squandering" of capital on goods and services some of us find foolish, such as drugs, designer water, rap music, SUVs, gold toilets, or pedigreed hamsters. They are illustrated by the concentration of capital in the hands of the people who manipulate the system. The multi-million dollar salaries of CEOs of big companies whose work is no more intrinsically valuable than that of the CEOs of small companies. The stock manipulation. The coziness between the king and his feudal lords--oops I mean between the President and the officers of the corporations who contributed to his campaign--so that the government siphons money to them in wholesale quantities. The laws that allow municipal governments to take private homes by eminent domain and donate the land to developers of shopping malls.

The reason "competition" has become such a dirty word is the dirty way that corporations practice it. They can use their deep pockets to temporarily lower their prices so that small businesses can't compete with them. They can use their influence to get monopoly franchises, fair-trade laws, zoning, and other favors from the government. This is unfair competition and it occurs because corporations are unfair by their very nature.

Capitalism is a big word. If you analyze which kind of capitalism works best you end up not with the american model but with the social market economy.

This is known to everyone in the world except americans.

OK... SO WHAT IS THE BEST SYSTEM?????????????

unless you can offer one... then it is you who are a moron, since in fact... all you are doing is putting the system down...

its easy to protest.. its easy to say how bad it is...
but doing so without proposals for how to make it better shows that you...

you.. coolskill, are the idiot and moron.

im sorry...


you arent up to it.. you dont have any answers..

all you can do is complain... like a moron.

-MT

OH... AND IN THE ABOVE QUOTE.. you say..
"rather than more advanced system "

please, enlighten us to these systems.... hahahahaha
STUPID PEOPLE do not know how a discussion progresses. They make a statement. The statement is responded to.
Instead of moving forward, and responding productively, ther restate the statement that has already been responded to.

DO NOT REPEAT WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED
As long as you continue to repeat what has alread been answered, you will get the same answer.

Here is his reasoning:
If Cool Skill does not post designs for a better system than capitalism. Capitalism is the best system within the scope of Mosheh's pea sized brain. Therefore, solutions that real intellects have created do not exist.

The fact this idiot believes capitalism is the best system there is, and bases this by comparing it relative to other primitive systems rather than more advanced system shows what a total ignoramous life he lives.

It was a pretty logical ad-hominem to make, actually; more so at least than the one I just quoted.

I have a little education in macroeconomics. It is not much, but it is enough to make clear to me that you have none. You're talking about something that you haven't researched as if you're a learned expert, and yet even a novice sees through your pretense. Pick up a textbook. At least take a trip to the library. Read anything on economic theory. You will benefit from it.
Circular.
Speak for yourself. You have no idea what you are talking about. Ad-hom comments show that you have no concept of logic.
You have no logic, and you have no understanding of what you are talking about.
If you wish to continue circular ad-hom arguments, you are an idiot.
Try getting an education, and perhaps you will discontinue using ad-hom to support your argument. You obviously need to go back to kindergarten.

[QUOTE=Satyr]Survival of the fittest.
Bigger fish eats the smaller one.
The idealization of survival and procreation.

No scruples, no morality in the face of gain and success.QUOTE]
This part is correct.
Primitive economic systems are based on primitive survival of the fittest functioning.
The only problem is that this does not make for a functional economy.

An economy's functionality is based on decreasing desperation. Ultimate functionality is an economy of zero desperation. The closer an economy moves to zero desperation, the more functional an economy is. The further away it moves from zero desperation, the less functional the economy is.

Capitalist econoomies do not turn the blind eye to desperation. They ensure desperation exists. A system that ensures desperation is already disfunctional from the start. Proper economic systems ensure movement towards lesser and lesser desperation as the economy grows, and system structures improve.

Furthermore, capitalism is not a dynamic system. It has a set of rules that cannot be changed. A functional economic system is characterized by mallability. It can be molded for the sake of improving its goal. To eliminate desperation, and propogate abundance in every aspect of individual life.

Ad-hom comments show that you have no concept of logic.

STUPID PEOPLE... this idiot believes... total ignoramous...

Agreed.

Speak for yourself. You have no idea what you are talking about. Ad-hom comments show that you have no concept of logic.
It was a pretty logical ad-hominem to make, actually; more so at least than the one I just quoted.

I have a little education in macroeconomics. It is not much, but it is enough to make clear to me that you have none. You're talking about something that you haven't researched as if you're a learned expert, and yet even a novice sees through your pretense. Pick up a textbook. At least take a trip to the library. Read anything on economic theory. You will benefit from it.

Capitilism lacks equality (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)...

Despite the popular notion that individuals of a species are always in competitiion with each other, there is the real life situation that social structures in primates is a lot more complicated and are supported largely by the concept of cooperation.

Last week I talked to an ecologist to confirm these notions.

I think the non-biologist is rather confused by the concept that non-competitive behaviour can increase evolutionary fitness. Do all social species huddle together in groups so they can compete better with each other? No.

But we cannot blame our fellow sciforumers for not being biologists and hence it is our duty to educate whenever.

I have a BS in biology, I think my knowledge of biological systems exceeds what you picked up in your conversation with an ecologist.

Members of the same species definately compete. They compete for the best mates, they compete for the best territory, they compete for the same food. I don't know where this lolipop-land idea of animals that don't compete comes from, but it keeps popping up in various threads on this forum. It is absolutely wrong.

Capitilism lacks equality (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html)...
True, but in communism everyone [except the governing elite] is equally miserable.

Click the link. ;)

My apologies. I figured it was a link to some site that would show the terrible income inequalities that exist under capitalism. I admit I rarely follow links without some quotes that give me some idea of what I'm in for. What a perfect description of hell on earth.

I agree with what you wrote, but what is the solution to the problems that exist because of capitalism?That's my point. They don't exist because of capitalism per se, they exist because of corporations. So the answer is to get rid of corporations. During the Industrial Era that would have been both difficult and unpopular, since industrial endeavors--especially the seminal ones like transcontinental railroads--require a lot of resources. It's logistically difficult to raise that much capital with partnerships and bank loans, so corporations seemed like a logical solution. They just outlived (and way outgrew) their usefulness. Enterprises in the Information Age are not so resource-intensive and they also can readily get started by appealing to niche markets--all of which is perfect for traditional capitalization methods. It's possible that we (or you younger folks anyway) will simply watch corporations wither and die off when their time has passed and they can't compete with individual entrepreneurs in places like Estonia.

Unfortunately governments will probably have a diabolical plot ready to invent some new atrocity that perpetuates the role of the aristocracy. Capitalism lacks equality.So does life. We really are not all the same. The people I met in the Eastern Bloc during the heyday of communism were equal in only one way: They were all equally fed up with the regimented life of everyone being treated the same. No one was allowed to fall behind, but no one was allowed to excel. And as we all know from the current state of America's public education system, that is a formula for disaster because the weak always drag down the strong.

Since you surely know this, I'm not certain what type of "equality" you're looking for. If you just have a social conscience and don't want people to be allowed to become desperately poor, you again have the government to thank for that problem, not capitalism. Americans had a reputation for being one of the most generous, charitable peoples on Earth... before the government took over the charity industry (along with several others) in the 1930s, turned it into a hideously expensive boondoggle with their usual bureaucratic ineptitude, and started confiscating our income to pay for it all. The last time I saw the statistics on government welfare, about ten years ago, it was this bad:

If the government would simply take all the money collected for welfare, divide it up, and give it directly to the poor, every poor family would have an annual income of $40,000.

Instead they use it to pay thirteen levels of administrators to administer each other.

Remember that poor people in America (except for the crazies that we let out on the street 30 years ago who can't fill out the forms and wait in line) have cars, TV sets, and microwave ovens, and the most common nutritional problem among them is obesity.

I have a BS in biology, I think my knowledge of biological systems exceeds what you picked up in your conversation with an ecologist.
Ad-hom irrelevant.

I don't know what makes you idiots think that you can throw in credentials or attack the credentials of others to prove apoint.
This is the epitome of illogic that goes on in this forum.
If I said it once, I will say it again over and over and over.

THE STATUS OF THE PERSON MAKING A POINT HAS NO EFFECT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE POINT. STUPID PEOPLE ATTACK PEOPLE INSTEAD OF POINTS.

Take the moron that I just responded to previously. His whole argument has nothing to do with the topic. It is based on Cool Skill's education and understanding. Little does he know, that his argument is 100% irrelevant. you could be the worlds best expert, or a moron like baumdergarten. It does not affect the validity of the point you make. Why people still us illogical irrelevant nonsense in their arguments is beyond comprehension.

THE STATUS OF THE PERSON MAKING A POINT HAS NO EFFECT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE POINT. STUPID PEOPLE ATTACK PEOPLE INSTEAD OF POINTS.
(Yes. You do.)

The knowledge of the person making a point has everything to do with the validity of the point. People who don't know what they're talking about can't make valid points.

You don't know what you're talking about. You are too ignorant to discuss this topic on the level you want to. (If you want me to demonstrate this, just ask. I won't go through the trouble for someone who isn't interested in listening.) I assume you are capable of learning; educate yourself and then come back. Sheesh.

That would be far from capitalist paradise. Capitalists want free, unrestricted trade with other nations so that they can buy certain items cheap from countries that are better at producing them.

Like? Desperate humans willing to work for peanuts? Hell, I think capitalists would love slavery too. Shall we let them?

The global economy makes businessmen happy.
Why? What kind of global economy? I greatly doubt uniformly developed 100% globalized economy will make capitalists happy. Au contre. It's against of the "capitalist" common sense.

Let's assume USA is self-sufficient in resources and place a dome over it. What will happen in a capitalist paradise? How stable will it be recession wise? Will slavery, sharecropping reappear? What states are going to become "colonies" to plunder?

Broadly put, the question is, "can capitalism exists without less developed, partially "capitalistic", (neo) colonies to parazite on?" It's not about isolationism. It's about viability of capitalism as a self-sufficient system.

Ad-hom irrelevant.
I don't know what makes you idiots think that you can throw in credentials or attack the credentials of others to prove apoint.
This is the epitome of illogic that goes on in this forum.
If I said it once, I will say it again over and over and over.

THE STATUS OF THE PERSON MAKING A POINT HAS NO EFFECT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE POINT. STUPID PEOPLE ATTACK PEOPLE INSTEAD OF POINTS.

The point was that he was basing his argument on a conversation with an ecologist and claiming to be an authority on the issue based on that fact. So prior to refuting his illogical statement, I thought I'd point out that a conversation does not make one an expert. If you'd read my whole post, you'd see that I also addressed his "point".

Like? Desperate humans willing to work for peanuts? Hell, I think capitalists would love slavery too. Shall we let them?
They might. Historically, they have as long as they could feel morally justified.

Don't take me for saying, as many do, that the theory of capitalism infallibly dicatates the right course of action. Economic theory tells us how to do something, not whether we should do it.

Why? What kind of global economy?
A "pure" capitalist wants to see free trade between countries without tariffs, quotas, or other governmental restrictions. It makes production cheaper, which makes consumers happy with less expensive products and entrepreneurs happy with higher profit margins. What kind of global economy are you talking about?

I greatly doubt uniformly developed 100% globalized economy will make capitalists happy. Au contre. It's against of the "capitalist" common sense.
Why?

Let's assume USA is self-sufficient in resources and place a dome over it. What will happen in a capitalist paradise? How stable will it be recession wise? Will slavery, sharecropping reappear? What states are going to become "colonies" to plunder?
Slavery at least would not reappear. Why would it? It's against the law. We have industrialized commercial farming now; sharecropping is probably obselete. The "colony" states would likely be the least unionized ones, so I'm thinking the Bible Belt.

Broadly put, the question is, "can capitalism exists without less developed, partially "capitalistic", (neo) colonies to parazite on?" It's not about isolationism. It's about viability of capitalism as a self-sufficient system.
Yes. It just can't flourish the way it has thanks to cheap overseas labor. Of course, in pure capitalism with no minimum wage, we wouldn't have to go overseas for cheap labor.

COOL SKILL... IS CLEARLY AN IDIOT.

you... mr uncool... said... ''''''''''''rather than more advanced system''''''''''''''

and i called you on it...

simple fact is.. you are talking out of your ass.. and have no answers.

all you do is make statements, and have no ability to back them up...

so.. you resort to insults.... pathetic.

-MT

Don't take me for saying, as many do, that the theory of capitalism infallibly dicatates the right course of action. Economic theory tells us how to do something, not whether we should do it.

In the prediction department, economic theories are much like Nostradamus' predictions. They turn out to be true the very next day after crisis commenced. Is there theory of capitalism? Why only one capitalism? There are various modifications. Swedish, American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese capitalisms are all described by the same equation?

A "pure" capitalist wants to see free trade between countries without tariffs, quotas, or other governmental restrictions.
Capitalist wants to see HARD CASH (or metal) in his stash. He doesn't give sh*t about trade, tariffs, barriers, second coming, production, quality, consumer, etc. per se.

(national) Capitalists love tariffs protecting their turf against "free trade" and hate those things on the other side. In the past, poor and weak territories were coerced under barrel of a gun to open themselves to the one sided free trade goodness. While Imperial Metropolies were more or less protected against it. WWI, WWII, American Civil war were to a great extent about who is gonna to open/control which markets. Would be those wars possible, if capitalists worldwide were indeed in love with the universal free trade? I don't think so. Free trade automatically precludes any chance of the independent development of the economically/etc. weaker side. Only as satellites on mercy terms. Obviously, would be local capitalists don't like it.

We live in the age of transnational capitalists having little or no national allegiance. Capitalist wants to sell high, to buy low, to pay little in salaries, taxes, regulation compliance; You see, selling high and buying low is greatly facilitated, if global economy is GROSSLY nonuniform. Do you think those b*tches would be able to make 1000% profit on a shirt under uniform distribution of income round the globe? Certainly, trans-national capitalists want "free trade"="cheap labor, etc." At the same time, they want huge income divide to remain and they are doing rather excellent job on that. Poverty rate is growing faster than population in the globalized world.

I suggest everyone re-read Fraggle Rocker's posts.
People seem to have totally skimmed over the only competent posts in the entire thread.

In the prediction department, economic theories are much like Nostradamus' predictions. They turn out to be true the very next day after crisis commenced. Is there theory of capitalism? Why only one capitalism? There are various modifications. Swedish, American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese capitalisms are all described by the same equation?
As far as I know, yes. They are all described by the same theory. Economists suck at prediction because there are so many different variables that it's difficult to pin down a cause for something experimentally, not because the theories are wrong.

Capitalist wants to see HARD CASH (or metal) in his stash. He doesn't give sh*t about trade, tariffs, barriers, second coming, production, quality, consumer, etc. per se.
So you see no connection between trade, tariffs, barriers, second coming, production, quality, consumer, etc. and said HARD CASH?

Capitalists love tariffs protecting their turf against "free trade" and hate those things on the other side
until the tariffs get in the way of affordable capital. A business owner doesn't want to pay a premium on something he needs to run his business just because it isn't offered domestically.

We live in the age of transnational capitalists having little or no national allegiance. Capitalist wants to sell high, to buy low, to pay little in salaries, taxes, regulation compliance; You see, selling high and buying low is greatly facilitated, if global economy is GROSSLY nonuniform. Do you think those b*tches would be able to make 1000% profit on a shirt under uniform distribution of income round the globe?
Who said anything about uniform anything? International trade isn't just about labor. Any country that has a production advantage in one area and a disadvantage in another is a possible trading partner. Labor is one of those areas where impoverished places tend to hold such an advantage. You don't want governmental interference if you're a capitalist because they hike up the prices on imports, and that can include labor. Trade restrictions are more beneficial to workers than entrepreneurs. They mean job stability, which is important to someone who doesn't want to retrain or face age discrimination in the job market.

Certainly, trans-national capitalists want "free trade"="cheap labor, etc." At the same time, they want huge income divide to remain and they are doing rather excellent job on that. Poverty rate is growing faster than population in the globalized world.
The two goals are concurrent, and I don't doubt for a second that poverty per capita is growing.

I have a BS in biology, I think my knowledge of biological systems exceeds what you picked up in your conversation with an ecologist.



I have a PhD in biology. Numerous articles. Two chapters in different books on stem cells.

I think my knowledge of biological systems exceeds BY FAR what you picked up in your BS in biology. This is obvious because you weren't able to grasp a single point of my post. Your amateur notion of competition has nothing to do with biological reality. And despite that I offer you insight you choose to grasp at your beliefs. That's fine by me, but do not claim authority here.

When I say I talked to an ecologist I mean I talked to a professional to confirm the notions I had gathered as a biologist. All biologists are specialists. I am an Evo-devo guy (evolutionary developmental biology). Although I never specialized in ecology I got the basics during my MSc (something you never enjoyed during your short BS) and subsquent reading. Especially since nowadays the newest and hottest discipline in developmental biology is based on ecological aspects. That brings me in contact with ecology papers. But it is always best to talk to someone in the know. A real ecologist.

Of course, I am used to the fact that you give priority to your own shallow insights in whatever field you think you are an expert in.

In reality I already pointed out the gross mistake you make in thinking the idea that competition for humans is natural.

You fail to see that the notion that during evolution members of a species are in competition has nothing to do with members of species being competitive in social interactions on the level of daily life. This is what happens when amateurs think biology is easy. They fail to see that biology operates on many levels, and the principles of one level aren't automatically translated to the next.

If you look at what is natural for the human individial on a behavioural level then the conclusion is cooperation.

But you ignore that. You rather swim in your own sea of platitudes.

Yes, capitalism works. Most forms of economy work as long as the nation where they are instated supports it. Feudal economy worked, as long as the serfs could be controlled.

(Yes. You do.)

The knowledge of the person making a point has everything to do with the validity of the point. People who don't know what they're talking about can't make valid points.
WRONG
A VALIDITY OF A POINT IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING THE POINT. THE PERSON MAKING THE POINT CAN BE A SUPERGENIUS. THE PERSON CAN BE A MONKEY IN THE TREE. IT HAS NO EFFECT ON WHETHER OR NOT A POINT IS VALID OR INVALID.

STUPID PEOPLE: Do illogical things such as take into consideration the person making a statement rather than consider the statement alone without bias. They have no sense of focus when it comes to the validity of the point. All they do is make circular arguments based on the status of individuals in the discussion. Such braindead thinking is illogical, and is never ever ever ever seen in a productive discussion.

The point was that he was basing his argument on a conversation with an ecologist and claiming to be an authority on the issue based on that fact. So prior to refuting his illogical statement, I thought I'd point out that a conversation does not make one an expert. If you'd read my whole post, you'd see that I also addressed his "point".
Both arguments can be refuted because they are based on fallacy.
He cannot sit there and say "I am an authority on X" Therefore, if I make X statement, it is true.
This is fallacy and illogical.
At the same time, you arguing back with him with the same illogical reasoning that you are a biologist makes for an irrelevant unproductive discussion.

COOL SKILL... IS CLEARLY AN IDIOT.

you... mr uncool... said... ''''''''''''rather than more advanced system''''''''''''''

and i called you on it...

simple fact is.. you are talking out of your ass.. and have no answers.

all you do is make statements, and have no ability to back them up...

so.. you resort to insults.... pathetic.

-MT
You are clearly an idiot talking at your ass with no answers.
Go get a life. Your argument is trash.


I have a PhD in biology. Numerous articles. Two chapters in different books on stem cells.

I think my knowledge of biological systems exceeds BY FAR what you picked up in your BS in biology.
You people are so obscenely infantile.
Who's knowledge exceeds who's is only one thing. ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The knowledge of the person making a point has NOTHING to do with the validity of the point. People who don't know this, have no understanding of logic.

Person-A claims to be an expert.
Person-A makes point X.
Therefore, X is true.

Person-B has no claim of expertise.
Person-B makes point Y.
Therefore, Y is false.

Such illogical arguments get nowhere, and can never ever ever ever ever prove anything. They simply go in circles. Retards that use these arguments are no different from dogs chasing their tail.
ILLOGICAL MORONS MAKE CIRCULAR FALSE ARGUMENTS BASED ON THEIR LACK OF A BRAIN.

I know that cool skill.

It's just funny how he assumed he could use the authority argument. He didn't come up with scientific references that supported his political notion that competition and capitalism are natural. Instead we all have to accept this based on good faith or his BS in biology.

We don't of course. I've given before a logical argument supported by biological knowledge that shows competition is not the standard modi operandi in the social societies of the animal kingdom. So far nobody has even bothered to back up the ludicrous claim that capitalism is natural by any scientific theories or data.

Hence we can assume it is all bullshit. Capitalism is not natural, other than in the sense that it is designed to manipulate power using human psychology. The same is true for communism though, or any political system that has worked.

pathetic... you prove my point.. my uncool, without any skills.


hahahaha... im done.

-MT

WRONG
A VALIDITY OF A POINT IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING THE POINT. THE PERSON MAKING THE POINT CAN BE A SUPERGENIUS. THE PERSON CAN BE A MONKEY IN THE TREE. IT HAS NO EFFECT ON WHETHER OR NOT A POINT IS VALID OR INVALID.

STUPID PEOPLE: Do illogical things such as take into consideration the person making a statement rather than consider the statement alone without bias. They have no sense of focus when it comes to the validity of the point. All they do is make circular arguments based on the status of individuals in the discussion. Such braindead thinking is illogical, and is never ever ever ever seen in a productive discussion.
No, no - it's not that your point isn't valid because you don't know what you're talking about. It's that you don't know what you're talking about because you're wrong. See? That makes much more sense.

I just know I'm wasting my time here, but I'll show you anyway.

Read up on your own posts. Do you see where you use words like "dysfunctional?" Well, you never actually tell us what economic dysfunction is. You just throw around the term like everybody's supposed to know what it entails.

You do the same thing for "desperation." Despair is an emotion. How do you quantify this? How does it relate to other quantities? What does it affect, and what affects it? Why is this quantity so important to capitalism? How can an economy use desperation to achieve its goals? You never tell us.

What are the static rules of capitalism that should be changed? How should they be changed, and why would such changes be helpful? What does "helpful" entail?

What is the goal of capitalism? Unfortunately, this one is trivia, and your entire premise depends on it. Capitalism doesn't have an actual "goal," per se. When you practice capitalism, you are making your own decisions based on theories that tell us "if you do this, then this will happen." You manipulate the data until you get the result that you want, and the desired result is up to you individually. Economists spend a lot of time telling us which decisions will "optimize" the economy, maximizing consumption and production. That's because that's what most businessmen are interested in, because that makes them the most money. Nowhere does the economic theory say that you have to do this. In my opinion, humanitarian considerations should be encouraged, not ignored because they lower efficiency. Not all wealth is material. But people disagree with me, and they would still disagree in a different economic system that keeps the resources flowing in a different way. The goal of the economy is an issue of culture, not science. (Did physics tell us to build the atom bomb, or did someone decide it was a good idea after learning it was possible? Was the decision made because it was "scientifically sound" or because of the warlike nature of humanity?)

We're speaking of economics here. Until any of the ideas you're trying to push are actually developed, what meaning can the words you use have? You're not actually saying anything -- and that's why you neither know what you're talking about (or at least have much difficulty articulating your ideas) nor have a valid point. If Einstein had simply published a single sheet of paper with a big E=MC^2 on it, who would have believed him or even known what he was talking about? And maybe that's it - maybe you do know what you're talking about, but I don't. In that case, would you care to explain it to me?

A lot of emotion comes through in your writing. You obviously attach strong feelings to this topic. I can understand that. The state of humanity in many areas is becoming more dismal every day. However, this is no justification for persecuting economics like it's some force of evil, and assigning morality to the science only hurts your ability to see the issue clearly. It's like a fundamentalist Christian outright rejecting evolution because it appears to contradict the Bible - this person will obviously never understand how evolution works even in principle, or why it is useful to know. Economics is a lot like biology. It is a science based on observations of the real world. You can use it to build atom bombs, or you can use it to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. It is a decision left up to the people, not the freaking economic theory.

FINALLY, YOU USE A LOT OF CAPS. PLEASE STOP IT. EITHER YOU'RE YELLING OR YOU THINK THE BIGGER LETTERS WILL BE EASIER TO READ FOR US DUMMIES. THAT'S NEITHER COOL NOR SKILLFUL!

I hope this was a little better than my previous half-assed contributions.

If you look at what is natural for the human individial on a behavioural level then the conclusion is cooperation.
Would it be safe to say that several larger groups of people are more likely to compete because their social involvement with one another is considerably less than a small group of individuals?

Competition is costly in nature. If possible competition will be avoided.

Spuriousmonkey, you're being led on a wild goose chase, against your better judgement. You've already said that comparisons with nature are facile, so don't get bogged down in that. Social philosophers down the ages have debated whether man is naturally competitive or co-operative, without resolution, so how Sciforumers have managed to resolve this time-honoured mystery is beyond my understanding.

The fact is that capitalism works better for you the higher up the greasy pole you are. How many of it's staunch backers here have received emails inviting you to join in get-rich-quick pyramid schemes? How many of you delete them without a second thought?

The fact is that that these schemes work as well as capitalism does - for the scheme initiators. But come to the party too late, starting with nothing, and that's what you get - nothing. How long do the people at the bottom - generations upon generations of the poor - have to wait to experience some of that yummy trickle-down effect?

Competition is indeed costly in nature... but equally necessary.
If creatures are not required to fight tooth and claw for the chance to live and breed, they will inevitably degenerate. Look at carp that have been in captivity a few too many generations, assuming man didn't try out any selective breeding. What you get are squat and ungainly goldfish who can just manage to eat and occasionally lay some eggs. A far cry from the sleek creatures their ancestors were.

One line of thought holds that something similar will occur to all complex systems if nothing is weeding out the nonfunctional or weak elements. Red tape and empire building is heaped up until either part or the whole of the system collapses. With capitalism, natural culling functions are allowed to occur and, while there are still collapses, they are generally not large enough to destabilize the entire system. Socialist or communistic systems just throw more money and resources onto the pile to keep sick and fat organizations working until they collapse under their own weight in one massive blast.

I have a PhD in biology. Numerous articles. Two chapters in different books on stem cells.

Shall I bow before you? Your previous statement still sounded assinine, "I talked to an ecologist, so I know all about this stuff..."

Despite your expertise in stem cells and/or Evo-devo, your thoughts on competition are ridiculous.
If you look at what is natural for the human individial on a behavioural level then the conclusion is cooperation.
Do humans cooperate? Sure, when they percieve it's to their benefit and it is perfectly natural. But they compete just as often and often try to compete while appearing to cooperate to get the best of both worlds.

PS I also have a doctorate, I didn't think I needed to post my entire CV.

...fight tooth and claw...
Uh huh...
...carp...
You don't say...
What you get are squat and ungainly goldfish who can just manage to eat and occasionally lay some eggs.
Sounds like your typical self-satisfied CEO.


nonfunctional or weak elements
natural culling functions
Are we still on the subject of goldfish or are you actually talking about people's lives now? That's some chilling terminology you've picked there - you'll make a fine fascist dictator one day.


Socialist or communistic systems just throw more money and resources onto the pile to keep sick and fat organizations working until they collapse under their own weight in one massive blast.
What (http://www.economist.com/world/la/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1154506), like (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5446596) this (http://www.lilithgallery.com/articles/2005/USeconomic_collapse.html)? Modern socialist democracies have learned from the mistakes of the past. Redisributive taxation is the way to go. If the idea of that frightens you then you've probably got far more money than you could possibly need.

Shall I bow before you? Your previous statement still sounded assinine, "I talked to an ecologist, so I know all about this stuff..."

Despite your expertise in stem cells and/or Evo-devo, your thoughts on competition are ridiculous.

Do humans cooperate? Sure, when they percieve it's to their benefit and it is perfectly natural. But they compete just as often and often try to compete while appearing to cooperate to get the best of both worlds.

PS I also have a doctorate, I didn't think I needed to post my entire CV.

Give us some theory that supports your claim. That's the only thing I asked for. Instead you keep going for personal attacks and stick to platitudes.


Support your position that competition and capitalism is natural. Scientifically or logically. Nobody is interested in what you believe. Would one paragraph describing your hypothesis and logical proof be too much to ask for?

Let me give you an example. If I can do it with my doctorate, I am sure you can do the same. I will take more than 1 paragraph. Because I care.

My hypothesis:

Human interaction/behaviour is mostly based on cooperation in small family units and the larger tribe unit. As with all social primates the center of life is the social group. It enlarges the individual's fitness. This is all very well documented and supported by theory in the field of biology. The irony of it all is of course that on an evolutionary level unrelated individuals are in competiton with each other. But this is just on paper. No animal is driven by instinct to compete. Competition is costly. Competition means taking risks and wasting energy. In real life animals are driven by a set of 'instincts' that will lead in some cases to competitive advantage.

These instincts are for instance hunger, reproductive urges, thirst, fear. Nobody is trying to eat the grass of their neighbour. A herd of wildebeests migrate through the grass planes and nobody is competing with each other. Nobody is trying to eat their neighbours grass. There is plenty of grass. No animal is thinking that it is good to compete with his neighbour. Animals just do their thing, which on a different level, the evolutionary level, leads to competitive advantages for some. You can similulate these factors on a computer. You can determine which trait is more beneficial.

And here we come across a crucial insight. A trait can be labeled more beneficial. It gives a competitive edge. But nothing a neighbouring wildebeest does is driven by the urge to compete. He does what he does. And if he doesn't have a particular trait that gives him an edge he isn't competitive on an evolutionary level. This difference in biological level is difficult to understand for our capitalist friends. They claim nature is about competition and hence human society should be. Nothing is further from the truth.

Now let us examine real life. Who is indeed more competitive in human society? Is it the rich who have the competitive edge on a capitalist level? No. They have on average less children than the poor. It's natural to be poor then? No, it just shows you cannot transplant the theory of one specific level of biology to another without ending up with nonsense.

And that is what our capitalist friends go wrong. I tried to explain it over and over, but nobody comes with an argument, just a repition of their beliefs.

And that is what puts them on the same level as creationists. Creationists use a falsified idea of science to propagate religious beliefs. And here we see capitalists using a falsified idea of science to propagate political beliefs.

Of course it looks better (to them) on paper to have your beliefs supported by a scientific notion. But in this case it clearly just shows fanatacism.

Does this mean that capitalism does not work? No. Nothing in this discussion says this. I merely point out that the argument used, capitalism is natural, is false.

It would be better to stick to economical arguments. And social ones. And humanitarian ones.

As far as I know, yes. They are all described by the same theory.

And what is that theory if not secret? Marx's capital? Russian state-mafia medley of capitalism with rudements of the late socialist economy is described by the same misterious theory as Japanese corporatism? I greatly doubt that. Devil is in details.

Economists suck at prediction because there are so many different variables that it's difficult to pin down a cause for something experimentally, not because the theories are wrong.

What's so dificult about measuring any magic parameter theorists will come up with? How many "causes" to pin down do theorists need? The percentage of middleclass people wiping their asses with double ply toilet paper may hold the future of the industrialized civilizations? Just a suggestion.


So you see no connection between trade, tariffs, barriers, second coming, production, quality, consumer, etc. and said HARD CASH?
I do see connection between lower quality and freer trade, do you?
I repeat, capitalists are in business of making profit margin as large as possible. Things on the list may or may NOT improve profit margins. The production itself may become in a way of the larger profit margins :). That's why, novadays, bulk of the "wealth" is created by means of financial speculations. No need for money - stuff - money sequence. Stupid Marx. Money can make money directly.

until the tariffs get in the way of affordable capital. A business owner doesn't want to pay a premium on something he needs to run his business just because it isn't offered domestically.

Usually, tariffs were correlated with domestic availability. Secondly, capitalists are not identical clones, they have different intere$t$. Some of them would be benefited by higher tariffs on item X, the others by lower one. There was constant scrabble about it.

However, you live in the soon to be deindustrialized country. Most of the stuff is made elsewhere. Naturally, if everything is made elsewhere, and there is neither will nor desire to create something locally, tariffs are in the way of the Wal-Mart style businesses.

Who said anything about uniform anything? International trade isn't just about labor. Any country that has a production advantage in one area and a disadvantage in another is a possible trading partner.
The rumors about "comparative advantage" are greatly exaggerated to serve as crack troops in a corporate pro globalization propaganda war. As a matter of fact, there are not that many products enjoying permanent comparative advantage. Banana, oranges, rubber, oil... mostly foodstuff and mineral resources. Every other "comparative advantage" is largerly an artificially created/imaginary/ and volatile concept. What does Germany make that USA can't make equally efficiently?


You don't want governmental interference if you're a capitalist because they hike up the prices on imports, and that can include labor. Trade restrictions are more beneficial to workers than entrepreneurs.

As I said, capitalists want to buy low, and sell high. What is buying low for one capitalist is also selling low for another. Thus, conflict of interests arises. Government, could be really handy to settle such conflicts using all means necessary (including World Wars, etc.)

They mean job stability, which is important to someone who doesn't want to retrain or face age discrimination in the job market.

High tariffs do NOT mean "job stability" for workers, they just mean higher profit margins for a local manufacturer and lower ones for a local, wholesalers, retailer, distributor. Manufacturer still can install an automated line or move a plant to the deep South. However, those days are long time gone.

Today, a manufacturer can move plants abroad and "import" goods back. All what is left inside are domestic services, which have zero value on the international market. However, miraculuously, Western countries manage to trade "domestic" services of majority of population for the real, physical goods brought from abroad. It's an economy of absurd.

Slavery is not an attribute of any particular economic system. (The National Socialists used Jews and captured Slavs as slaves.) However, as economies mature it has invariably been found to simply not be efficient.

To begin with what is efficiency? It's arrogant to assume that western definition of efficiency (a.k.a the highest possible margin of profit for a capitalist, who pays little or no regard to the externalization costs picked up by the society as whole or to be picked up by the future generations, if any) is the only true one, the only possible one.

How could you say that nazi war slave economy was not efficient? It was ZILLIONS times more "efficient" than any free market economy at the circustances Germany was facing (NUmber/0= very large number). It's enabled nazis to lead a few extra years of war. It's true, they've lost it eventualy. But what if they would have won? Without war slaves, nazi production would fell appart because of the lack of man power, lack of the resources to economically motivate free man power.

Soviety economy had its own efficiency criteria = 0% joblessness, free universal education, free universal medical care, huge army (relative to the overall size of economy), jump from agrarian backwaters to a superpower in 15 years or so.

Efficiency is not universal term, its meaning is set by the goals society sets for itself.

Accumulation of the maximum "wealth" without regard to its distribution is not the only possible measure of the economic efficiency.

A cold-hearted calculation of the value of the output of a slave compared to his "salary" and his "costs of overhead" (which are considerable despite his miserable living conditions) finds that when you evolve into an advanced, mechanized agricultural economy, much less into an industrial one, the use of market labor is more profitable than the keeping of slaves.

For what times those "cold-hearted" calculations were made? I bet the times when fertility of the man has produced sufficient amount of units relatively to the number of units needed to support upper classes, fight wars, etc. Invention of "Manufacture" in England has made peasants less "efficient" than sheep grazing on formerly peasant's land. Peasants were crowded in the city's slums to fuel industrial revolution. To name that "fuel" anything but slaves with the right of a choice what bridge to die under is disingeneous. Human unit just lost its value for the masters of life. Isn't that simple supply/demand stuff, commodization of the human life? The whip of guard was generously substituted with a whip of fear of joblesness, etc. and a carrot of "rags to riches". A unit was generously allowed to guard itself (under close guidance).

In the slaveowning South, slaveowners hired free Irish to do dangerous work like roofing. Slaves were too expensive to risk. About living conditions, you've got that wrong again, Irish in the slums of Detroit were doing worse than Southern slaves circa 1850.

It's not slaves being expensive, it's free men being cheaper than slaves and easier to manage that killed slavery.


This is why slavery ended peacefully in every country in the Americas except Haiti and the USA. It just petered out due to attrition and then its demise was made official by the governments. The same thing would have happened in the Confederacy if we had allowed it to; they could not have kept that nostalgic medieval economic system running for one more generation.

I'll give you that. Lots of po whites in the South were as cheap/poor/desperate or cheaper than slaves. Sharecropping could commence before Civil war. Slavery was just too hard to disband. First, slaves were WAY more expensive than white poor slob. Nobody wanted to lose that value. Second, poor whites were given "wage of whiteness" to keep them pacified and separated from blacks. Freeing slaves could give them wrong ideas.

I have a bad news though. Each of us uses equivalent of 300 personal slaves, if warp drive will not be invented and oil will eventually run out, cold-hearted calculations may show that the use of slave labor is more profitable. IIt's all about supply/demand of the human commodity.

Capitalism was not built on slavery and sharecropping because slavery and sharecropping are features of an agricultural economy.
I don't think so. In the USA, it's slavery which has built an agricultural surplass, which has been traded for the Europian capital and industrial expertise/machinery/etc. Cottonmills, tobaco factories, etc. cannot exist without agricultural economy. 100 years ago, industrial farming was not feasible, but people wanted to eat and get dressed. Sharecroppers provided great deal of raw materials to satisfy those needs, thus, fueling industrialization. separation of agricultural economy and capitalism is kind of artificial.

They could no more compete with today's agribusiness than a chain gang could compete with diesel equipment on a civil engineering project.

I wonder why mighty agrobusiness drives gang members of the Mexican origin from one field to another. I don't think that those Mexicans are doing much better than sharecroppers 100 years ago did. Seems that there are some niches where chain gang is competing very well with diesel equipment. Imagine what will happen if the price of diesel will triple? My guess, white folks will join gangs en masse.

PS. Agrobusiness must die. It's one of the worst things happened to humans.

I'm not reading that long bullshit right now (sorry). But I will comment that efficiency in capitalism does not equate to profit margins. If that was the case, then you'd be paying $15 for a pack of cigarettes. It has to do with production and consumption. If goods are being produced in the least costly way possible and they are being consumed as quickly as they are being produced, then that's efficient production.

If goods are being produced in the least costly way possible and they are being consumed as quickly as they are being produced, then that's efficient production.

What worries me about this is that this statement has no indication to quality of life or wellbeing.

Products can be made cheap and efficiently in a sweat shop in the far east and consumed quickly in the west, and the entire process can actually mean detrimental effects on the quality of life on both sides of the equation.

Does that worry you? Or am I alone in this matter?

What worries me about this is that this statement has no indication to quality of life or wellbeing.

Products can be made cheap and efficiently in a sweat shop in the far east and consumed quickly in the west, and the entire process can actually mean detrimental effects on the quality of life on both sides of the equation.

Does that worry you? Or am I alone in this matter?
It does worry me. People take the suggestions of economics as gospel, like it's their moral imperative to be as efficient as possible. I see no reason to do this. As an analogy, would I want to build a car without airbags and seatbelts just so that it's lighter and faster? In most cases, of course not; there's no point in having a fast car if I die in a fender bender. I believe economics empowers you with the knowledge of how to build a faster car, but just because you can doesn't mean you should.

So in a way capitalism is only really best for the people and society if there are restrictions?

I wouldn't presume with my limited education to know why capitalism, of all systems, should be best for society. Let's just say I think it's only good for society with some common sense restrictions, since the point of society and the function of capitalism are not exactly the same.

anecdotal story relating to this:

I can still remember that during geography classes in school yonks and yonks ago I first came across the difference between 'Welvaart' and 'Welzijn'.

'Welvaart' being 'an economic state of growth with rising profits and full employment'.

Welzijn being 'well being' or 'the state of being happy and healthy and prosperous'.

All everybody nowadays talk about is the first one. Economic progress. Nobody ever puts any emphasis on the last. As if well being automatically results from economic progress. It's the curse of American influence on the world. Well being has stopped being a goal of human society.

It's sad.

A related news item on happiness:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5169448.stm

The 178-nation "Happy Planet Index" lists the south Pacific island of Vanuatu as the happiest nation on the planet, while the UK is ranked 108th.

The index is based on consumption levels, life expectancy and happiness, rather than national economic wealth measurements such as GDP.


Among the world's largest economies, Germany is ranked 81st, Japan 95th, while the US comes in at 150th.

"Over the last 50 years, living standards in the West have improved enormously but we have become no happier," Mr Layard told the BBC.

"The current crude focus on GDP is outdated, destructive and doesn't deliver a better quality of life."

would I want to build a car without airbags and seatbelts just so that it's lighter and faster? In most cases, of course not; there's no point in having a fast car if I die in a fender bender. I believe economics empowers you with the knowledge of how to build a faster car, but just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Capitalist logic compels you to. This is one of the contradictions between capitalist philosophy and human well-being. I'm sure I don't need to give you examples of how cost-cutting has cost human life and health, but the Bhopal disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Disaster) is one of the most notorious ones. I'd argue that, far from being 'natural', capitalism taken to it's logical extreme is a threat to our survival.

Natural selection = rewards the smart

Communism/Capitalism = rewards the self-interested

HELL NO IT DOES NOT WORK

Natural selection = rewards the smart
Dinosaurs were on top of the food chain for 145M years.

Then a dumb rock sent them to the dust bin of existence.
Communism/Capitalism = rewards the self-interested
Exactly why should a self not be self-interested?
HELL NO IT DOES NOT WORK
Then move to Mexico, where capitalism doesn't work. Why the f are 10% of Mexicans in capitalist America and sending $Billion back across the border?

Wow G-Dawg, I can appreciate your overtly-politicking arguments, but it doesn't really make sense.

There is enough fruit and other edibles to feed fifty monkeys within the distance they could travel before starving. Thus, competition. There is a herd of bison and a pack of wolves. The wolves want to eat the bison and the bison do not want to be eaten. Thus, competition. Nobody wakes up in the morning wanting to compete with anyone else, they just want to do what they can to better themselves. And, except in times of truely absurd plenty, that means competition.

Actually, the earth offers (and humans produce) well more than enough to feed and clothe everybody on the planet. The resources themselves are not the problem right now; they're being misappropriated.

Doesn't matter how much the earth offers. The problem is that certain areas are plague and famine drench wastelands where men really shouldn't live. Like Africa. On top of that, most countries in such regions are governments only in name and are intent on genociding everyone and their dog.

It is a mistake to just offer to feed someone and their offspring generation after generation until the end of time. To get anywhere, men have to work for the right to live.

Why? If it's possible, then it's possible.

There is enough fruit and other edibles to feed fifty monkeys within the distance they could travel before starving. Thus, competition. There is a herd of bison and a pack of wolves. The wolves want to eat the bison and the bison do not want to be eaten. Thus, competition. Nobody wakes up in the morning wanting to compete with anyone else, they just want to do what they can to better themselves. And, except in times of truely absurd plenty, that means competition.

Nice to see how you ignore my posts and just repeat what you before hoping that repitition makes something true.

A. Competition doesn't drive social animals. Social groups have evolved because cooperation on a behavioural level gives a competitive edge on the evolutionary level.

That eliminates the idea that competition is the prime behavioural modus operandus of the human species.

B. Now maybe you want to put forward the absurd idea that competition is good for 'natural selection'. I can slam that down easily by just pointing out simple facts to you. Poor people have more children than rich people. Highly educated people have less children than poorly educated people.

Therefore, capitalist competition favours the exact group on a evolutionary level that does not win on a capitalist level, the poor.

pathetic... you prove my point.. my uncool, without any skills.


hahahaha... im done.

-MT
No you prove my point.
You are done. Get lost because you have no say.

Hi there, cool skill. I didn't know you were still participating in this discussion. I left you a message on page four.

For over 50 years I have been reading articles and reading/listening to opinions relating to capitalism. It has always intrigued me that intelligent well educated people (including a few of my college professors) have strange concepts and incorrect views on many economic issues.First: Agricultural based economies prior to the early renaissance were zero sum economies. For those unaware of what this means, a zero sum game is like playing poker. The winner’s gain is somebody else’s loss. The feudal lord in Europe or the maharajah in India essentially took food from those who planted and harvested crops, giving little or nothing in return (except perhaps "protection" from another master who would run the system the same way).

A capitalist economy is not a zero sum game, which is why the average person was so much better off after 100-200 years of a good approximation to laissez faire capitalism. Most anti-capitalists ignore how well off the average person was in the period between 1890 & 1910 without social legislation, government regulation, or strong labor unions. To hear them talk, everybody was down trodden and miserable except for the rabbero barons.

The organizational abilities of the so called robber barons created jobs, goods, and services. Their activities (along with the efforts of workers and financiers) actually created wealth. They did not profit at the expense of the consumer or the worker. Compare the