What's the alternative to capitalism?
Moog wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Moog wrote:
That's the problem. Money motivates people in a very different way than love does.
Yes. It makes them productive. Your hippie buddies were motivated by Love. What did they produce?
ruveyn
Love usually generates more love, happiness, and satisfaction. Most science and art were labours of love. Sure, people might monetise it.
I don't enjoy many of the products of capitalism, I'd say 99% of it was useless. A big waste of energy.
Fine. They stay away from computers.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
Moog wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Moog wrote:
That's the problem. Money motivates people in a very different way than love does.
Yes. It makes them productive. Your hippie buddies were motivated by Love. What did they produce?
ruveyn
Love usually generates more love, happiness, and satisfaction. Most science and art were labours of love. Sure, people might monetise it.
I don't enjoy many of the products of capitalism, I'd say 99% of it was useless. A big waste of energy.
Fine. They stay away from computers.
ruveyn
Who does?
You're quick, I don't get time to edit my posts round here.
_________________
Not currently a moderator
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Capitalism is the cattle prod for the morons of the world who don't understand how and why the world works. Those who abuse capitalism for their own gains tend to discourage proper education because that means they can keep their power longer.
Right. The Socialists are the enlightened ones. And what have they produced lately?
ruveyn
The people who create do so because they are compelled of their own internal workings and are free to do so. Monetization of creations happens after...unless you're in the entertainment industry and then money is the reason for creation. Which is also why that industry is now failing...because the creation of music isn't the passion but rather the creation of money.
You think Steve Jobs got into computers because he thought there was money in it? He got into it because computers were a passion for him. Passion precedes greed except in the sectors of society that most people find abominable like reality TV or Wall Street/Banking.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
ruveyn wrote:
Fine. They stay away from computers.
Oh what a great example for you to have chosen...
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
Dantac wrote:
An interest-free banking system does not work because the very concept of banking is based upon interest.
The cause of all issues is the unequal distribution of wealth. Any system where one individual earns in an hour what another would earn in a year is fundamentally flawed... and it is this very fact which makes capitalism 'work' : a vast majority must be on the short end of the stick at all times. Its a pyramid scheme.
Alternative? That's hard to say... all I can think of is that if we take the current system and make it an absolute rule that no individual may inherit more than 1 million dollars (money or assets) and no individual may have more than 10 million dollars net worth (in money or assets) then we might see a drastic change happen... as all the wealth accumulated by the handful of economically elite families would be tossed back into the pool and applied by the state onto projects and other things... the incentive to work is still there for if you're a rich kid you'll still start with just 1/10th of what your limit..and if you're poor then you can still work your way up and know your children and future generations will accumulate wealth and eventually reach that 1 mill or 10 mill cap.
The power of banks and corporations would be diminished given the fact that even if the company makes trillions of dollars the wealth it generates would be spread amongst a huge amount of people.. since the company would be owned by several thousand people not one or 2 magnate families.
hope that makes sense
The cause of all issues is the unequal distribution of wealth. Any system where one individual earns in an hour what another would earn in a year is fundamentally flawed... and it is this very fact which makes capitalism 'work' : a vast majority must be on the short end of the stick at all times. Its a pyramid scheme.
Alternative? That's hard to say... all I can think of is that if we take the current system and make it an absolute rule that no individual may inherit more than 1 million dollars (money or assets) and no individual may have more than 10 million dollars net worth (in money or assets) then we might see a drastic change happen... as all the wealth accumulated by the handful of economically elite families would be tossed back into the pool and applied by the state onto projects and other things... the incentive to work is still there for if you're a rich kid you'll still start with just 1/10th of what your limit..and if you're poor then you can still work your way up and know your children and future generations will accumulate wealth and eventually reach that 1 mill or 10 mill cap.
The power of banks and corporations would be diminished given the fact that even if the company makes trillions of dollars the wealth it generates would be spread amongst a huge amount of people.. since the company would be owned by several thousand people not one or 2 magnate families.
hope that makes sense
I see but that's just a dream you're thinking of. So I'm assuming that here is no good alternative, rich people will keep getting richer and poor people will keep getting poorer. How do you know exactly if you're the middle class that will get richer or the ones that will get poorer?
leejosepho
Veteran
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
kruger4 wrote:
How do you know exactly if you're the middle class that will get richer or the ones that will get poorer?
By whether or not you chase dollars.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================
skafather84 wrote:
You think Steve Jobs got into computers because he thought there was money in it? He got into it because computers were a passion for him. Passion precedes greed except in the sectors of society that most people find abominable like reality TV or Wall Street/Banking.
No. He probably got into it for glory and ego-boost. There is more coin in the realm than money. There is glory, there is admiration and there are always the female groupies who like to show their admiration in a very direct way. I suspect love of his fellow man ranked rather low on his hierarchy of motivations.
I know some very creative mathematicians who publish their findings to show the world just how smart they are. They are not doing it for physical coin. If you are smart flaunt your intelligence.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
You think Steve Jobs got into computers because he thought there was money in it? He got into it because computers were a passion for him. Passion precedes greed except in the sectors of society that most people find abominable like reality TV or Wall Street/Banking.
No. He probably got into it for glory and ego-boost. There is more coin in the realm than money. There is glory, there is admiration and there are always the female groupies who like to show their admiration in a very direct way. I suspect love of his fellow man ranked rather low on his hierarchy of motivations.
I know some very creative mathematicians who publish their findings to show the world just how smart they are. They are not doing it for physical coin. If you are smart flaunt your intelligence.
ruveyn
So....you're saying pride is purely a capitalist venture?
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
You think Steve Jobs got into computers because he thought there was money in it? He got into it because computers were a passion for him. Passion precedes greed except in the sectors of society that most people find abominable like reality TV or Wall Street/Banking.
No. He probably got into it for glory and ego-boost. There is more coin in the realm than money. There is glory, there is admiration and there are always the female groupies who like to show their admiration in a very direct way. I suspect love of his fellow man ranked rather low on his hierarchy of motivations.
I know some very creative mathematicians who publish their findings to show the world just how smart they are. They are not doing it for physical coin. If you are smart flaunt your intelligence.
ruveyn
He was motivated by love of glory, love of groupies, and love of himself. I think that makes him a hippy?
_________________
Not currently a moderator
kruger4 wrote:
OK first of all I'm not someone who knows a whole deal about economics or politics. It seems though, and that's what a lot of people feel apparently, that capitalism is not working and that the chasm between poor and rich is going further apart. What's the alternative, how can this be fixed?
Sunshine lollipops and rainbows.
lol on a serious note, balance is key though I'd lean more towards capitalism than socialism. The workers and non-workers must be prevented from exploiting the system as well as big businesses.
It's not the wealthy minority we must focus on, but the majority cuz that's where tyranny actually starts. Would reality shows be profitable in the first place if anti-intellectualism and narcissism wasn't so rampant in society? I dunno where the anti-intellectual BS started, but all this "Pamper your kids as much as possible" crap by Benjamin Spock and the "Unwarranted self-esteem movement" is pretty much what lead to this rampant narcissism.
The music industry has been made sh***y cuz of the majority, but fortunately our generation still loves classic rock so that's an example of how it's the majority that really have the power. See power isn't intrinsic, it is simply a position of trust given to you by the masses who believe it will benefit themselves. Power doesn't come from within, it comes from being granted by others.
The government can't really do much to impose a change in subcultural values unless it goes Clockwork Orange on people, which means it's gotten big and tyrannical at that point.
AceOfSpades wrote:
kruger4 wrote:
OK first of all I'm not someone who knows a whole deal about economics or politics. It seems though, and that's what a lot of people feel apparently, that capitalism is not working and that the chasm between poor and rich is going further apart. What's the alternative, how can this be fixed?
Sunshine lollipops and rainbows.lol on a serious note, balance is key though I'd lean more towards capitalism than socialism. The workers and non-workers must be prevented from exploiting the system as well as big businesses.
It's not the wealthy minority we must focus on, but the majority cuz that's where tyranny actually starts. Would reality shows be profitable in the first place if anti-intellectualism and narcissism wasn't so rampant in society? I dunno where the anti-intellectual BS started, but all this "Pamper your kids as much as possible" crap by Benjamin Spock and the "Unwarranted self-esteem movement" is pretty much what lead to this rampant narcissism.
The music industry has been made sh***y cuz of the majority, but fortunately our generation still loves classic rock so that's an example of how it's the majority that really have the power. See power isn't intrinsic, it is simply a position of trust given to you by the masses who believe it will benefit themselves. Power doesn't come from within, it comes from being granted by others.
The government can't really do much to impose a change in subcultural values unless it goes Clockwork Orange on people, which means it's gotten big and tyrannical at that point.
The majority are led by a minority.
_________________
Not currently a moderator
Moog wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
kruger4 wrote:
OK first of all I'm not someone who knows a whole deal about economics or politics. It seems though, and that's what a lot of people feel apparently, that capitalism is not working and that the chasm between poor and rich is going further apart. What's the alternative, how can this be fixed?
Sunshine lollipops and rainbows.lol on a serious note, balance is key though I'd lean more towards capitalism than socialism. The workers and non-workers must be prevented from exploiting the system as well as big businesses.
It's not the wealthy minority we must focus on, but the majority cuz that's where tyranny actually starts. Would reality shows be profitable in the first place if anti-intellectualism and narcissism wasn't so rampant in society? I dunno where the anti-intellectual BS started, but all this "Pamper your kids as much as possible" crap by Benjamin Spock and the "Unwarranted self-esteem movement" is pretty much what lead to this rampant narcissism.
The music industry has been made sh***y cuz of the majority, but fortunately our generation still loves classic rock so that's an example of how it's the majority that really have the power. See power isn't intrinsic, it is simply a position of trust given to you by the masses who believe it will benefit themselves. Power doesn't come from within, it comes from being granted by others.
The government can't really do much to impose a change in subcultural values unless it goes Clockwork Orange on people, which means it's gotten big and tyrannical at that point.
The majority are led by a minority.
Another example is how Hitler came to be. Those who warned people about Hitler were labeled crazy by the majority and the antisemitism that already existed before Hitler came to be is exactly what set him up in a position of power. The position of power is established by the majority.
All this means "The customer is always right" isn't just a business ethic, it's just a natural way of dealing with people in general.
Philologos wrote:
Boondocksism.
Which is a more serious answer than you might think.
Which is a more serious answer than you might think.
Huey is a socialist.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson