I think Capitalism is nearing it's zenith, on it's way down. No system that allows such great inequities to develop, and has no interest in fostering the social good can last. It has led to an amassing of power in the hands of a very few, who attain their power on the backs of poor workers. But what to replace it with? Some have said worker-owned cooperatives, or pay-it-forward places works better. What else would be better? Better checks and balance in social programs with governments? Or should we just find ways to check the excesses, demand better social safety nets, and keep corporate oligarchies from happening?

Capitalism isn't dead.

Capitalism isn't dead and nor is it going to die anytime soon.

Of course it's not dead, but I though the title would grab some attention..:P But I do think something has to be done to improve fairness in the anthropogenic world. What are your thoughts?

Capitalism is Dead, long live Chucklism

Capitalism is Dead, long live Chucklism

:stunned::laugh3: A very Dyslexic world we will be living in then!:laugh3:

I vote for Davidism, which makes sense, since King David will rule again!:crown:

Sadism?

I think the overall idea of Capitalism is good in that in gives people a push or incentive people to want to invent, become innovative and work hard in order to become successful and make money. However it has turned into greed too much, where you have all of these major CEO's making millions of dollars. I've always thought that there comes a point when enough is enough. I mean you can't take it with you when you die, and why is there so much greed if you can't share it and enjoy it with the people you love. I basically say the system should stay the same but have some sort of regulation system or some sort of a salary cap.

I think the overall idea of Capitalism is good in that in gives people a push or incentive people to want to invent, become innovative and work hard in order to become successful and make money. However it has turned into greed too much, where you have all of these major CEO's making millions of dollars. I've always thought that there comes a point when enough is enough. I mean you can't take it with you when you die, and why is there so much greed if you can't share it and enjoy it with the people you love. I basically say the system should stay the same but have some sort of regulation system or some sort of a salary cap.

> True, it is one motivator in human endeavors. And yes I agree - CEO's have taken the lion's share of the profits, way beyond their worth, and often to the disincentive of the companies they are at the heads of. Yeah, that is so true - you can't take it with you, and if not shared, one looses something more valuable than all the money in the world can buy - shared happiness. But I think it becomes a game to some (without a doubt!) where it's just a peg on a scoreboard; to others, it's a drug, which delivers a euphoric sense in the brain when some level of accumulation or goal is achieved; the gambling, scrambling frenzy of the market floor attracts still others. Divorced of reality and devoid of reflection, individuals caught up in the race loose sight of all other values, of reality, and of social stability and equity. External things are not accounted for, things become objects or compartments, loosing their sense of deeper meaning.

It has a certain corrosive effect on democracies when a few who have amassed control in the markets can buy the government they want, or prevent real competition from occurring.

I agree - salary caps are a good start! But I still wonder if the whole system isn't highly flawed by design - there are other ways to motivate, to coordinate and form effective teams for the production of goods or the delivery of services. Instead of the same way, what about more worker-owned companies? Motivation can be monetary, but often that neglects other principal motivators we all share in life. The love of humanity, one of the great Greek loves - philanthropy - just seeing the shared joy or knowing the greater social good being done is a powerful motivator. And not all venues in life seek the coin of the realm as a motivator - hence, artists simply want to create and convey some sense of something, a state of mind, an awakening of the senses. Or a family practitioner who just wants to see neighbors and friends get well, and is rewarded by the warm sense of knowing that a neighbor feels better, and of giving of oneself gains something of the infinite in return. Can we reward people for good service towards others fairly, and not put them on a tread mill to service more patients per hour? When applied to the medical field, market driven systems are highly flawed, and hence the U.S. has poor outcomes when it comes to primary and preventive care, while costs top all other nations for health care.

We suffer from a lack of general practitioners - family doctors - because the money is made in specialties where expensive procedures and equipment turn the biggest profit. And it is this preventive, general care that is the most important, for correcting problems before they become more serious. So few want to go into general practice, and the high costs of market-driven education makes the loans a heavy burden, pushing more and more grads into specialties.

So I wonder if a broader spectrum of motivators and team efforts needs to be considered, as well as the other concepts that motivate - the joy of discovery, as in the sciences; achieving goals for the sake of making something happen (I think of the Greek potters who simply wanted to master the art of fine design and decoration on vases, competing with one-another not for money, but for a higher level of perfection or interest). Puzzle solvers, mystery solvers - investigators who are driven to piece together a problem and find a solution. And when it comes to CEO's, in worker-owned companies, motivation by standards and merit, based on effort or technical expertise or teamwork, and rewarding members of the company in that manner has proven a successful way to structure a business. Ultimately to prevent the excess of concentrated wealth in any nation is to preserve democracy and individual liberties. Setting up better structures and establishing better patterns makes our world a better place.

Capitalism is Dead, long live Chucklism

 

 

 

chuckle brothers

:stunned::rolleyes: I did not know of them till now - quite interesting! :laugh3:

I see then - aha - and is their philosophy from the Marx Brothers? Marxism?:disguise:

:stunned::rolleyes: I did not know of them till now - quite interesting! :laugh3:

I see then - aha - and is their philosophy from the Marx Brothers? Marxism?:disguise:

 

No - I think it's "Northernism".:P

 

Maybe they're long-lost cousins of yours!:rolleyes:

> True, it is one motivator in human endeavors. And yes I agree - CEO's have taken the lion's share of the profits, way beyond their worth, and often to the disincentive of the companies they are at the heads of. Yeah, that is so true - you can't take it with you, and if not shared, one looses something more valuable than all the money in the world can buy - shared happiness. But I think it becomes a game to some (without a doubt!) where it's just a peg on a scoreboard; to others, it's a drug, which delivers a euphoric sense in the brain when some level of accumulation or goal is achieved; the gambling, scrambling frenzy of the market floor attracts still others. Divorced of reality and devoid of reflection, individuals caught up in the race loose sight of all other values, of reality, and of social stability and equity. External things are not accounted for, things become objects or compartments, loosing their sense of deeper meaning.

It has a certain corrosive effect on democracies when a few who have amassed control in the markets can buy the government they want, or prevent real competition from occurring.

I agree - salary caps are a good start! But I still wonder if the whole system isn't highly flawed by design - there are other ways to motivate, to coordinate and form effective teams for the production of goods or the delivery of services. Instead of the same way, what about more worker-owned companies? Motivation can be monetary, but often that neglects other principal motivators we all share in life. The love of humanity, one of the great Greek loves - philanthropy - just seeing the shared joy or knowing the greater social good being done is a powerful motivator. And not all venues in life seek the coin of the realm as a motivator - hence, artists simply want to create and convey some sense of something, a state of mind, an awakening of the senses. Or a family practitioner who just wants to see neighbors and friends get well, and is rewarded by the warm sense of knowing that a neighbor feels better, and of giving of oneself gains something of the infinite in return. Can we reward people for good service towards others fairly, and not put them on a tread mill to service more patients per hour? When applied to the medical field, market driven systems are highly flawed, and hence the U.S. has poor outcomes when it comes to primary and preventive care, while costs top all other nations for health care.

We suffer from a lack of general practitioners - family doctors - because the money is made in specialties where expensive procedures and equipment turn the biggest profit. And it is this preventive, general care that is the most important, for correcting problems before they become more serious. So few want to go into general practice, and the high costs of market-driven education makes the loans a heavy burden, pushing more and more grads into specialties.

So I wonder if a broader spectrum of motivators and team efforts needs to be considered, as well as the other concepts that motivate - the joy of discovery, as in the sciences; achieving goals for the sake of making something happen (I think of the Greek potters who simply wanted to master the art of fine design and decoration on vases, competing with one-another not for money, but for a higher level of perfection or interest). Puzzle solvers, mystery solvers - investigators who are driven to piece together a problem and find a solution. And when it comes to CEO's, in worker-owned companies, motivation by standards and merit, based on effort or technical expertise or teamwork, and rewarding members of the company in that manner has proven a successful way to structure a business. Ultimately to prevent the excess of concentrated wealth in any nation is to preserve democracy and individual liberties. Setting up better structures and establishing better patterns makes our world a better place.

 

You make all great points, but I think it's a bit too optimistic or idealistic to think that people will only want to have a business in doing better for the good of humanity. I think it's something that people should strive to do, but knowing the human race's track record part of me thinks it's asking too much.

 

 

It's also another issue with companies as to how the economy is doing so bad because companies want to cut corners and make as much profit with as little cost so jobs are out sourced, which means less money going into the pockets of American workers. So I guess essentially it's the system itself that although brought the country to accomplish so much, can also help to destroy it itself.

 

 

In the same sense I'm also extremely annoyed and pissed off how none of these fat cats and ceo's and people in wall street didn't get fired for all the harm they did to this country. I'd have them fired if it was up to me and jailed too.

 

I think also a salary cap might be good too because now a days it seems that the huge chains are taking over the economy themselves. Too often over the last 10-15 years I've seen too many small businesses go under.

 

chuckle brothers

 

From Me to You, don't disrespect the legends of the Chuckle Brothers, they will send the boys round :P

You make all great points, but I think it's a bit too optimistic or idealistic to think that people will only want to have a business in doing better for the good of humanity. I think it's something that people should strive to do, but knowing the human race's track record part of me thinks it's asking too much.

 

 

It's also another issue with companies as to how the economy is doing so bad because companies want to cut corners and make as much profit with as little cost so jobs are out sourced, which means less money going into the pockets of American workers. So I guess essentially it's the system itself that although brought the country to accomplish so much, can also help to destroy it itself.

 

 

In the same sense I'm also extremely annoyed and pissed off how none of these fat cats and ceo's and people in wall street didn't get fired for all the harm they did to this country. I'd have them fired if it was up to me and jailed too.

 

I think also a salary cap might be good too because now a days it seems that the huge chains are taking over the economy themselves. Too often over the last 10-15 years I've seen too many small businesses go under.

> Yes, that is true, many will opt for the standard business model. But if other avenues were open, perhaps more people will decide to go another route? If a company treats workers as family, then there is harmony. Often though, if companies get greedy and unfair, the workers are left with three options - (a) form strong unions, demand better treatment, (b) revolt, © find a better form of a cooperative venture to be a part of. Often if less is available, there is less opportunity for change, and some circumstances warrant other forms of incentives.

> With the poor economy & outsourcing matter, I think we could use some protections for our own businesses, as much of the rest of the world does just that. And disincentives to outsource everything, which today allows the company to become just an upper-management shell. Cutting corners for more profits is alright if it doesn't harm workers here, I agree - lots of pressure to work harder, little increases in real wages, adjusted for inflation. Then the whole factory is sent overseas. That should be stopped, as we need our jobs to keep the economy strong enough here, or else our economy will implode, and so will the rest, as it's all tied together today.

Yes, the fat cats on Wall Street set up the failure, and then rewrote the rules when it all fell in - to favor themselves, and then set up an even bigger house of cards. They should have been held to account for the scams they ran, and for all the damage caused from those risky schemes! It was clearly criminal in nature, what they did. But they re-wrote the rules by buying influence in Washington, then ran their rackets. The devil is in the buying of elections, and the revolving door.

And I see the same - small businesses going under from unfair competitive advantages of mega-corporate businesses. The salary caps too makes sense, even though some might argue that a successful CEO deserves more compensation - but experimental evidence suggests the opposite to be true - pay someone too much, and their performance actually drops!

Which leads me to wonder, if a company is worker-owned, then even the top paid workers, who manage, never can control the whole business without building consensus. The business requires votes from all the workers before it does something, and looks out for the well being of its members. I think it might be a better path..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eP6iujgeWI]YouTube - Capitalism In One Lesson[/ame]

I challenge anyone to watch Jay's video in its entirety and then argue that capitalism is a failed system.

Often I think the problem with people misunderstanding capitalism is that the word has become so maligned... which is why many libertarians have taken to calling it "Voluntaryism".

 

Any force (including government interference) instantly destroys the price signal system, by creating imbalances that ripple throughout the economy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4&feature=related]YouTube - 4 Free Market Myths Debunked![/ame]

 

A video all about the most common things that make people say 'CAPITALISM IS EVIL AND UNFAIR' (when in reality most unfair market practices stem from government interference).

But according to Scott Adams, Confusopolies are the problem, driven by a market demon! :P

The Dilbert Future - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a simple world, capitalism sounds great, but in the real world, it's one of many motivators, and doesn't do a very good job of taking into account the social well being of families, children, the elders, or nature itself. It is a poor fit for care givers, artists, philosophers, historians, naturalists, and more. Neither does it work effectively when one is motivated by a quest for discovery, or the joy of sharing in that knowledge - it is clunky in places like this. Competitors for discovery work in teams, share a great deal of past discoveries, and aren't necessarily interested in money as the ultimate reward; hence, Jonas Salk. And I think one might look at the concept of a meritocracy within government structures as one way to motivate and ensure teamwork or improvement of services. The mail gets delivered on time and efficiently.

If capitalism unfettered is so great, then why did we have such problems with the robber barons of commerce early in the 19th century, in terms of their mistreatment of laborers, or the rigging of market schemes to such a great extent recently when regulations were taken off? Plus, things aren't so simple when nature itself is severely impacted, as our very survival is depended on the web of life being healthy, for we are all part of that web.

Governments are there for reasons, and must regulate in the market for the sake of fairness, protection of the commons, and for investments in the wellness of the social fabric we are a part of.

It is when moneyed interests become too large, and their influence ultimately corrupts the very essence of democracy, that is when we are in trouble. We revolted against the East India company and it's government-in-tow back in 1776, one begins to wonder if large oligopolies again, under the control of a very few super-rich, are not presenting a similar threat to peace, liberty, checks and balances, and representative governance.

In a structured society, we need something better, or some greater assurance of checks upon the abuses of power associated with unfettered capitalism and it's barons of commerce.

Dilbert's a fucking comic strip

True, Dilbert is a comic strip. I assume you are upset because you think comedic drawings have no merits and nothing to teach us about reality? Do you know what Scott Adams' career entailed, before he took off as a writer of Dilbert?

Have you read anything about The Peter Principle ?Peter Principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about the Dilbert Principle? The Dilbert principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lolno

^that. it's a fucking comic strip, it's not real, it's a caricature, that's the fucking point

Sawa you stop being so fucking vulgar right this minute young lady!