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

 

THIS

Replace it with real Capitalism not the fake version we had pretending to be.

Well, I meant lolno moreso to the whole topic in general, but ok that too Sara!

> 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..

I think the idea of treating your workers as family is a how a company should be run, and also how it used to be run in that you often were passed down a job or had a job for life, but now cutting costs are to large.

 

Also I think that not prosecuting those fat cats was a huge mistake. Basically like just giving them a slap on the wrist. Do you really think that they give a shit about the people and how their economic status is? So not punishing them for their bad actions just basically condones them to do it again.

 

 

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

 

I don't think it's bad overall. I think the idea and system is good in the sense of it creating competition, innovations, and pushing people to want to be successful.

 

However at the same time you have to look at our current economic situation, and also see how outsourcing to cut costs as well as greed has crippled the economy. Yeah goods still may be sold here, but if you send away all the jobs to other countries then you're putting money into their economy.

 

 

 

I think the idea of a entire free market is a good idea, I just don't know how well it would work on a super large scale.

These guys know the answer

Lower case?:rolleyes:

I reckon text messaging's to blame.:dozey:

More than the differences between "Isms"

 

I think it is more about the understanding of Human Nature/Humanity or Priority in Values at certain contexts. Human beings have been Developed but not in simple linear straight line- either through external or internal changes. Besides the societal structures/orders, besides scientific/technogical advancements/inventions, we can't avoid a perpetual question: meaning of life and the happiness all cherish - and it lies in how we understand human nature - its intrinsic attributes, external conditions [functional effects] and internal factors. It is not the machines that exploit lower-wage workers and it is not the bread that serves the orphans - it is We - Human beings' intentions/actions that have a power to change even in a limited but an influential way.

 

I think if the societial structure and its principles are to encourage the morality, ethics, and the loving nature of humanity - it is basically a positive/constructive influence more likely to create and maintain harmony. The opposite shall be carefully directed or monitored if necessary. But we have different value priorities in a given context - that might lead to different choices or even harm or conflicts. It is a bit pathetic/pessimistic to use Law as a punishing hand other than "cultivating consience" as a strength to "prevent" harmful or degrading behaviors.

 

Personally, I think it is not the differences between such "isms" that make the group or identities or ideology - it is more about how we understand Human Mature [what are the intrinsic ? what are internal factors? how internal/external factors function on the individual to behave? what is the relationship between the individual and the group? what responsibilities for each part and where is the boundary etc. ] and What we take to shape the nature to its goodness. But in reality, some people tend to intentionally Define Concept/"Branding" [commercializing everything] rather than Discovering intrinsic characters through observation an analysis. Here, I don't mean we can't be creative in social organizing - but the most decisive part of Human Nature, to me, hasn't been changed at all.

 

The whole 20th century could be a good yet painful historical example to see how we learn so hard from the negatives and put the new inventions to serve rather than destroy Humanity. But it is true and disappointed to see how misunderstanding/ignorance/intolerance can make the Unknown as Enimies - make the healthy competitions a disgraceful "conflict/war". The fear, the hatred, the greed, all that long-buried primitive instincts have been waken up like opening Pandora's Box to put an evolved soul falling into a hell-like condition - so disheartening.

 

If Charlie Dickens lived now, should he be surprised to see those long-lasting social problems? Or Elizabeth Gaskell's insights in North and South, still ring the bell for Integrating business values without loosing basic humanity concerns? Or Franz Kafka, why did he claim the importance of knowing the internal world besides an external marvelous progression? The rooty reason is not "ism", culture or even religion. The harm that human does to human is not that advanced or mysterous, not beyond animalistic nature. I think the hope lies in the understanding of the meaning of life - <<Many Lifes, Many Masters>> by Dr. Brian Weiss. A Diamond Metaphor: "Everyone has one covered by rust or dirt. Each facet needs to be cleaned and you glow more with each facet cleaned. "

 

The starlight [we perceive as the stars] we see today might have been long gone before; while the unknown we can't see now might exist beyond our limited perception. We become blind if we only take what we can perceive or confine ourselves or even impose or enforce upon others. It is an analogy applicable for many things in many ways.

You have a great deal of interesting philosophical insights RedBalloon! The understanding of human nature, and priorities in values in a given context must be considered. Life's meaning is richer than anyone can fully comprehend and is interesting to ponder, and the pursuit of happiness and the attainment of happiness rank high in most of our lives. I agree, it is pessimistic to use law primarily as a punishing hand, but if the behavior of certain individuals becomes harmful to others, then the law must be there, and enforcement is as a final check on bad behavior. However, I think to encourage all that is good in human nature and social structure, provide a stronger incentive for socially redeeming structures which produce better outcomes, and provide more equity, harmony, and collective benefit, the promotion of healthy incentives is a good way to proceed with any social structure.

But it seems to me that what has happened with the capitalistic system is that it requires a social system which takes priority over it, and needs great oversight and diligence to keep promoting the best benefits it can confer on society.

When ownership is isolated from workers and their plight, it can become callous and unconcerned about their well being, and may look upon those who do the work as merely a cost, or a component in the assembly line. Hence, when companies become publicly traded, the care and respect towards workers often declines, since the family who owns no longer sees the workers as family, or with outside ownership in the hands of a few who simply want to maximize profits, there exists incentives to lower wages, ignore safety concerns, cut off benefits, and diminish product quality, if the profit motive exceeds their compassion towards their fellow man. Unions arose to check this narcissistic tendency, but the concentration of power and ownership today works to undermine the checks and balances, and undermine the promotion of good companies over bad.

So government is the social referee, the promoter of good on our behalf, and the necessary component to add in all the missing ingredients for promoting the general well being as we understand them. No market in the modern sense can function well if human beings are not healthy, and it is the responsibility of governments to protect on our behalf the broader commons.

I believe you are right, the baser instincts - greed, fear, ego, frustration / hatred, intolerance - these things unfortunately often trump reason and harmony, when manipulative individuals find ways to use these things to divide people and push us into conflict.

But there again is the problem of profit over reason, when those who stand to gain the most have ultimate control over the media in the U.S., and will profit enormously from conflict, to the disaffection of most of the rest of us.

I think what troubles me is the isolation and packaging into discrete areas of the mind that market thinking puts us into. It's a useful method, as a good created from all the human activity and ingenuity over time. It compartmentalizes everything, and must so to function well, but then ignores the context in which it operates, and has a poor way of interrelating to nature, to human beings, to the interconnectedness of all things. Also, this isolation from nature and from one-another allows for some in positions of power to make decisions that affect nature and human wellness in harmful or unhealthy ways.

Pure market forces as ideal is a fantasy, an isolation and simplification which we must come to terms with if and deal with if we are to keep this planet a livable one, and make our world more harmonious and enlightening for all.

If Charles Dickens lived today, he would be no doubt upset at seeing such inequity in the world. His world was not unlike ours; the remedies seem to happen out of movements for social equity, then languish in time, to be reborn again in the form of social movements propelled by a collective understanding of the need to restore fair arrangements in society.

By using an -ism, I was trying to convey the sense that blind loyalty in any system, however good certain merits it may have, can lead us into some very unstable and unfair arrangements. Hence, pure market capitalism has some built-in flaws that make it unhealthy for societies, it is one facet of a much more complex subtle and diverse world of human and natural relations in which we live. Surely we must be learning, and adding to the wealth of human understanding, with hope not sliding back into some lesser mode of behavior.

Human progress was once described to me as a spiral, which in 2 dimensions appears to be going nowhere with the up swings followed by down swings, but when seen in the 3rd dimension is spiraling forward. Perhaps this is so, as we deconstruct or leave one structure, to create a new structure with a better framework. Maybe a better analogy is to describe human progress as a lobster, molting it's old shell to grow, or as a caterpillar metamorphosing into a beautiful butterfly :flutterby:. It's a work in progress, but the stages at times have amazing form and grace.