What do you think is stunting our growth as humanity?
it could be
*types of people
*natural thing, for example, our physical capabilities.
*types of people
*natural thing, for example, our physical capabilities.
22-25, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
Capitalism. Might be good for growth in some ways, but it is ultimately a counterproductive blight. It is antithetical to human nature. So long as there are winners and losers, humanity will never come together as a whole. It's about dominance and superiority, thus comes the growth of power. But, that power is used to accrue more power, which is then used to subjugate, manipulate, and exploit. There is no other way one can play the game of capitalism. Whether that be ones own people or the people of a resource rich 3rd world country.
It is monopoly. And the game isnt over until someone has all the money.
Humans also naturally work together to achieve goals. We have evolved too quickly. Our population exploded too quickly. We aren't effective in highly dense cities, but small communities. And, our biology isnt going to catch up any time soon. This will also inhibit our growth exponentially.
It is monopoly. And the game isnt over until someone has all the money.
Humans also naturally work together to achieve goals. We have evolved too quickly. Our population exploded too quickly. We aren't effective in highly dense cities, but small communities. And, our biology isnt going to catch up any time soon. This will also inhibit our growth exponentially.
1-25 of 31
FunKingPizzaShip · M
No other enterprise has got people to work together better than capitalism.
The problem is what we have today is not capitalism. When the government takes most of the money from rich people in taxes and redistributes it to the poor, that is not capitalism. In capitalism, those rich people should be allowed to keep their money and reinvest it in their company so they can grow their business and hire more people, etc. It is in a world where the government levies high taxes that the rich people want to hoard because they have to work harder than the average person for a smaller percentage of their earnings.
The problem is what we have today is not capitalism. When the government takes most of the money from rich people in taxes and redistributes it to the poor, that is not capitalism. In capitalism, those rich people should be allowed to keep their money and reinvest it in their company so they can grow their business and hire more people, etc. It is in a world where the government levies high taxes that the rich people want to hoard because they have to work harder than the average person for a smaller percentage of their earnings.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@Ax17x7: *sigh*. I really don't wanna argue economics right now. I've had this conversation a hundred times, already.
Btw. Companies dont pay taxes. They use shell companies and loopholes to escape tax rates. In many instances, they actually get paid by the government.
We'll take Apple as an example. They have a she'll company in Ireland, paying 4% taxes to avoid the 35% tax rate in the us.
Look at any modern country. Youll see one thing. More taxes = healthier society. Scandanavia is a good example.
Now look at the U.S. Lowest tax for individuals in the modern world. Most violent modern nation, increasing poverty levels: 1 in 5 children missing meals; 1 in 4 adults unwillingly missing meals--while those companies make record profits. Tell me again how those rich people succeeding helps us?
Shit doesn't trickle down. It trickles up. You can see this from the 1970s onward. The 1% own, what was it, 35-50% of all the wealth and 20-25% of all the money. They're just going to make more and more and more until the middle class collapses.
Money is not an infinite resource. If it was, i wouldnt care how much money the rich had. But theyre taking *everything*.
Im on my phone. Otherwise, i would have written you an essay.
Btw. Companies dont pay taxes. They use shell companies and loopholes to escape tax rates. In many instances, they actually get paid by the government.
We'll take Apple as an example. They have a she'll company in Ireland, paying 4% taxes to avoid the 35% tax rate in the us.
Look at any modern country. Youll see one thing. More taxes = healthier society. Scandanavia is a good example.
Now look at the U.S. Lowest tax for individuals in the modern world. Most violent modern nation, increasing poverty levels: 1 in 5 children missing meals; 1 in 4 adults unwillingly missing meals--while those companies make record profits. Tell me again how those rich people succeeding helps us?
Shit doesn't trickle down. It trickles up. You can see this from the 1970s onward. The 1% own, what was it, 35-50% of all the wealth and 20-25% of all the money. They're just going to make more and more and more until the middle class collapses.
Money is not an infinite resource. If it was, i wouldnt care how much money the rich had. But theyre taking *everything*.
Im on my phone. Otherwise, i would have written you an essay.
FunKingPizzaShip · M
Your point about taxes helps me. Rich people faced with high taxes hoard money. Companies are no exception.
Right now, money is an infinite resource. Governments are devaluing our money by borrowing and fractional reserve banks.
Right now, money is an infinite resource. Governments are devaluing our money by borrowing and fractional reserve banks.
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@MalteseFalconPunch: Rome, Greece, Africa, Hondoras, you know what, most of Latin America. Hundreds of countries might not share your opinion of capitalism.
Just wait until it comes crashing down, then say the same thing.
Just wait until it comes crashing down, then say the same thing.
FunKingPizzaShip · M
@ColdPenguin: Why was it westerners who invented the internet and not the Soviet Union?
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@Ax17x7: Why was it the Soviet union who got to outer space first?
But no. I dont support communism. At least, not in the form its been tried in.
But no. I dont support communism. At least, not in the form its been tried in.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@Ax17x7: The reserve prints money, which, yes, devalues currency. Then I'll rephrase. There is not infinite value.
I'd like to see you prove that rich people don't hoard money if they have low taxes.
I'd like to see you prove that rich people don't hoard money if they have low taxes.
FunKingPizzaShip · M
So the USSA got to space first while in the same decade 30 million people starved in famine.
10 years after the USSR put a man in space, the USA put a man on the moon and had continued economic growth throughout.
10 years after the USSR put a man in space, the USA put a man on the moon and had continued economic growth throughout.
FunKingPizzaShip · M
@ColdPenguin: With lower taxes the rich can have their riches, which we all agree is what they want, and they'll have more to reinvest in the company and grow their business and hire more people, etc, etc.
MasterLee · 56-60, M
Capitalism saves the planet. Socialism/communism kills the host
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@Ax17x7: Yes. The U.S. did quite well due to WWI and WWII which sparked higher taxes and military spending and production, products which it then sold to other countries. Which created a bunch of jobs and led to prosperity. And it has been at war ever since.
Then, America followed Britain's suit, and began investing and exploiting resource-rich 3rd world countries like Latin America as a means to accrue great wealth, putting it in a stronger position than the Soviet Union to innovate during the Cold War.
More. The U.S. did not have to deal with inhospitable Russian terrain. Poor roads, no railways and unfavorable climate. It's difficult to grow food in most of Russia. Unlike in the U.S. Without an agricultural surplus first, Russia could never have supported a ‘natural’ industrial revolution, as Britain did. Another reason the U.S. was in a position to succeed over Russia: it didn't have to deal with inhospitable terrain.
Then, America followed Britain's suit, and began investing and exploiting resource-rich 3rd world countries like Latin America as a means to accrue great wealth, putting it in a stronger position than the Soviet Union to innovate during the Cold War.
More. The U.S. did not have to deal with inhospitable Russian terrain. Poor roads, no railways and unfavorable climate. It's difficult to grow food in most of Russia. Unlike in the U.S. Without an agricultural surplus first, Russia could never have supported a ‘natural’ industrial revolution, as Britain did. Another reason the U.S. was in a position to succeed over Russia: it didn't have to deal with inhospitable terrain.
FunKingPizzaShip · M
The climate here in Canada is quite similar to Russia and we've done quite well.
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@MalteseFalconPunch: It clearly isn't working for Latin America or Africa or Greece and hundreds of other countries. That was my point. It's only the best system for those who exploit and dominate other countries.
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@Ax17x7: Well shit, now you're gonna make me learn Canadian history. -_-
No wonder you support capitalism. You don't see people gunned down in the street and living in squalor.
No wonder you support capitalism. You don't see people gunned down in the street and living in squalor.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@MalteseFalconPunch: Not if we're talking about humanity as a whole, which was the topic. :|
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
FunKingPizzaShip · M
Pro-communist or pro-socialist ideologues love to criticise capitalism, but fail to suggest how we are to move from our current situation to a better one where everyone presumably works in a altruistic manner at all times.
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@Ax17x7: And pro-capitalist ideologues love to criticism socialism without even knowing what it means.
You misunderstand the nature of socialism. It revolves around the ownership of the means of production: buildings, machines, goods, etc--things that are used to "produce".
For instance, in capitalism, the means of production are owned privately. Anyone can buy them. Then that anyone can hire managers to hire workers. Then those managers and workers run the company and produce. Then the "owner", the one who purchased the means of production (i.e. the one who had money to begin with) sits back and collects passive income.
In other words, the owner does nothing and gets paid more than anyone else for doing nothing. Simply due to the investment. That owner may then repeat this and purchase more means of production, hire more managers or CEOs to hire more workers who will then do the work and produce. It's a cycle.
I don't know about you. But I don't really like the idea of someone doing nothing but having money being capable of making massive amounts of more money based on nothing else. That is the issue of capitalism. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
Yes. For awhile, it is going well. As the means of production are more evenly owned, and owners have an incentive to pay workers well and provide great benefits. Until monopolies form; and, in a system where money is power, money buys government. Then it is rule by corporation. Businesses in the U.S. then lobby government to reduce worker rights and pay, in their efforts to create more profit.
And then, they absorb massive amounts of cash. Leading to the shrinking of the middle class. The thing that makes capitalism good. For awhile. Then, you have two classes instead of three.
And there's a difference between arguing theory and arguing practicality.
For me, practically speaking, all one would have to do is substitute private ownership for public ownership. Have nonprofits organized to control the means of production--responsible to the workers--get rid of the owner, then have that money injected into the economy, instead of sitting in some lazy fuck's pockets who provides nothing to society and just has a slew of quasi-slaves at their disposal.
You misunderstand the nature of socialism. It revolves around the ownership of the means of production: buildings, machines, goods, etc--things that are used to "produce".
For instance, in capitalism, the means of production are owned privately. Anyone can buy them. Then that anyone can hire managers to hire workers. Then those managers and workers run the company and produce. Then the "owner", the one who purchased the means of production (i.e. the one who had money to begin with) sits back and collects passive income.
In other words, the owner does nothing and gets paid more than anyone else for doing nothing. Simply due to the investment. That owner may then repeat this and purchase more means of production, hire more managers or CEOs to hire more workers who will then do the work and produce. It's a cycle.
I don't know about you. But I don't really like the idea of someone doing nothing but having money being capable of making massive amounts of more money based on nothing else. That is the issue of capitalism. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
Yes. For awhile, it is going well. As the means of production are more evenly owned, and owners have an incentive to pay workers well and provide great benefits. Until monopolies form; and, in a system where money is power, money buys government. Then it is rule by corporation. Businesses in the U.S. then lobby government to reduce worker rights and pay, in their efforts to create more profit.
And then, they absorb massive amounts of cash. Leading to the shrinking of the middle class. The thing that makes capitalism good. For awhile. Then, you have two classes instead of three.
And there's a difference between arguing theory and arguing practicality.
For me, practically speaking, all one would have to do is substitute private ownership for public ownership. Have nonprofits organized to control the means of production--responsible to the workers--get rid of the owner, then have that money injected into the economy, instead of sitting in some lazy fuck's pockets who provides nothing to society and just has a slew of quasi-slaves at their disposal.
FunKingPizzaShip · M
TL;DR
Explaining to me what socialism is doesn't explain how we move from our current system to the new one. Remember, I don't want to change the system, so the onus of defence for a new one is on you, not me to keep this one.
Explaining to me what socialism is doesn't explain how we move from our current system to the new one. Remember, I don't want to change the system, so the onus of defence for a new one is on you, not me to keep this one.
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@Ax17x7: Well, long story short, you don't know what you're talking about. :) Perhaps you should have read to the end.
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@Ax17x7: Dude. Also. It's really ironic that you want to argue economics, but don't want to read.
FunKingPizzaShip · M
I don't need someone to tell me what socialism is. I was asking you to tell me how are we supposed to move from our current system to one you think is better. In short - Not what it will look like, HOW we will get there?
How are we going to remove the means of production from the private to the public? Government regulation? Social warfare? I'll stick with capitalism over those options.
How are we going to remove the means of production from the private to the public? Government regulation? Social warfare? I'll stick with capitalism over those options.
1-25 of 31