Said it better than I could have.I am very pro-capitalism. It provides the greatest growth and most upward mobility. However, capitalism only works when it's players are ethical. As we saw in Enron and Tyco we can't rely upon business leaders to be ethical. There is nothing capitalistic about cooking the books in order to deceive stock holders. For this reason I am a proponent of regulated capitalism. I am strong proponent of SOX compliance which is a federal standard all publicly traded companies must meet.
I agree, but I prefer to be idealistic in the other direction. i.e. a non-cut-throat free market.I should clarify.. I did say if I had it my way. It's far too idealistic a society though - people are, for the most part, extremely greedy. Even if they don't admit to it, the silent goal many people have is to have is to amass alot of money.
That's still the case, goods and services are still valubale even if the paper money isn't.And for the second bit - that's the thing in my system. As I said.. from a time when services and good were worth something. Being in a trade would make them valuable, as well as assist the society around them.
I don't think cancer researchers are making money hand over fist. I think the cost of research has to do with the equipment used. One of my friends works at the UofA Cancer Center, I'll ask him next time what some of the more expensive equipment costs.At very least.. I don't think things like cancer research in modern society should need to be paid for at all - simply done for the greater good.
I disagree that's the one reason it won't work.It's a very idealistic system, and would never work for one simple reason - humans enjoy amassing things and being better than the next man
I don't liek them in thoery either. People aren;t equal(identical), they shouldn't all have the same property and responsibilty.Socialism and Communism are great systems in theory - but in practice terrible because of human nature.
And that's a big problem with communism/socialism, it sees people as a collective and not as individuals.The intelligence comment was mostly because I'm finding more and more that we, as a western society (US, Canada, Britain etc) are not putting so much value on individual intelligence but rather simply as working sheep. And people are unfortunately content with this.
That, and it was something everyone could accept. i.e. what if I don't nead any beads? Plus, for merchants coinage saved a lot of space and weight.Money has lost it's value - it stemmed from originally a beadmaker would trade beads for goods, a farmer would trade in food. Nations traded exclusively in what they needed.. spices, lumber etc. They created the original system of coinage/ gold as a standard of worth so that each trade would become exactly fair, things would have a set worth.
No, it was when they debased the currency, such as mixing in some tin or clipping corners.Then inflation occurred - people decided that things should cost more, more money was created out of nowhere. And so it's worth was fractioned.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it's worthless today, but that it has no worth apart from the State that made it. Gold is gold no materr what potenate's head is stamped on it, but fiat money is worthless when the State behind it falls. (well, except as a collectors item like Confederate money or something)What has happened over all this time is, as you said.. money is worthless now - it's become an invisible number hanging over all of our heads.
I disagree. Many people in our society are slaves, but to various credit institutions, not wages.We work jobs for an allowance, we are slaves to our wages.
The problem is you can do this with any social/economic system.As you may see - I'm a huge idealist. I believe that if humanity puts aside it's differences and obsession with above mentioned number we can work towards a golden age where we can find truth, beauty, equality and work legitimately for it.
Ah, Lifeboat Ethics. . I don;t think it;s a good idea to have your ideal society be one with a sword of Damocles hanging over it.Your mention of this only working on a small island is perfect here - say a group of people were shipwrecked on an island. They would work each day for survival, and they would all need to work together to ensure that they had everything they needed, selfishness in any member would be the fall of the group.
So much for individualism.As in my ideal world - their greatest reward is that they benefited their group, and worked towards a more stable, happy mini-society.
Here.Actually, could I ask you a question back, you seem like a very intelligent person - What is America in debt to? I hear of this great 'national debt' all of the time.. but a debt to whom exactly?
.And.. how can they keep paying for anything at all if they are in such an amazingly high debt
No. It just shows they are very stupid with money. it's like many people with credit cards; as long as they can pay the interest on the debt/keep the creditors from collecting, they don't care how much money they don't have they are spending.Doesn't the fact that the country is continually paying for things they cant actually afford proof of the non-existence or worthlessness of money?
If it were up to me, money would be abolished and we would live in a society with systems based slightly on socialism - everyone would be entitled to the same food, health care and services, and the value of a trained, intelligent human being would return.
There was a time before money, and it was a good time, trading goods and services for goods and services rather than imaginary numbers written on paper.
If money is the root of all evil, capitalism is it's evil man eating venus flytrap.
I should clarify.. I did say if I had it my way. It's far too idealistic a society though - people are, for the most part, extremely greedy.
And for the second bit - that's the thing in my system. As I said.. from a time when services and good were worth something.
Being in a trade would make them valuable, as well as assist the society around them.
I don't think things like cancer research in modern society should need to be paid for at all - simply done for the greater good.
Socialism and Communism are great systems in theory - but in practice terrible because of human nature.
The intelligence comment was mostly because I'm finding more and more that we, as a western society (US, Canada, Britain etc) are not putting so much value on individual intelligence but rather simply as working sheep. And people are unfortunately content with this.
Money has lost it's value - it stemmed from originally a beadmaker would trade beads for goods, a farmer would trade in food.
They created the original system of coinage/ gold as a standard of worth so that each trade would become exactly fair, things would have a set worth.
Then inflation occurred - people decided that things should cost more, more money was created out of nowhere. And so it's worth was fractioned.
What has happened over all this time is, as you said.. money is worthless now - it's become an invisible number hanging over all of our heads. We work jobs for an allowance, we are slaves to our wages.
They would work each day for survival, and they would all need to work together to ensure that they had everything they needed, selfishness in any member would be the fall of the group.
As in my ideal world - their greatest reward is that they benefited their group, and worked towards a more stable, happy mini-society.
Doesn't the fact that the country is continually paying for things they cant actually afford proof of the non-existence or worthlessness of money?
I am strongly opposed to capitalism and the so-called "free" market.
It benefits the strong and crushes the weak.
Fair trade, not "free". Equal worth and rights to ALL people, regardless of personal wealth.
Free trade is equal rights, "fair trade" imposes coersion and violates rights.
Guy A can sell his hot dogs for $1 and still manage a survivable profit. This is because he happend to get a good corner where he can move enough product to maintain that low price.Care to explain?
Btw to me equal rights require equal opportunities to exercise them, or else the concept is simply emotional empty rhetoric. Capitalist systems are highly dependent on initial conditions which restricts access and therefore the equality of opportunites. The words "free" and "rights" in the political sense should not be confused with what they mean in an economic sense. A free market is one that everyone with enough resources has the right to enter.
Care to explain?
Btw to me equal rights require equal opportunities to exercise them, or else the concept is simply emotional empty rhetoric. Capitalist systems are highly dependent on initial conditions which restricts access and therefore the equality of opportunites. The words "free" and "rights" in the political sense should not be confused with what they mean in an economic sense. A free market is one that everyone with enough resources has the right to enter.
Guy A can sell his hot dogs for $1 and still manage a survivable profit. This is because he happend to get a good corner where he can move enough product to maintain that low price.
Guy B has to sell his for $2 because he has an inferior location and doesn't move as much product if he wanted to work the same hours as Guy A. But noone will pay $2 for a hot dog. So Guy B has sell his hot dogs for $1, work weekends and has to drive a used car and live in a smaller apartment.
Free trade is these two are free to do business as they like. If Guy B doesn't like his situation, its up to him figure out how to change it. If Guy A voluntarily decides to help out Guy B, then he's free to do that also. Its called freedom and liberty to own yourself and your property.
Fair trade is Guy B and this majority of friends decides this is unfair. They pass a law so they get to tax Guy A to subsidise Guy B so its then fair. If Guy A refuses, Guy B's friends will come with guns to haul Guy A off to jail and destroy Guy A's business. This is called slavery. Thats why Guy A needs to keep a 12 gauge in his cart and to be free to educate all the other hot dog sales men and hot dog consumers to whats going on.
Fair trade is fine and probably even a good thing until it imposes limits on free exchange.
A free market is simply a market without restrictions.
A free market is simply a market without restrictions, much like free speech is speech without restrictions.
Fair Trade is a consumer driven movement that uses existing markets to sell its products which are a) the commidity itself and b) the sense of satisfaction the a consumer gets from buying the product. If this is restricting any business it is because of consumer demand, I am not aware of any legislation that actively restricts non-Fair Trade products in favour of Fair Trade products.
Such markets cannot exist.
Unscrupulous greed indeed destroys whatever freedom a market has.
A greedy politician, seeing the gains to be made by favouring one member of the market (and himself, of course) at the expense of others, will want to create as many restrictions to free enterprise and free trade as he can.
I suggest you learn about the Robber Barrons. Their unscrupulous greed destroyed competition. Free trade leads to monopoly which is the antithesis of free trade.Do you have any examples of this?
I suggest you learn about the Robber Barrons. Their unscrupulous greed destroyed competition. Free trade leads to monopoly which is the antithesis of free trade.
It was more than just the railroad industry that produced robber barons.You mean the 18th century railroad monopolies that were given by the government?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?