Ask a Philosophy Guy!

Big Mike

Re: me saying "Indeed, I would say that capitalism is the natural economic state of man before there is intervention by the state."

trigs;368575 wroteproof or evidence? or is this just an opinion? obviously, as i mentioned, i disagree.

I would like to hear what you think the natural state of man before the State would be called, economically.

My evidence or opinion or whatever, which also speaks to why profit is not immoral:

Because to improve ourselves via trade has always been a part of what humans do. Was there always a wage labor system or money (as we have it today) available? No, of course not.

But humans have always traded (or bartered or whatever). Whenever people trade, they do so in their own self-interest. If a person did not consider themselves better off after making a trade, why would they do so at all? If they are trading property that they have ownership to (personal/private) then how is this not the roots of capitalism? Over time, some people who were more skilled at trading would accumulate more wealth (perhaps larger herds or better quality stock, or simply more skills with which to do more trading), while others would have less and would perhaps make the trade of their labor (as shepherds for example) in exchange for food/shelter.

Note that some people (within families or tribes or whatever) might not have operated this way in the strictest sense. But when they came in contact with other groups, they surely did.

Big Mike

On the morality of profit:

Let us think of an imaginary society, consisting of 10,000 citizens. For illustration purposes, these persons have $100 in savings. All their expenses and income otherwise cancel out, they run a balanced budget.

Now suppose that one of the citizens has an idea. He takes some of his savings and purchases a whittling knife and a saw. He takes another portion of his savings and purchases a large log. He then begins to fashion small sculptures from the wood. Over time he becomes very skilled. He purchases more large logs and begins to produce many sculptures.

He puts them up for sale at $1 each. They are so good that eventually everyone in the society has bought one. The sculptor now has $9,999 he did not previously have. This, less expenses, is his profit. Everyone else has one dollar less in their account, but instead has an item that they value at more than one dollar (or equal to). So they have profited too.

This story, where everyone is happy with the outcome, does not prove profit is moral. But unless you can show me something immoral that occurred, it does prove that profit is not immoral.
People can do immoral things to earn profit, but it's the actions that are immoral - not the profit itself.

trigs

Big Mike;368585 wroteOn the morality of profit:

Let us think of an imaginary society, consisting of 10,000 citizens. For illustration purposes, these persons have $100 in savings. All their expenses and income otherwise cancel out, they run a balanced budget.

Now suppose that one of the citizens has an idea. He takes some of his savings and purchases a whittling knife and a saw. He takes another portion of his savings and purchases a large log. He then begins to fashion small sculptures from the wood. Over time he becomes very skilled. He purchases more large logs and begins to produce many sculptures.

He puts them up for sale at $1 each. They are so good that eventually everyone in the society has bought one. The sculptor now has $9,999 he did not previously have. This, less expenses, is his profit. Everyone else has one dollar less in their account, but instead has an item that they value at more than one dollar (or equal to). So they have profited too.

This story, where everyone is happy with the outcome, does not prove profit is moral. But unless you can show me something immoral that occurred, it does prove that profit is not immoral.
People can do immoral things to earn profit, but it's the actions that are immoral - not the profit itself.

i have to show that this specific example is immoral? why? i never said that every transaction within capitalism is immoral. obviously we can think of examples like this. on the other hand, i've already came up with an example in this regard. i mentioned the polluting by manufacturing. insert every company that is polluting the environment as we speak in order to make profit.

trigs

i really think we're just arguing in circles here. i will try to put my whole argument in very basic premises just so you can see it in its entirety. maybe that will help. i might not get to it today though.

btw, this is awesome Big Mike. thanks a lot for caring and participating this much. you too Milo.

EDIT: i think i may have just come up with a great idea and a different perspective for this argument. i'll try to get it posted soon.

Big Mike

trigs;368587 wrotei have to show that this specific example is immoral? why? i never said that every transaction within capitalism is immoral. obviously we can think of examples like this. on the other hand, i've already came up with an example in this regard. i mentioned the polluting by manufacturing. insert every company that is polluting the environment as we speak in order to make profit.

You certainly do not have to show that this specific example is immoral (indeed, I don't think it's possible without a serious redefinition of morality).

But Profit (and Loss) is a key component of capitalism, perhaps the most important one. In previous posts you have said or strongly implied that profit is immoral. My example given was to show that that premise is flawed.

You can cite come up with every example in the world, but they are all of immoral actions, and do not logically prove that profit is immoral.
You can show me a thousand chickens to try and prove all birds are chickens, but I need only show one robin to prove it untrue. (I wanted to use an A=B kind of thing there but I never took Logic so I couldn't. I assume you did take Logic at some point so you understand me completely)

If profit itself is not immoral, then where does capitalism begin to become immoral?

trigs

okay, same debate but from a different perspective:

Why capitalism is evil according to the three big ethical theories:

First, Kant’s categorical imperative (2nd formulation) states that it is immoral for someone to use someone else merely as a means to an end (mostly because it violates one’s autonomy). Capitalism necessarily uses everyone and everything as a means to an end since they use everything to solely gain profit.

Second, Aristotle’s virtue ethics argues that we must be making decisions that produce, provide and espouse the most and best possible virtues. Capitalism only encourages the accumulation of wealth to the extreme and this violates the principle of moderation. Furthermore, capitalism wasn’t created for human happiness; it was created for economic growth only. The fact that its end goal is not for human happiness violates the necessary end-goal of virtue ethics.

Third, consequentialism argues for producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people as far as the consequences are concerned. Capitalism encourages an unsustainable growth rate, actually an infinite growth rate which is obviously an impossible consequence to expect. Capitalism also works to benefit the few and actually decreases the happiness for the majority in that it is only promoting the profit (for those who own the means of production) while the proletariat continues to receive wages that decrease and cannot adequately sustain them (see the argument that the worker can’t afford to buy the items they make/sell). Finally, capitalism sees human behaviour only under the terms of punishment and reward. A society built on this type of human behaviour model is just more likely to continue increasing unhappiness as we surround ourselves in a social atmosphere that creates these ideals.

So, as we can see, capitalism is definitely immoral in regard to the big 3 ethical theories. (Wow that was a lot easier and a lot better perspective to make my point. I should have stuck to the philosophy to begin with lol).

Big Mike

trigs;368588 wrotei really think we're just arguing in circles here. i will try to put my whole argument in very basic premises just so you can see it in its entirety. maybe that will help. i might not get to it today though.

Circles? Maybe. I will put my argument as basic a form as I can too. Skip ahead to the next quote if you want to formulate your argument independently of responding to mine:
........

Initiating violence or the threat of violence is wrong (immoral).

Capitalism does not require this in order to exist. All other economic systems do. Therefore capitalism is the most moral while other systems are (to varying degrees) immoral.

Individuals or corporations can do other immoral things within any economic system. The profit/loss system of capitalism provides the best framework to minimize these actions.

.....

btw, this is awesome Big Mike. thanks a lot for caring and participating this much. you too Milo

.

You are welcome, it is my pleasure. Thanks very much also.

EDIT: i think i may have just come up with a great idea and a different perspective for this argument. i'll try to get it posted soon.

Looking forward to it!

Milo

trigs;368594 wrote
Why capitalism is evil according to the three big ethical theories:

First, Kant’s categorical imperative (2nd formulation) states that it is immoral for someone to use someone else merely as a means to an end (mostly because it violates one’s autonomy). Capitalism necessarily uses everyone and everything as a means to an end since they use everything to solely gain profit.

Exploitation of the workers? Well, if they have agreed to work for the wages on offer, they are no longer being exploited are they? Rather they have entered into a mutually beneficial contract. The Employer gets labour, and the employees earn income. should they ever feel they are no longer being compensated adequately, they can quit (or renegotiate).

Second, Aristotle’s virtue ethics argues that we must be making decisions that produce, provide and espouse the most and best possible virtues. Capitalism only encourages the accumulation of wealth to the extreme and this violates the principle of moderation. Furthermore, capitalism wasn’t created for human happiness; it was created for economic growth only. The fact that its end goal is not for human happiness violates the necessary end-goal of virtue ethics.

Capitalists who develop AIDS medications make profits, and I am reasonably certain those who take them are happier for it. The incentive of "accumulation" is not necessarily a negative. As Gordon Gecko said . . . "Greed, for lack of a better term . . . is good."

Third, consequentialism argues for producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people as far as the consequences are concerned. Capitalism encourages an unsustainable growth rate, actually an infinite growth rate which is obviously an impossible consequence to expect. Capitalism also works to benefit the few and actually decreases the happiness for the majority in that it is only promoting the profit (for those who own the means of production) while the proletariat continues to receive wages that decrease and cannot adequately sustain them (see the argument that the worker can’t afford to buy the items they make/sell). Finally, capitalism sees human behaviour only under the terms of punishment and reward. A society built on this type of human behaviour model is just more likely to continue increasing unhappiness as we surround ourselves in a social atmosphere that creates these ideals.

But the proletariat, through investment of their wages, can acquire sufficient ownership shares of those means of production to live quite comfortable and happy lives.

So, as we can see, capitalism is definitely immoral in regard to the big 3 ethical theories. (Wow that was a lot easier and a lot better perspective to make my point. I should have stuck to the philosophy to begin with lol).

Sorry, but give me von Mises over Aristotle.

Big Mike

How did I miss that trigs posted that whole long post yesterday?
Sorry! I will respond later tonight.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Big Mike

trigs;368594 wroteokay, same debate but from a different perspective:

Why capitalism is evil according to the three big ethical theories:

First, Kant’s categorical imperative (2nd formulation) states that it is immoral for someone to use someone else merely as a means to an end (mostly because it violates one’s autonomy). Capitalism necessarily uses everyone and everything as a means to an end since they use everything to solely gain profit.

I guess that for this one I have to plead some kind of ignorance because I don't see how this violates someone's autonomy as long as they have free choice. If McDonald's is using Shaun the cashier only to make profit by making money (as it did in '93-96), how is my autonomy violated? And am I not using McDonald's only as a means to an end (to profit - get money and job experience?) The customer is using me and McDonald's only as a means to an end (to profit -get food)? So we're all evil? Is Kant's point that restaurants are evil? What?!?

trigs;368594 wrote Second, Aristotle’s virtue ethics argues that we must be making decisions that produce, provide and espouse the most and best possible virtues. Capitalism only encourages the accumulation of wealth to the extreme and this violates the principle of moderation. Furthermore, capitalism wasn’t created for human happiness; it was created for economic growth only. The fact that its end goal is not for human happiness violates the necessary end-goal of virtue ethics.

Ok, so if capitalism was created, who created it?
Capitalism doesn't encourage anything. It allows people to accumulate wealth in the extreme. It also allows people to accumulate wealth and give it away. Or to never accumulate wealth, but spend it all as they earn it. Perhaps at McDonald's.
And how does this person/corporation go about amassing all this wealth? By making people happy. Not necessarily in the smiliing/ laughing sense, but by meeting their needs and making them better off than they were previously - as they see it.
I don't know if you've got kids, but I do. We went to McDonald's yesterday. My kids were happy about it. I wasn't as 'happy', but nevertheless I exchanged $20 for the food. If I didn't think I would be better off after having done so, I wouldn't have made that trade. That is the very essence of capitalism. Capitalism allows individuals to make the choices about what makes them happy or not. The worker who served me the food didn't seem particularly happy. But she was happier (or realized that she would be so) than if she just didn't show up to work and got fired/ quit.
The day that McDonald's stops making enough people happy, they will go out of business. How could they know just when that day comes? The day profits become losses, that's when. Again for emphasis: Profits come when a person or company makes someone happy/meets their needs/pleases them. Losses come when they don't.

trigs;368594 wrote Third, consequentialism argues for producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people as far as the consequences are concerned. Capitalism encourages an unsustainable growth rate, actually an infinite growth rate which is obviously an impossible consequence to expect. Capitalism also works to benefit the few and actually decreases the happiness for the majority in that it is only promoting the profit (for those who own the means of production) while the proletariat continues to receive wages that decrease and cannot adequately sustain them (see the argument that the worker can’t afford to buy the items they make/sell).

What do you mean by infinite growth rate? I think you are in error here but I need to know exactly what you mean by that statement. Ever expanding progress is not impossible, because wealth is not finite but can be created; I'm not sure that's what you mean.

Capitalism does not benefit just the few, it benefits all. Doesn't the McDonald's employee benefit by having a job? I sure thought so when I was a teenager. Did I make as much money as the CEO (or did we both make an equal salary, which I somehow think you feel would be more moral)? No, of course not. He (she?) had far more skills that he could put to use to make people happy than I could. He could do my job (probably did at one point) but I could not do his (still can't). This means his skills are in much higher demand relative to supply and as a result he got paid a lot, lot, more.

The proletariat (can I just say that I love that we're having a conversation that can include the word proletariat) does indeed receive wages that decrease, but this is the fault of inflation, not of capitalism. (If you think inflation is caused by capitalism - it's not. I can explain why if you'd like later on.)

trigs;368594 wrote Finally, capitalism sees human behaviour only under the terms of punishment and reward. A society built on this type of human behaviour model is just more likely to continue increasing unhappiness as we surround ourselves in a social atmosphere that creates these ideals.

Profit and loss isn't exactly reward and punishment (because not getting a reward isn't the same as getting punished). I guess I don't have much of a response to this except to say that we're not increasing in unhappiness (if we even are?) because of capitalism. Even if we were in a fully capitalist system, correlation is not causation.

trigs;368594 wrote So, as we can see, capitalism is definitely immoral in regard to the big 3 ethical theories. (Wow that was a lot easier and a lot better perspective to make my point. I should have stuck to the philosophy to begin with lol).

Well, now I see why you think it's immoral, so you've accomplished that much.

Big Mike

Milo;368666 wroteSorry, but give me von Mises over Aristotle.

I'd like to add that Milo has given some good answers here as well that I mostly agree with.

trigs

thanks for the responses milo and big mike! i'm not sure when (or if) i will respond though. i just received some really bad news about work. i'm being moved to another location in the next few weeks. i'll have a lot of crap to finish up here first and when i move i don't know if they'll have wifi (i'm hoping they at least have an internet connection ffs). i may not be frequenting this forum a lot for the next while. fuck i'm so depressed about leaving my school :( the staff is great. i'm going to miss some of them so much :(

The Prophet 22

trigs;368719 wrotethanks for the responses milo and big mike! i'm not sure when (or if) i will respond though. i just received some really bad news about work. i'm being moved to another location in the next few weeks. i'll have a lot of crap to finish up here first and when i move i don't know if they'll have wifi (i'm hoping they at least have an internet connection ffs). i may not be frequenting this forum a lot for the next while. fuck i'm so depressed about leaving my school :( the staff is great. i'm going to miss some of them so much :(

Probably too much time on a "gambling" site ^-^

I will miss our conversations.

Milo

trigs;368719 wrotethanks for the responses milo and big mike! i'm not sure when (or if) i will respond though. i just received some really bad news about work. i'm being moved to another location in the next few weeks. i'll have a lot of crap to finish up here first and when i move i don't know if they'll have wifi (i'm hoping they at least have an internet connection ffs). i may not be frequenting this forum a lot for the next while. fuck i'm so depressed about leaving my school :( the staff is great. i'm going to miss some of them so much :(

Best of luck in your new location . . . and don't worry about being "gone". We'll still be talking about the same crap when you get back . . .

The Prophet 22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgM59p6od68

I guess I will ask the question, does man have the right to control other animals. The above clip is about a documentary called BLACKFISH. It was gripping tale of the whale industry from capture to millions of dollars at the gate and a breeding program set up by Sea World.

Two things that caught my eye in this film. First, the torment and grief a mother orca goes through when her baby calf is taken from her. The cries and screams she lets out. And you see this twice. Two, the whale kills a trainer more than once and Sea World goes to great lengths and expense to protect the animal. And yet if a dog kills someone, he is automatically put down because he has the taste of blood is his brain and there is fear he will do it again. (The above whale has been involved in 3 deaths)

Don't get me wrong, I love Marine Land. Have been there several times. I think it is important for children to learn and I have no problem even being entertained by animals.

I understand you play with animals that big things are going to happen. But taking the baby from its mother was really a disturbing scene to watch. Does man have the right to control other animals? And if so, should they have better facilities to live in than the small quarters they currently have? And maybe talk about the dangers of keeping the species in captivity.

trigs

had a little time today...

Exploitation of the workers? Well, if they have agreed to work for the wages on offer, they are no longer being exploited are they? Rather they have entered into a mutually beneficial contract. The Employer gets labour, and the employees earn income. should they ever feel they are no longer being compensated adequately, they can quit (or renegotiate).

This is one of the horrible things capitalist think. They think it is that easy for someone to just quit their job and find another one. Furthermore, the amount of income they make is not always adequate for proper standards of living. This can be seen especially when big business outsource their manufacturing to developing countries (and pay like a dollar per day wages). And even furthermore, this problem is made even worse when the business pulls out of the country leaving everyone unemployed because the business found an even cheaper country to produce products in. This happens all the time (again it is even made even more worse!! when you consider the tax breaks that countries give to the businesses to persuade them into coming into their country – i’m not getting into this though, but Naomi Klein explains it well in no logo if you’re interested).
The point is the worker doesn’t have the power to simply quit or renegotiate. If they disagree, they’re fired and the next desperate worker fills his place.

Capitalists who develop AIDS medications make profits, and I am reasonably certain those who take them are happier for it. The incentive of "accumulation" is not necessarily a negative. As Gordon Gecko said . . . "Greed, for lack of a better term . . . is good."

AIDS medications are helpful, fine. What about all the other crazy meds that are being created and pushed upon us year after year. Mental disorders have skyrocketed in the last decade or two, and it’s not necessarily because we’re all going crazy. It’s because the psychiatric profession redefined a ton of mental conditions, and changed which ones require meds. Years ago, if you had an issue you’d have to talk about it with someone. Nowadays, you have an issue, pop a pill. Medical companies are rolling ass-back in the money now and it sure is not “good” for the people of society.

But the proletariat, through investment of their wages, can acquire sufficient ownership shares of those means of production to live quite comfortable and happy lives.

Can they? Do they? Considering the numbers of people who live under the poverty line, I’d disagree with you on this one (for example, 20% of Americans (i.e. the richest country in the world) lives under the poverty line. Now consider the rest of the planet). I’m not saying it’s impossible to acquire wealth, but it’s way more difficult that people think (especially when one has a family to support as well).

Sorry, but give me von Mises over Aristotle.

I’ll think about it ;)

Big Mike

trigs;368996 wrote
This is one of the horrible things capitalist think. They think it is that easy for someone to just quit their job and find another one. Furthermore, the amount of income they make is not always adequate for proper standards of living. This can be seen especially when big business outsource their manufacturing to developing countries (and pay like a dollar per day wages).
....
The point is the worker doesn’t have the power to simply quit or renegotiate. If they disagree, they’re fired and the next desperate worker fills his place.

The horrible thing that non-capitalists think is that people would rather have no job than a poor paying job. Why would people work for a dollar a day wage if that wasn't better than what they had before?
If capitalism didn't allow companies to open factories in low-wage countries, those workers would be even poorer, and the rich american worker would be even richer. That seems wrong somehow, no?

trigs;368996 wrote Can they? Do they? Considering the numbers of people who live under the poverty line, I’d disagree with you on this one (for example, 20% of Americans (i.e. the richest country in the world) lives under the poverty line. Now consider the rest of the planet). I’m not saying it’s impossible to acquire wealth, but it’s way more difficult that people think (especially when one has a family to support as well).

I’ll think about it ;)

The "poverty line" in America is at a living standard so far above what the poor people in the rest of the world live at it's almost a joke. It's a completely subjective measure. The government could redefine it tomorrow and have 50% of the people below the poverty line if they wanted to.
And the poor person in America might have a very difficult time becoming wealthy, sure. But not even close to as hard a time as a person in a truly poor country. Why is this? Because America has historically been capitalist.
Think about it - would you rather be poor in America, or upper middle-class in Haiti?

trigs

Big Mike;369007 wroteThe horrible thing that non-capitalists think is that people would rather have no job than a poor paying job. Why would people work for a dollar a day wage if that wasn't better than what they had before?

i already answered this. they have no choice in jobs. they must take what they can get. who said they'd rather have no job? i didn't.

If capitalism didn't allow companies to open factories in low-wage countries, those workers would be even poorer, and the rich american worker would be even richer. That seems wrong somehow, no?

again, you are not giving me facts. you are just saying that this is true. please read no logo and you will not have an issue with this problem anymore. this is one of the myths of capitalism btw. one of the bigs ones (along with the trickle down effect which literally does not happen!!)

The "poverty line" in America is at a living standard so far above what the poor people in the rest of the world live at it's almost a joke.

fact? quote? please? i don't think that's true.

It's a completely subjective measure. The government could redefine it tomorrow and have 50% of the people below the poverty line if they wanted to.

umm...well yes they could. not sure what that means though.

And the poor person in America might have a very difficult time becoming wealthy, sure. But not even close to as hard a time as a person in a truly poor country. Why is this? Because America has historically been capitalist.
Think about it - would you rather be poor in America, or upper middle-class in Haiti?

agreed that acquiring wealth is easier in a wealthy country. not sure how that disagrees with my opinion though.

trigs

this is probably last comments about the capitalism debate as we are just going in circles it seems. i don't mean any disrespect, but it kinds of seems that the comments that disagree with me are just saying i'm wrong but not offering examples or suggestions as to why i'm wrong. that's fine, and i'm not expecting you guys to do research or anything, but it's kind of forcing me to just repeat myself and i don't really want to do that. it also makes me sound like i'm an arrogant prick that just keeps saying the same thing and is like 'why the fuck don't you agree', and i don't want to do that either.

i think we may have to agree to disagree on this one, but that's obviously fine. the point of this thread is to discuss, and discuss we did! so i'm sorry if anyone feels like i didn't fully deliver on this one topic.

if anyone wants to write up why capitalism is great (i.e. distribution of wealth, trickle down effect, etc.) i'll most likely comment on it. however, i don't think that i will keep defending in this debate.

Big Mike;368696 wroteI guess that for this one I have to plead some kind of ignorance because I don't see how this violates someone's autonomy as long as they have free choice. If McDonald's is using Shaun the cashier only to make profit by making money (as it did in '93-96), how is my autonomy violated? And am I not using McDonald's only as a means to an end (to profit - get money and job experience?) The customer is using me and McDonald's only as a means to an end (to profit -get food)? So we're all evil? Is Kant's point that restaurants are evil? What?!?

autonomy is the ability for someone to act freely. when someone is used for a means to an end (as opposed to an end in themselves), you are violating one's autonomy. kant had a very complicated argument about why limiting one's freedom is morally wrong, but i'm assuming you don't want to hear all that. let's just say that using people for your own goals is immoral (not evil - there's a big difference!), and capitalism uses everything and everyone for their own goals (of profit). hence, kant would say they are acting immoral.

it's fine if you don't understand the argument or you disagree. however, it's clearly immoral according to his theory, that's all i'm saying here to be honest.

Ok, so if capitalism was created, who created it?

i don't know. i'm too lazy to work the google on the internet machine to check it out.

Capitalism doesn't encourage anything. It allows people to accumulate wealth in the extreme. It also allows people to accumulate wealth and give it away. Or to never accumulate wealth, but spend it all as they earn it.

please offer some suggestions here. i'm assuming this is just your opinion, but may i have some reasons/examples? capitalism does encourage many things. it doesn't just "allow" like you say. businesses must keep making money. stocks must keep going up. they can't just stay the same and everyone is happy. it encourages constant growth and wealth accumulation (hell, it demands it ffs). i really don't understand how you can just simply say it doesn't. again, some facts to back you up would be nice.

And how does this person/corporation go about amassing all this wealth? By making people happy. Not necessarily in the smiliing/ laughing sense, but by meeting their needs and making them better off than they were previously - as they see it.

again, some examples/facts?

no, they don't make money by making people happy. they make money by using people and manipulating people. in fact, they even slowly kill people (by pollution and cancer causing agents in manufacturing, etc.). maybe the average consumer buys things to make them happy, but the business doesn't give a shit why people buy things. pharmaceutical companies in fact hope you are unhappy (depression meds are friggin' huge right now). do you really think that people need to work for 40+ years or whatever it is so they can save up enough money to support themselves? hell no, they have to work that long so they can continue to participate in the conspicuous consumption of pointless products. are you suggesting that money = happiness? i'd obviously disagree with that one.

I don't know if you've got kids, but I do.

fuck no.

The day that McDonald's stops making enough people happy, they will go out of business.

this is exactly my point. no they won't. they'll just start selling something else or offering another service. the stock owners will still all be rich, and the cashier will still be making minimum wage (unless he gets a better education! which capitalism also makes very hard for him to do with privatized universities who are constantly increasing tuition fees every year for no other reason than to make money - see the rich/poor gap and how many who are smart enough still can't afford post secondary educations!).

What do you mean by infinite growth rate? I think you are in error here but I need to know exactly what you mean by that statement. Ever expanding progress is not impossible, because wealth is not finite but can be created; I'm not sure that's what you mean.

infinite growth is necessary in capitalism (there are capitalists that say it isn't, but there arguments seem to have huge holes in them from what i've read).

quickly googled and found a very simple explanation (although it obviously gets way more complicated than this). and no, you can't just "create wealth" if you mean printing more money. it doesn't work like that.

"Capitalism does require infinite growth because of one simple concept ... interest on loans. Because of interest, there will never be enough money to repay all loan debts in society. The only way to remedy this void is to increase the money supply. When the money supply is increased, more capital is available for loans, so more loans (and thus interest) is added to the equation. The only ends to this vicious cycle are to devalue currency (where smaller amounts of money have more value) or economic collapse. When you increase the money supply without regard to supply/demand for goods and services, that is a certain to be disaster."

Capitalism does not benefit just the few, it benefits all. Doesn't the McDonald's employee benefit by having a job?

this is the argument by capitalists, yes. i disagree and i stated why previously (and i'd rather not just repeat myself). please offer me a reason for your side as opposed to just a rhetorical question.

The proletariat (can I just say that I love that we're having a conversation that can include the word proletariat) does indeed receive wages that decrease, but this is the fault of inflation, not of capitalism. (If you think inflation is caused by capitalism - it's not. I can explain why if you'd like later on.)

inflation is the only reason why only lower paying job wages decrease? examples/facts to back that up? i already mentioned reasons as to why this is not the case.

Profit and loss isn't exactly reward and punishment (because not getting a reward isn't the same as getting punished). I guess I don't have much of a response to this except to say that we're not increasing in unhappiness (if we even are?) because of capitalism. Even if we were in a fully capitalist system, correlation is not causation.

again, you disagree but give no reasons. so i don't really have a response other than, i also disagree with you (as supported by previous examples that i will not repeat here).

rereading this before posting it and it really makes me sound like a huge asshole. sorry if i came off that way. not my intention. maybe it's just me, idk.

Milo

trigs;368996 wrotehad a little time today...

This is one of the horrible things capitalist think. They think it is that easy for someone to just quit their job and find another one. Furthermore, the amount of income they make is not always adequate for proper standards of living. This can be seen especially when big business outsource their manufacturing to developing countries (and pay like a dollar per day wages). And even furthermore, this problem is made even worse when the business pulls out of the country leaving everyone unemployed because the business found an even cheaper country to produce products in. This happens all the time (again it is even made even more worse!! when you consider the tax breaks that countries give to the businesses to persuade them into coming into their country – i’m not getting into this though, but Naomi Klein explains it well in no logo if you’re interested).
The point is the worker doesn’t have the power to simply quit or renegotiate. If they disagree, they’re fired and the next desperate worker fills his place.

I might still have a copy of NO LOGO around somewhere . . . typical socialist drivel. Klein is not even a very good writer . . .

AIDS medications are helpful, fine. What about all the other crazy meds that are being created and pushed upon us year after year. Mental disorders have skyrocketed in the last decade or two, and it’s not necessarily because we’re all going crazy. It’s because the psychiatric profession redefined a ton of mental conditions, and changed which ones require meds. Years ago, if you had an issue you’d have to talk about it with someone. Nowadays, you have an issue, pop a pill. Medical companies are rolling ass-back in the money now and it sure is not “good” for the people of society.

That is not the fault of "Capitalism". the fault, Horatio, is in ourselves. At least as far as your example is concerned. People like the quick fix, so it is a case of supply and demand.

Can they? Do they? Considering the numbers of people who live under the poverty line, I’d disagree with you on this one (for example, 20% of Americans (i.e. the richest country in the world) lives under the poverty line. Now consider the rest of the planet). I’m not saying it’s impossible to acquire wealth, but it’s way more difficult that people think (especially when one has a family to support as well).

I dislike terms like, "the poverty line" . . . who decides? I have seen some alleged "poor" people, with a better apparent lifestyle than I have. Lots of flat screens and cellies in the hands of people below that line, if you ask me.

I’ll think about it ;)

Oh good.

« Previous Page Next Page »