I like Brand; he is an intelligent person and I enjoy his expressive vocabulary. But, when it comes to these matters, he just looks a bit of a fool and is clearly out of his depth.
However, he has hit a nerve...people are asking themselves why they're voting because in many countries the choice of parties/politicians is an illusion.
However, he has hit a nerve...people are asking themselves why they're voting because in many countries the choice of parties/politicians is an illusion.
I saw this at the time and was left speechless. I knew straight away that his opinions will stir emotions among people who know little about anything.
I'd suggest to Russell to spend some of his personal fortune of £40 million to help the poor and the needy. Surely he doesn't need so much, right? and he talks about the disparity between rich and poor!!!?
He is a typical socialist twerp. He wants everyone to be forced to help the poor instead of acknowledging his own individual responsibility. Socialism is good for others, not for him. As I say, typical socialist.
He is dissing capitalism but his clothes are products of capitalism. I doubt he wears anything that is not produced by hard labour in the far east or the Indian subcontinent. If instead of talking against capitalism, he'd donate his wealth to the poor and the needy, he wouldn't need to pose as Stalin and promote wealth redistribution run by the state.
Apart from this, he is completely ignorant about economics, which is not a crime, but it is dangerous to say the least because most people listening are also ignorant.
I'd suggest to Russell to spend some of his personal fortune of £40 million to help the poor and the needy. Surely he doesn't need so much, right? and he talks about the disparity between rich and poor!!!?
He is a typical socialist twerp. He wants everyone to be forced to help the poor instead of acknowledging his own individual responsibility. Socialism is good for others, not for him. As I say, typical socialist.
He is dissing capitalism but his clothes are products of capitalism. I doubt he wears anything that is not produced by hard labour in the far east or the Indian subcontinent. If instead of talking against capitalism, he'd donate his wealth to the poor and the needy, he wouldn't need to pose as Stalin and promote wealth redistribution run by the state.
Apart from this, he is completely ignorant about economics, which is not a crime, but it is dangerous to say the least because most people listening are also ignorant.
well he didn't offer any actual suggestions but how bout:
- take money out of politics.. give them decent wages.. say 100 to 150k but not allow them to have ANY other source of income at all. This would make the biggest difference to modern day politics and people who get into it
- change elections so that people actually have to pass a test about the candidates before they are qualified to vote so that they don't just vote based on who had the best marketing campaign but actually based on real policies. Also the marketing campaign should also be based on the same budget for all parties coming from the state rather than private fundraisers
- keep track of policies and actions taken, maybe even have a check half way through the terms to see how much they have kept up to the policies and if not allow re-elections
basically politicians are the employees of the people of the country not the heads of the country, they have to pass an interview by people who have shown enough understanding to know the qualities of each representative and know which one fits best for their ideals and they have to paid by their bosses which should be the people not the corporations!
of course none of the above will happen because as george carlin would say "the owners of this country" wouldn't like it ("this country" can be uk or america.. i don't really follow politics of other countries but assuming most are the same or similar to different degrees)
- take money out of politics.. give them decent wages.. say 100 to 150k but not allow them to have ANY other source of income at all. This would make the biggest difference to modern day politics and people who get into it
- change elections so that people actually have to pass a test about the candidates before they are qualified to vote so that they don't just vote based on who had the best marketing campaign but actually based on real policies. Also the marketing campaign should also be based on the same budget for all parties coming from the state rather than private fundraisers
- keep track of policies and actions taken, maybe even have a check half way through the terms to see how much they have kept up to the policies and if not allow re-elections
basically politicians are the employees of the people of the country not the heads of the country, they have to pass an interview by people who have shown enough understanding to know the qualities of each representative and know which one fits best for their ideals and they have to paid by their bosses which should be the people not the corporations!
of course none of the above will happen because as george carlin would say "the owners of this country" wouldn't like it ("this country" can be uk or america.. i don't really follow politics of other countries but assuming most are the same or similar to different degrees)
Greed knows no limits. Austrian members of parliament are paid more than anywhere else, yet are equally corrupt.
It doesn't work like that though and it can't. Where do you set the limits for being informed? How do you define it? About all candidates informed? Seriously..
Those sites exist. factcheck or this one
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
It doesn't work like that though and it can't. Where do you set the limits for being informed? How do you define it? About all candidates informed? Seriously..
Those sites exist. factcheck or this one
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
I don't know much about austrian parliament but are they allowed to have other sources of income? if they are not allowed what happens if it's found out that they did receive other money? for me that should be a criminal offense to be a politician and receive money from other sources!
well let's say each party has to have 5 main policies and the voters should know which policies belong to which parties? I'm not going to spend any more time thinking about how to implement something that's never going to happen but something along those lines! (I know this is stretching it even further but in an ideal world they should also have some sort of IQ test to make sure they are intelligent enough to know what's good for them... that would rule out the tea baggers voting against their own interests - but yeah I know it's not like we can have a truely objective IQ test to begin with and that just opens up a whole other minefield!)
I know they exist but they don't have any consequences! and don't tell me people will know and won't vote again for the same person because we have no way of making sure the voters are informed, plus 4 years is a long time to go on going against everything that got you elected and they should be able to call for a re-election half way through if not conforming with their own election promises!
btw you didn't make any comments about campaign funds coming out of public money rather than private fundraisers? I think that's quite a big one and probably the most achievable one on the list!
well let's say each party has to have 5 main policies and the voters should know which policies belong to which parties? I'm not going to spend any more time thinking about how to implement something that's never going to happen but something along those lines! (I know this is stretching it even further but in an ideal world they should also have some sort of IQ test to make sure they are intelligent enough to know what's good for them... that would rule out the tea baggers voting against their own interests - but yeah I know it's not like we can have a truely objective IQ test to begin with and that just opens up a whole other minefield!)
I know they exist but they don't have any consequences! and don't tell me people will know and won't vote again for the same person because we have no way of making sure the voters are informed, plus 4 years is a long time to go on going against everything that got you elected and they should be able to call for a re-election half way through if not conforming with their own election promises!
btw you didn't make any comments about campaign funds coming out of public money rather than private fundraisers? I think that's quite a big one and probably the most achievable one on the list!
It's not about money...but power. One of the most important and true statements in history: power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You give someone that kind of power and it doesn't matter if they even make $300,000. That power has the opportunity to create wealth multiple times that. This is the argument of the free market people.
If people are going to try to be as wealthy as possible; let's at least make it so that they can't fix the rules.
You give someone that kind of power and it doesn't matter if they even make $300,000. That power has the opportunity to create wealth multiple times that. This is the argument of the free market people.
If people are going to try to be as wealthy as possible; let's at least make it so that they can't fix the rules.
I like capitalism as much as the next guy Behrooz jaan and Russell should stick to comedy, but he does have a point about income disparity being a serious issue at this point. The guy who's working two jobs at McDonalds just to pay his rent is not poor by choice and he's not certainly not any less of a hard worker than an executive making 1000 times his salary - in fact he's most likely working much harder. And yes, in the capitalist model there are lots of examples of people who went from rags to riches, but for every one of those there are 999 that didn't and won't.
Income disparity has been at the core of almost every revolution and conflict in human history, including our own revolution in 79. The reason western democracies have succeeded until this point hasn't been just the fact that they took power away from one man and distributed it to society as a whole. The more important reason has been that they took elitist wealth and redistributed in society. When that equation fails, conflict becomes the natural progression as the Great Depression and WWII showed. Communism collapsed for the same reason and if we stay on this path, the very fabric of every western democracy will be torn apart.
Greece, the birthplace of democracy, is a perfect example of this phenomenon at work, where income disparity and economic upheaval has taken a political party like the Golden Dawn from zero to hero for some. And since Greece was/is one of the most socialist countries in Europe, this is not a question of capitalism versus socialism, rather a question of elitism versus pluralism - aristocracy versus real democracy - a real democracy where not only your vote is equal to everyone else, but your opportunity to reap the benefits of that system is equal to everyone else.
Income disparity has been at the core of almost every revolution and conflict in human history, including our own revolution in 79. The reason western democracies have succeeded until this point hasn't been just the fact that they took power away from one man and distributed it to society as a whole. The more important reason has been that they took elitist wealth and redistributed in society. When that equation fails, conflict becomes the natural progression as the Great Depression and WWII showed. Communism collapsed for the same reason and if we stay on this path, the very fabric of every western democracy will be torn apart.
Greece, the birthplace of democracy, is a perfect example of this phenomenon at work, where income disparity and economic upheaval has taken a political party like the Golden Dawn from zero to hero for some. And since Greece was/is one of the most socialist countries in Europe, this is not a question of capitalism versus socialism, rather a question of elitism versus pluralism - aristocracy versus real democracy - a real democracy where not only your vote is equal to everyone else, but your opportunity to reap the benefits of that system is equal to everyone else.
Behrou jan, I agree about the disparity in wealth but firstly let me say that Brand should be the last person to whine about it given his own fortune.
Second, what is your solution? I find something very disgusting about wealth redistribution. Who is going to decide who has how much and what is enough to have? Who is going to decide which people should give up their wealth? and will they look at how the wealth was accumulated? What if it was all legitimate? In my view, no one, certainly not the state, should have the right to take what someone else has, no matter how noble the reason might be. To do so is fascism of Stalinistic proportions.
A different solution must be found to all of these problems other than forcefully and arbitrarily taking from some to redistribute to others.
Regarding real democracy, if you do not have freedom of economic activity, you can not possibly claim to have real democracy.
Second, what is your solution? I find something very disgusting about wealth redistribution. Who is going to decide who has how much and what is enough to have? Who is going to decide which people should give up their wealth? and will they look at how the wealth was accumulated? What if it was all legitimate? In my view, no one, certainly not the state, should have the right to take what someone else has, no matter how noble the reason might be. To do so is fascism of Stalinistic proportions.
A different solution must be found to all of these problems other than forcefully and arbitrarily taking from some to redistribute to others.
Regarding real democracy, if you do not have freedom of economic activity, you can not possibly claim to have real democracy.
The rich at least the super rich haven't become poorer because they are paying higher percentage of their income in taxes. What I see happening is a lot of rich people using the excuse that they are paying more to buy more influence in government and tweak the rules in their own favor so that they can really reap the rewards where it matters the most. In other words, paying taxes has become another form of investment for themselves as opposed to larger society. That's why the idea of a flat tax has always kind of appealed to me. But even then, they will probably still pay the largest chunk of the revenues. But it's still better because at least you remove one argument as to why a rich person should have a bigger voice in decision making than a poor person.
Well, wealth distribution and income disparity are two separate things - he specifically talks about income disparity not wealth distribution and income disparity is a much easier issue to resolve than redistributing wealth IMHO.
The guy who works two jobs at McDonalds just to pay his rent is being subsidized by every US citizen through the food stamp program. In essence every tax paying US citizen is subsidizing McDonald's workforce instead of McDonalds paying fair wages to its own work force. US federal minimum wage, adjusted for inflation has actually fallen nearly 30% since the late 60's and as much as 45% back in 2008! Not surprisingly, the 60's were one of the most prosperous decades in US history, not just economically, but also technologically and more importantly socially.
In other words, the burden of supporting that large percentage of the population below the median income has shifted from the corporations (where it should be) to the citizens. The risks of not running a successful business model in a free market economy has also shifted from other corporations, banks to car manufacturers, to the citizens to the point where a German citizen is now subsidizing the bad business practices of a Greek bank. And if and when these corporations fail, when their workforce is slashed but their executives are still raking in large bonuses, guess who's paying for unemployment for those workers? When Starbucks or Google enjoy ridiculously low tax margins, while they rake in record profits, guess who's paying for that tax shortfall?
The guy who works two jobs at McDonalds just to pay his rent is being subsidized by every US citizen through the food stamp program. In essence every tax paying US citizen is subsidizing McDonald's workforce instead of McDonalds paying fair wages to its own work force. US federal minimum wage, adjusted for inflation has actually fallen nearly 30% since the late 60's and as much as 45% back in 2008! Not surprisingly, the 60's were one of the most prosperous decades in US history, not just economically, but also technologically and more importantly socially.
In other words, the burden of supporting that large percentage of the population below the median income has shifted from the corporations (where it should be) to the citizens. The risks of not running a successful business model in a free market economy has also shifted from other corporations, banks to car manufacturers, to the citizens to the point where a German citizen is now subsidizing the bad business practices of a Greek bank. And if and when these corporations fail, when their workforce is slashed but their executives are still raking in large bonuses, guess who's paying for unemployment for those workers? When Starbucks or Google enjoy ridiculously low tax margins, while they rake in record profits, guess who's paying for that tax shortfall?
Last edited:
All that is true but I think the bottom paragraph is why there is some confusion. That there are elites trying to fix the game is a given. But where capitalism's role comes in this is different.
The reality is there are limited resources in this world. As a human race, we are trying to figure out the best way to use our resources - by becoming efficient and intelligent; improving our technological skills. And the most efficient system, with the least waste and hurt is capitalism at the present time.
However, this causes a strain because the world moves that much faster these days and the competition is that much more intense. It's akin to the difference of a single male working in the 1950s and feeding his family; to the present where both spouses may need to work to secure the same safe and content lifestyle.
And we as a society have to decide how much and how fast we want to consume and to keep evolving at this level. Inevitably, it means the people who can't adjust quick enough will have a tough time. On the other hand, this pressure is the incentive for people to strive for improvement.
This isn't a failure of capitalism; this is it's actual aim. To award this efficiency and improvement; to put the resources in the hands of the most able who only get there through a proper demonstration - and not political talking points. So for me the broader interest is; if we're going to have this kind of system; then let's have the best one: capitalism and not some hybrid nonsense people in power concoct to fix things in their favour. If we're running a race; then let it be a fair race.
Inevitably, though, it leads one to the question if such system is what is really desired. Are we happier now with our iPhones or were we content enough in years past? This is an impossible question to answer. I remember reading a book called "Ishmael" that my uncle gave me. It's actually a pretty well known book and it's central theme is eye-opening to say the least. It addresses the very question I've just talked about in a wonderful story. I encourage people to read it - you could probably download the ebook or pdf somewhere. I will just say, if it seems a bit boring...persist. The realisation you get from the book is not something you will shake in your lifetime.
The reality is there are limited resources in this world. As a human race, we are trying to figure out the best way to use our resources - by becoming efficient and intelligent; improving our technological skills. And the most efficient system, with the least waste and hurt is capitalism at the present time.
However, this causes a strain because the world moves that much faster these days and the competition is that much more intense. It's akin to the difference of a single male working in the 1950s and feeding his family; to the present where both spouses may need to work to secure the same safe and content lifestyle.
And we as a society have to decide how much and how fast we want to consume and to keep evolving at this level. Inevitably, it means the people who can't adjust quick enough will have a tough time. On the other hand, this pressure is the incentive for people to strive for improvement.
This isn't a failure of capitalism; this is it's actual aim. To award this efficiency and improvement; to put the resources in the hands of the most able who only get there through a proper demonstration - and not political talking points. So for me the broader interest is; if we're going to have this kind of system; then let's have the best one: capitalism and not some hybrid nonsense people in power concoct to fix things in their favour. If we're running a race; then let it be a fair race.
Inevitably, though, it leads one to the question if such system is what is really desired. Are we happier now with our iPhones or were we content enough in years past? This is an impossible question to answer. I remember reading a book called "Ishmael" that my uncle gave me. It's actually a pretty well known book and it's central theme is eye-opening to say the least. It addresses the very question I've just talked about in a wonderful story. I encourage people to read it - you could probably download the ebook or pdf somewhere. I will just say, if it seems a bit boring...persist. The realisation you get from the book is not something you will shake in your lifetime.
Last edited:
I'm going to put on my pessimist hat for a few minutes Kazem jaan.
None of what you mentioned is new - we've been locked into the exact same system for the past 4500 years. We are living in the exact same pyramidal system that existed in Egypt of 4500 years ago, Persia of 2500 years ago and Rome of 1500 years ago. And resources have ALWAYS been limited based on available technologies. There used to be a joke that the only thing that was separating the US of today and the slavery in Egypt of the Old Testament were the unions! Well, guess what - the unions are on their last breath as well. Only the players and the complexity of the system has changed and maybe we've given it a new name - but the game is still the same old one!
The worst part is that this path is not actually evolutionary and if anything we've deviated further and further from an evolutionary path. Evolution is the NATURAL adaptation of living things to their surroundings - the key word being natural. The more dependant we become on technology and the less interaction we have with the natural environment, the less we adapt to that environment. What we have been doing is making our environment adapt to us and to this particular pyramidal system of explore more, multiply more and take more - except there's only so much to explore, so much to take and so far you can multiply as you quickly pointed out. This system is now so interdependent, that any major shock to one part of it, whether it's man made, environmental or extra-terrestrial may very well cause it to collapse completely.
The interesting question for me is this: Is the guy with an iPhone, going to work, paying his rent and buying his food at a supermarket, returning home to watch some TV or YouTube really more evolved than the farmer who was producing his own food and building his own shelter 8,000 years ago? The farmer of 8000 years ago had completely adapted to his natural environment, using the most basic technologies that were available to him in his immediate surroundings. The iPhone guy has zero skills outside this interdependent system and in a real evolutionary sense - he can not build shelter or feed himself or survive beyond a week if any link in that system that provides him with everything is broken. We have been seeing so many examples of this in the past decade after very minor (comparatively speaking) natural disasters - the key word here is again natural, meaning it's natural for them to occur!
And that's the inherent flaw in capitalism that has existed for all of the last 4500 years or more... it simply revolves around money, power and greed. It's purpose is not the betterment of mankind as a specie to insure its long term survival on this planet, or the empowerment of the human soul or improvement of the human experience. The only purpose of the game is to move faster and higher up that pyramid. To do that, you have to make higher profits and in order to do that you need to take more from the environment, produce more and consume more. When you reach a plateau on any of those factors, you simply take more from your fellow man lower down that pyramid! Unfortunately, that's what the human experience has been reduced to on this planet and the only sense of achievement and accomplishment for most people is to gauge how far they've moved up that pyramid relative to others: what kind of car you drive and how big is your house compared to your neighbours?!
The cycle has become so ridiculously vicious that we feed people way beyond the point of survival to the point that they become obese, because that increases profits for the farmer or ranch owner. Then we have to deal with the resulting obesity and diabetes which is great for someone else to make a profit on! All this sound stressful? Don't worry, we got a pill for stress and depression and someone else making profits on that venture! But do not worry my friend, we take care of our bots and just to make sure you don't get bored and continue to hold the weight of this pyramid at the bottom, we'll keep coming up with new gadgets you can buy and play with! Do we keep playing this game? Of course we do, because it's the only game in town, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that it's the best game for the town.
None of what you mentioned is new - we've been locked into the exact same system for the past 4500 years. We are living in the exact same pyramidal system that existed in Egypt of 4500 years ago, Persia of 2500 years ago and Rome of 1500 years ago. And resources have ALWAYS been limited based on available technologies. There used to be a joke that the only thing that was separating the US of today and the slavery in Egypt of the Old Testament were the unions! Well, guess what - the unions are on their last breath as well. Only the players and the complexity of the system has changed and maybe we've given it a new name - but the game is still the same old one!
The worst part is that this path is not actually evolutionary and if anything we've deviated further and further from an evolutionary path. Evolution is the NATURAL adaptation of living things to their surroundings - the key word being natural. The more dependant we become on technology and the less interaction we have with the natural environment, the less we adapt to that environment. What we have been doing is making our environment adapt to us and to this particular pyramidal system of explore more, multiply more and take more - except there's only so much to explore, so much to take and so far you can multiply as you quickly pointed out. This system is now so interdependent, that any major shock to one part of it, whether it's man made, environmental or extra-terrestrial may very well cause it to collapse completely.
The interesting question for me is this: Is the guy with an iPhone, going to work, paying his rent and buying his food at a supermarket, returning home to watch some TV or YouTube really more evolved than the farmer who was producing his own food and building his own shelter 8,000 years ago? The farmer of 8000 years ago had completely adapted to his natural environment, using the most basic technologies that were available to him in his immediate surroundings. The iPhone guy has zero skills outside this interdependent system and in a real evolutionary sense - he can not build shelter or feed himself or survive beyond a week if any link in that system that provides him with everything is broken. We have been seeing so many examples of this in the past decade after very minor (comparatively speaking) natural disasters - the key word here is again natural, meaning it's natural for them to occur!
And that's the inherent flaw in capitalism that has existed for all of the last 4500 years or more... it simply revolves around money, power and greed. It's purpose is not the betterment of mankind as a specie to insure its long term survival on this planet, or the empowerment of the human soul or improvement of the human experience. The only purpose of the game is to move faster and higher up that pyramid. To do that, you have to make higher profits and in order to do that you need to take more from the environment, produce more and consume more. When you reach a plateau on any of those factors, you simply take more from your fellow man lower down that pyramid! Unfortunately, that's what the human experience has been reduced to on this planet and the only sense of achievement and accomplishment for most people is to gauge how far they've moved up that pyramid relative to others: what kind of car you drive and how big is your house compared to your neighbours?!
The cycle has become so ridiculously vicious that we feed people way beyond the point of survival to the point that they become obese, because that increases profits for the farmer or ranch owner. Then we have to deal with the resulting obesity and diabetes which is great for someone else to make a profit on! All this sound stressful? Don't worry, we got a pill for stress and depression and someone else making profits on that venture! But do not worry my friend, we take care of our bots and just to make sure you don't get bored and continue to hold the weight of this pyramid at the bottom, we'll keep coming up with new gadgets you can buy and play with! Do we keep playing this game? Of course we do, because it's the only game in town, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that it's the best game for the town.
I agree with what you say in general, and I also question the wisdom of the lives we lead today as opposed to the past; but making the world fit us is not a flaw of capitalism, that's its aim.
It's not about money, power or greed, in the way you mention. These can be representations or even outcomes in certain instances, but they are not the ultimate aim of capitalism.
For the record, I am not sure if a simple nomadic lifestyle is better or the lives we lead today; but as aforesaid, the aim of capitalism is to get resources in the hands of the most productive. For example, we could all learn to build a home, plot a farm, etc; but is that more efficient or is it better for those who are best at building homes or sustaining farms or what have you doing that and trading based on some exchange of value (represented by monetary transactions, primarily, these days)?
Simply put, some things even have a natural advantage: country x has better climates to make bananas than country y. So why should both countries produce it? This is a waste of resources if one country pursues banana farming as they waste more inputs in doing that, when they could be providing another service or good with less resources used.
So, I disagree with your assessment immensely; free market capitalism is not a zero-sum game. Ironically, it's the system best capable of meeting the needs of the parties that come together because it means that only on terms that they voluntarily agree to does anything happen. Things like "empowerment of the human soul" are subjective, arbitrary and will forever be a mystery. If we build a society based on that, who knows what we'd be doing and which vision we'd be following - not everyone's soul desires the same things. When it comes to the survival of the human species: what better system than that which improves our capability to produce for the population - hopefully shifting our technologies to the point where we can survive past the use-by date of planet Earth? Who says a natural evolution is better? Some natural occurrences wipe out whole races or life on planets. If a meteorite is heading for Earth; should we let it hit us come what may and the surviving humans continue their evolutionary path? Or do we try to destroy the meteorite before it hits all of us?
What I was referring to is the fact that things are getting faster, harder, more burdensome to sustain because the competition has gotten so much greater. There are more people, smarter people, longer living people, etc, these days. These factors put a strain on all us who are after the same thing: survival. So when I talk about a 'flaw' I am referring to this. Some people cling to the lives they've led, the notions they knew, the family they grew up with and they're having trouble adjusting because the world is just moving at such a faster pace these days. Communication is instant, it makes other things possible faster. And to catch up...people might need 2 degrees, might need to retrain themselves yearly to cope, to keep up with everybody else.
Now, I can see the argument that questions if such a thing is desirable - but it is the whole point of capitalism and not a flaw in a systemic sense. It just may be that you don't wish for the world to head in this direction and that's fair enough too. But the point I was making is that if you're going to use a capitalistic system, use it in its purest and fairest form. People delude themselves into certain hybrids of it, and get fooled into giving more power to other people under false pretences. At least in a free market system, you only give your power (in a sense money or time) up when you voluntarily agree to it, in every transaction.
Playing the devil's advocate and espousing some of the ideas which are in the book I mentioned; one can argue if we even should be going for such a system. Who says the human race surviving, if it needs to go through all this, is a good thing? What is good is subjective and down to a person. Does the universe really need humans? Maybe if we lived the kinds of lives our ancestors lived, we'd live shorter; but with a far more care free existence? If all we do is consume, then we'll fight after resources and wars are inevitable. If you haven't, give the book a read
It's not about money, power or greed, in the way you mention. These can be representations or even outcomes in certain instances, but they are not the ultimate aim of capitalism.
For the record, I am not sure if a simple nomadic lifestyle is better or the lives we lead today; but as aforesaid, the aim of capitalism is to get resources in the hands of the most productive. For example, we could all learn to build a home, plot a farm, etc; but is that more efficient or is it better for those who are best at building homes or sustaining farms or what have you doing that and trading based on some exchange of value (represented by monetary transactions, primarily, these days)?
Simply put, some things even have a natural advantage: country x has better climates to make bananas than country y. So why should both countries produce it? This is a waste of resources if one country pursues banana farming as they waste more inputs in doing that, when they could be providing another service or good with less resources used.
So, I disagree with your assessment immensely; free market capitalism is not a zero-sum game. Ironically, it's the system best capable of meeting the needs of the parties that come together because it means that only on terms that they voluntarily agree to does anything happen. Things like "empowerment of the human soul" are subjective, arbitrary and will forever be a mystery. If we build a society based on that, who knows what we'd be doing and which vision we'd be following - not everyone's soul desires the same things. When it comes to the survival of the human species: what better system than that which improves our capability to produce for the population - hopefully shifting our technologies to the point where we can survive past the use-by date of planet Earth? Who says a natural evolution is better? Some natural occurrences wipe out whole races or life on planets. If a meteorite is heading for Earth; should we let it hit us come what may and the surviving humans continue their evolutionary path? Or do we try to destroy the meteorite before it hits all of us?
What I was referring to is the fact that things are getting faster, harder, more burdensome to sustain because the competition has gotten so much greater. There are more people, smarter people, longer living people, etc, these days. These factors put a strain on all us who are after the same thing: survival. So when I talk about a 'flaw' I am referring to this. Some people cling to the lives they've led, the notions they knew, the family they grew up with and they're having trouble adjusting because the world is just moving at such a faster pace these days. Communication is instant, it makes other things possible faster. And to catch up...people might need 2 degrees, might need to retrain themselves yearly to cope, to keep up with everybody else.
Now, I can see the argument that questions if such a thing is desirable - but it is the whole point of capitalism and not a flaw in a systemic sense. It just may be that you don't wish for the world to head in this direction and that's fair enough too. But the point I was making is that if you're going to use a capitalistic system, use it in its purest and fairest form. People delude themselves into certain hybrids of it, and get fooled into giving more power to other people under false pretences. At least in a free market system, you only give your power (in a sense money or time) up when you voluntarily agree to it, in every transaction.
Playing the devil's advocate and espousing some of the ideas which are in the book I mentioned; one can argue if we even should be going for such a system. Who says the human race surviving, if it needs to go through all this, is a good thing? What is good is subjective and down to a person. Does the universe really need humans? Maybe if we lived the kinds of lives our ancestors lived, we'd live shorter; but with a far more care free existence? If all we do is consume, then we'll fight after resources and wars are inevitable. If you haven't, give the book a read
Last edited:
Oh wow Texas LOL
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3739
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Mar/10/california-vs-texas-which-has-best-economy/
well...lots of them own companies and they circumvent that problem by running the company on the name of a family member. Austria's minister of health as an example used to own the biggest company producing generic drugs. Guess what he did? Made laws benefiting companies that produce generic drugs. And that's one of the harmless cases. It's mainly because this country doesn't really care about such stuff and to most it's irrelevant.
yeah but you can't do that. and sometimes some people vote in their own interest. Again, I take Austria. Farmers vote for the conservative party because they care about them. They don't care about other parties, they don't care about other policies. They just know they are being taken care of for now. Should I blame them for voting that way?
well, but that's the point of elections and democracy.
To be honest, I prefer public money over private fundraisers. I would prefer if each party had a limited budget for ads coming from public money and 100% forbidden private fundraiser money. It's difficult and not every private donor is evil but look at how many laws have been passed in every country benefiting some private international conglomerate.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3739
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/Mar/10/california-vs-texas-which-has-best-economy/
well...lots of them own companies and they circumvent that problem by running the company on the name of a family member. Austria's minister of health as an example used to own the biggest company producing generic drugs. Guess what he did? Made laws benefiting companies that produce generic drugs. And that's one of the harmless cases. It's mainly because this country doesn't really care about such stuff and to most it's irrelevant.
yeah but you can't do that. and sometimes some people vote in their own interest. Again, I take Austria. Farmers vote for the conservative party because they care about them. They don't care about other parties, they don't care about other policies. They just know they are being taken care of for now. Should I blame them for voting that way?
well, but that's the point of elections and democracy.
To be honest, I prefer public money over private fundraisers. I would prefer if each party had a limited budget for ads coming from public money and 100% forbidden private fundraiser money. It's difficult and not every private donor is evil but look at how many laws have been passed in every country benefiting some private international conglomerate.