The fall of Capitalism. Is it getting close?

[One Cell]

Being relatively new to SDMB, this topic may have already been debated to death. In that case I’d appreciate anyone’s references of web site addresses covering the debate within or out of SDMB. I have already studied all writings of Noam Chumsky, Gore Vidal, Michael Parenti, Jonathan Kwitny, etc.

Here is the issue in this grim day of the Republicans coming back to power with their motto of “Greed is Good”. Never before in the history of capitalism, such high percentage of wealth has been accumulated by such few percentage of people. And now, with the arrival of the Bush Empire, the pressure is on to increase those percentages. (If you don’t believe it, just look at the face of the rich Secretary of State in Florida as she is interviewed on TV. Isn’t her smile ugly). The Wink of the Republicans (as displayed by George W. Bush) means that it is time again for the few to go on sucking the ordinary people’s earnings dry and kick some asses (as his father used to say). Note that the $500 possible tax relief by George will hardly pay for uncontrolled rental or mortgage increase of ordinary people.

If any of you have ever tried to become an entrepreneur in this “land of opportunity”, you know very well what a struggle it is to break even, let alone making a profit. And yet, looking at the Fortune 500 companies, they seem to be making huge, filthy profits year after year. Who is paying for the Naval forces in the Persian Gulf to make the safe passage of the oil companies tankers? Why aren’t the oil companies paying the $300 billion annual defense budget out of their profits? The question is, who is paying for those profits? Please don’t give me the conservative think tank Hoover Institution line as explanation of supply and demand determining the price. Next time your landlord increases your rent or the utility companies increase your bill, and you are forced to evacuate and pay moving expenses to a slum area, you understand perfectly well the rules of “the free market” and supply and demand. Of course, you are not supposed to ask what happened to all the capital gains made by the utility companies over the past 50 years. Who paid for those gains?

In my humble opinion, under the name of “trickle down economics”, we ordinary people are all becoming a bunch of slaves under the motto of “increased productivity”, working harder and getting paid less by a bunch of greedy bastards in search of huge profits. These guys would never share or disclose their know-how or intellectual property with anyone who wants to catch his own fish, thus pushing people into the streets begging for some fish. How far are we away from the time that everyone pours into the streets. How much longer the greedy bastards can kick asses and squeeze the rope around the neck of the ordinary people?

[minty green]

Hey, anybody want to organize a pool on when the dictatorship of the proletariat will relieve us from all this intolerable prosperity? I got dibs on April 2.

Seriously, man, you got a legitimate question here, or do you just want to rant?

[jmullaney]

No, no, One Cell -- Greed is good, and without it society would perish -- or so goes the conventional wisdom

I tried to argue otherwise once and was roundly beat around the ears:

Try to make ends meet; you're a slave to money; then you die.

[Kvallulf]

Whats the alternative?

[One Cell]

Minty Green:

It has been said that “Reality is in the mind of beholder”, and that “Let’s count the chickens at the end of autumn”.

1- Prosperity? Yeah, sure, for a few lucky ones that could afford to buy stocks and sold it when NASDAQ was at 5000. Even some of those lucky ones are taking a hard look at their 2000-year-end IRA and 401K statements, wondering what happened to their future prosperity. Lot of them will now have to extend their working life flipping hamburgers.

2- Is the “dictatorship of proletariat” or Communism/Socialism the only alternative to Capitalism? If so, we probably need different kinds of “Think Tank Organizations” coming up with new alternatives addressing the issues of the 21st century.

3- Please explain what you mean by “I got dibs on April 2”.

4- Please tell us what makes the OP an illegitimate question. Please note that I haave read the book “winning through intimidation”. In it, “illegitimization” is fully described as one of the techniques.

[erislover]

Originally posted by One Cell
Minty Green:

1- Prosperity? Yeah, sure, for a few lucky ones that could afford to buy stocks and sold it when NASDAQ was at 5000.

I see. So you won't be satisfied until no one is wealthy, or you are wealthy. Because, you know, it cannot be everyone being wealthy.

2- Is the “dictatorship of proletariat” or Communism/Socialism the only alternative to Capitalism? If so, we probably need different kinds of “Think Tank Organizations” coming up with new alternatives addressing the issues of the 21st century.

Capitalism: private ownership of property and the means of production and distribution. Socialism: public/government ownership of property and the means of production and distribution. Communism: not an economic theory but a political one which included socialism.

So, yeah--they are opposites.

3- Please explain what you mean by “I got dibs on April 2”.

$10 because April First was already taken!

[Saint Zero]

I think your question is something close to "when's the ride over?".

Not even close. You see, there are a lot of people doing just fine in this country. Sure, there was a nasty set back last year, but this is a new year, and things might pick back up.

Now, that's not to say you don't have a good point or two. I agree we should look and see if we can't redistibute the burden of taxes off the backs of wage-earners. See if we really need all this billions in defense spending for a world which is more into terrorism than mass scale war.

But I don't think that mere economic hardships for the masses are going to translate into Yet Another Revolution. For that, you'd have to start yanking freedoms away right and left. (Speech, Assembly, Religion...)

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
Because, you know, it cannot be everyone being wealthy.

Well, you can't eat tomorrows bread today, right? So how do you define wealth?

So, yeah--they are opposites.

But not the only possibilities.

Originally posted by Saint Zero
But I don't think that mere economic hardships for the masses are going to translate into Yet Another Revolution. For that, you'd have to start yanking freedoms away right and left. (Speech, Assembly, Religion...)

I don't think that is true either.

[King Rat]

This is the type of thread I usually just read, rather than respond to. But I wanted to ask after reading your second paragraph: why does everyone think that only Republicans are rich?

[Odesio]

Originally posted by One Cell
Minty Green:


4- Please tell us what makes the OP an illegitimate question. Please note that I haave read the book “winning through intimidation”. In it, “illegitimization” is fully described as one of the techniques.

Is that where you learned how to open a discussion? You start out with "...grim day of the Republicans coming to power.." along with the claim that their motto is "...greed is good." Sounds to me like you're simply doing what you accuse Minty of doing.

Marc

[ScoobyTX]

Originally posted by soccerhooligan
This is the type of thread I usually just read, rather than respond to. But I wanted to ask after reading your second paragraph: why does everyone think that only Republicans are rich?

And why does everyone think all Republicans are rich (or dupes of the rich)?

[hansel]

It's a good rant; I give it three spleens out of four.

[minty green]

Originally posted by One Cell
Please tell us what makes the OP an illegitimate question. Please note that I haave read the book ?winning through intimidation?. In it, ?illegitimization? is fully described as one of the techniques.

Dude, I'm sorry. Was there a question in the OP? I must have mistaken it for a rhetorical rant. If so, would you mind asking it in, say, twenty words or less?

And as arl pointed out, I took April 2 in the pool 'cause I figured you already had April 1.

[One Cell]

Originally posted by minty green
Dude, I'm sorry. Was there a question in the OP? I must have mistaken it for a rhetorical rant. If so, would you mind asking it in, say, twenty words or less?[/b]

Here is the OP question in 20 words:

As more wealth is accumulated by fewer people at the cost of masses, when will we reach the explosion point?

Also in response to TXlonghorn and soccerhooligan, I do not believe "only Republicans are rich" nor "all Republicans are rich".

However, suppose we line up all officers and board members of Fortune 1000 Companies plus all Americans that have over $50 million in net worth, and ask them if they are Republicans. What are the odds that over 90% of them would say YES.

[minty green]

Originally posted by One Cell
As more wealth is accumulated by fewer people at the cost of masses, when will we reach the explosion point?

I think you're working from a mistaken assumption here. What gives you the idea that the wealthy are accumulating wealth to the detriment of the "masses"? Yes, I know there is data showing that the gap between the wealthy and the poor is growing, but the fact of the matter is that the standard of living of the poor is rising, not falling. Unless you think that the income gap is itself unjust (which I suspect you do), the proper inquiry is to ask whether the current system is improving the lives of those at the bottom of the economic spectrum. As long as it is consistently doing so, I don't see that we're in the slightest danger of changing the fundamentals of the American economic system.

Note, that does not apply to places like Russia, where the kleptocrats are quite clearly gaining wealth at the expense and to the detriment of the masses. But kleptocracy is quite distinct from capitalism.

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by minty green
Yes, I know there is data showing that the gap between the wealthy and the poor is growing, but the fact of the matter is that the standard of living of the poor is rising, not falling.

For a lot of people... it is falling.

[minty green]

Sure, and among those people whose standard of living is falling is Bill Gates. Hasn't he lost like half of his net worth in the last year? Clearly, the boy needs some Marxism pronto.

Sorry, guess I should have stated that, on average, and over time, the standard of living of the poorest Americans has clearly improved.

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by minty green

Sorry, guess I should have stated that, on average, and over time, the standard of living of the poorest Americans has clearly improved.

Well... who said that Capitalism only exists in America? Not me... and I'm hoping you're not suggesting it.


Also. Depending on what time frame you're using, your numbers could be easily disputed.

[King Rat]

You would think that the people who, like me, work in retail or other low-paying service jobs like fast food would be the first to want to forment rebellion. We earn diddly squat while management reaps the lion's share of salary and benefits. Yet I never hear a peep. Why is that? Because we're stupid? Blind? Sheep? Maybe it's because capitalism is the worst system of all - except for all the others.

[One Cell]

Minty Green:

I did not say the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. I said at the expense of masses. Relatively small percentage of this country is super rich or super poor. The masses are those who need at least two incomes to make ends meet. As "Downsizing" starts to go into effect to increase bottom lines, more asses of masses are going to be kicked to increase productivity. It is the middle class standard of living and quality of life that will deteriorate, as noted by oldscratch post above.

If our plan A is continuation of Capitalism, how can we mobalize to create a plan B, just in case plan A fails.

[ScoobyTX]

Originally posted by One Cell
However, suppose we line up all officers and board members of Fortune 1000 Companies plus all Americans that have over $50 million in net worth, and ask them if they are Republicans. What are the odds that over 90% of them would say YES.

I would say pretty close to zero, judging from the fact that the Jackasses raise quite a bit of campaign money, just as the Elephants do.

I might agree that a majority are Rs, but more than 10% are Ds, fer sure.

[ScoobyTX]

make that "raise quite a bit of campaign money from the rich"

[erislover]

One Cell
"The masses are those who need at least two incomes to make ends meet."
What do you men by "make ends meet"? What level of existence do you feel is guaranteed that the rich are taking from you?

[Alessan]

Originally posted by One Cell
Minty Green:

I did not say the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. I said at the expense of masses. Relatively small percentage of this country is super rich or super poor. The masses are those who need at least two incomes to make ends meet. As "Downsizing" starts to go into effect to increase bottom lines, more asses of masses are going to be kicked to increase productivity. It is the middle class standard of living and quality of life that will deteriorate, as noted by oldscratch post above.

If our plan A is continuation of Capitalism, how can we mobalize to create a plan B, just in case plan A fails.

You know, I hate the word "masses". I can hardly think of a term more condescending and dehumanzsing - even "peasents" is better. By using the term, you're calling me a "mass", an amorphus blob, lacking any sort of distinguishing personality. You know what? I'm an individual, a completely unique, unpredictable, non-quantifiable entity. And so is everybody else.

Anyway, as to the OP - capitalism can't collapse, because it is not, technically, a system. Socialism is a system. As is fascism, monarchy, plutocracy, democracy, feudalism and tribalism. Capitalism is more of a default.

[minty green]

Originally posted by One Cell
I did not say the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. I said at the expense of masses. Relatively small percentage of this country is super rich or super poor. The masses are those who need at least two incomes to make ends meet.

Same objection as above. On average, and over the long haul, the standard of living of every American economic group is improving.

It is the middle class standard of living and quality of life that will deteriorate

Middle class bourgeoisie of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but you SUV's!

If our plan A is continuation of Capitalism, how can we mobalize to create a plan B, just in case plan A fails.

So first thing we do, let's destroy plan A so that we can start thinking about what we can do for plan B. Good thinking. That's why I always burn down my current apartment before I start to look for a new one.

Just out of curiosity--I find this entertaining--do you have a plan B?

[MilTan]

Originally posted by oldscratch

Well... who said that Capitalism only exists in America? Not me... and I'm hoping you're not suggesting it.

First, lets look at the countries where capitalism is practiced to the extent it is in the US. This actually eliminates the majority of "capitalist" countries, as most are more socialist than we. Instead, we can look at the - admittedly narrow - group of First World countries. Countries like Russia are turning to capitalism after decades of communism, or coutries like India turn to it after decades of socialism. Essentially, we should look at countries where capitalism has been underway for two decades or so. You'll probably take issue with this, but I think its a good way to look at how capitalism alone affects the lives of the poor.

Now that we have limited ourselves to about 20 countries which I would claim are truly capitalist, it seems rather evident that either the standard of living of all these societies as a whole have increased (which they all most certainly have over the length of their time under capitalism), or any drop in the standard of living is felt equally across all social and economic classes.

The second half of that last point can be seen in the current situation Americans are in. The people who have taken the largest hit in the pocketbook due to the current stock market drops are the upper and middle classes. The lower classes most likely are not heavily attached to things like formerly booming tech stocks or dot-coms. As long as banks aren't collapsing because of this, or jobs being eliminated, the majority of Americans who didn't have the income to meddle in the markets aren't hurting all that bad, while those that have the 401(k)s and IRAs are the ones in the well paying jobs that can best afford to weather through the current downturn.

Of course, some rich people will get richer regardless of the circumstances. But I think the argument for capitalism is that on average everyone benefits.

Also. Depending on what time frame you're using, your numbers could be easily disputed.

This is a bit of a reach. As far as prosperity goes, the general trend across the world is up. Regardless of what time period you give where minty_green's statement would be untrue, I can easily give you a time period that stretches only slightly farther back where his statement would once again be true. And once we get back about 5 years from the present, I doubt you would be able to find a time period where Americans of any economic class were better off than they are now.

[One Cell]

Minty Green:

You ask if I have a plan B (an alternative to Capitalism). The answer is No.

However, that does not mean we should not look into developing a Plan B, or at least modify the existing Plan A, to better suit our needs. We don’t have to destroy the existing set-up to simply address ourselves to better alternatives. Unfortunately, it is a tough call, as it would require us to look outside our own box.

As you may know, many people both inside and outside the U.S. look at our Republican and Democratic parties as merely two wings of the same party: The Capitalist Party. Obviously, as long as our government is run by this Single Party, no one would even suggest a possible new design or replacement for capitalism. If our military think tank is capable of creating all possible future threat scenarios, we could also fund creation of think tanks to simulate alternatives to capitalism. But the Single Party government would never fund such a program for the obvious reason. I can see them mocking the idea, saying "Heck, no two economists ever agree on anything".

Believing that “in the long term, everything will improve under capitalism” could be as dangerous as keeping our head in the sand.

(BTW, I hate SUVs too. In fact, if I could land a telecommuting job that pays my bills, I’d get rid of my car).

[Arcegetrix]

Q: The fall of Capitalism. Is it getting close?

A: No

[kabbes]

Originally posted by Arcegetrix
Q: The fall of Capitalism. Is it getting close?

A: No

Truly a master debater there.

MilTan - I'm not sure what your point is. Only 20 countries in the world are capitalist? But you decided this via a wonderful piece of Amercian-centricism that declares that the definition of capitalist is anything at least as capitalist as the US. Doesn't wash I'm afraid - capitalism is merely refers to systems in which capital is used as the driver. In essence this means a free market, but by no means necessarily totally free. Totally free markets are not even desirable due to their inefficiencies. The US for example has much stricter anti-monopolistic lawas than the UK, but most would agree that the US in general is more right wing.

Look - the goal of any society should be, by definition, to generate as much utility as possible, where utility is what economists use to measure 'happiness'. In many ways capitalism addresses this issue admirably. The market's pricing mechanism for most goods in most situations for example is a wonderful way of ensuring the most utility-generating goods get produced and supplied to those who will derive the most utility from them. (Even this isn't perfect however - a starving man will derive the most utility from a loaf of bread, but the market will not ensure that he gets it).

In other ways however capitalism does not address the utility-maximising problem. It encourages maximum generation of wealth instead of utility and there is a tendency to get these two mixed up. The western world really produces far more than it needs to keep everybody happy and the extra effort needed to produce more suffers from the law of diminishing returns - at some point our marginal utility from extra production will become negative and capitalism isn't very good at stopping us from overstepping that point.

Of course most of us would agree that thus far noone has come up with anything better. I think that the OP however is questioning whether we could think up something better.

In particular capitalism deals well with the problem of distributing scarce resources. But as civilisation progresses some scarce resources may become less scarce. Here's an example that depends on future technology. Let us postulate the existence of extremely advanced robots that are capable of doing all work that we do not want to do - and does so more efficiently than man. All production and service industries need employ no people at all. As a species we have the ability to do no more than sit around all day, if that's what we want.

At this point does capitalism succeed in providing us with the optimal society? Or does money cease to have any real power at all? If you can have whatever you want whence the need to trade? How would you even earn any money in the absence of employment? Capitalism starts to exhibit some rather nasty big holes.

pan

[puddleglum]

If our military think tank is capable of creating all possible future threat scenarios, we could also fund creation of think tanks to simulate alternatives to capitalism

Who do you mean by we?

[tracer]

Saint Zero wrote:

I don't think that mere economic hardships for the masses are going to translate into Yet Another Revolution. For that, you'd have to start yanking freedoms away right and left. (Speech, Assembly, Religion...)

... Gun ownership, ...



<ducking and running>

[MilTan]

kabbes:

First off, my post was in response to oldscratch's (implied) claim that minty_green's argument only held true for the US. Second, I nowhere did I declare that only 20 countries in the world are capitalist.

Perhaps you should have read my reasoning for narrowing it down to 20 countries before taking issue (which I mentioned that people would). To review: I merely pointed out that very few countries are as capitalist (and by using capitalist in a comparitive sense, I mean more free-market oriented) than the US, something which you apparently agree with. So, as this would give me a sample size of one, I then chose to expand to countries which had more socialist tendencies, even though the more socialist you get the less you can consider any results to be due to capitalism as opposed to, say, government programs. I actually tried to be as non-America-centric as possible when coming up with the countries to examine.

But even if you want to look at all capitalist countries (although you appear to be using a very wide and vague definition of capitalism), I would say that the standard of living of everyone in those systems has undergone a general upward trend over the years. And no, I can't back this point up, other than pointing you towards the fact that the world economy is growing as a whole, and the fastest growing economies are those that implement capitalism as an economic system.

[minty green]

Originally posted by tracer
Saint Zero wrote:

... Gun ownership, ...

<ducking and running>

Good. A running target is always more fun for the pilots of the black helicopters.

[dal_timgar]

capitalism got phased out around 1900

adam smith, father of capitalism?, disapproved of what he called joint-stock companies. what we now call corporations.

a corporation is a form of collective ownership, not private ownership. if you had a corporation where all the stock was owned by the employees, wouldn't that be workers owning the means of production? a corporation is a form of communism. ROFL!

in 1886 the supreme court decided that a corporation was a person. and the technology changes of the late 19th century made the huge growth of corps possible and made the 1929 crash possible.

Dal Timgar

[ScoobyTX]

Originally posted by minty green

Good. A running target is always more fun for the pilots of the black helicopters. [/b]

[FMJ]Joker: How can you shoot women and children like that?

Helicopter Door Gunner: Easy... Ya just don't lead 'em so much![/FMJ]

[minty green]

ROFL, TXLonghorn!

[Saint Zero]

Originally posted by tracer
Saint Zero wrote:

... Gun ownership, ...
<ducking and running>

They are working on that one.

[paranoid mode:ON]
You have to take the guns away first, otherwise the MiB can't pacify you. The Government(Corporations, Religious Right, Commie Atheists, et al...) can't take over unless there is a pacified populace.
[paranoid mode:OFF]
_{The above is a joke. If you take it seriously, or think I actually believe that, you are a sad, misguided person. And an idiot.}

[Lemur866]

Q: "Capitalism could fail. Shouldn't we have a plan B?"

A: No. That's like asking what we will do if democracy fails...we need to have a plan in place to institute fascism just in case.

Why are both the Republicans and Democrats pro-capitalism parties? For the same reason they are both pro-democracy parties.

And we already have lots and lots of plans in place to address failures of the free market. We have banking insurance. Anti-trust laws. Laws against fraud and deceptive advertising. Government provided education. Publicly maintained courts, police, and military. Investment in transportation infrastructure. Public support for basic scientific research. Old-age pensions.

And y'know what, many of these things I support. However, we must realize that they drain resources from private hands. Without a robust private economy to create the funds for these public goods, we don't get anything.

Meaning that you can't destroy Microsoft and tax it too. You have to look at the consequences of public taxing, spending and regulation.

And then there's the concept of justice. Say there are two kids, and each has a piece of chocolate cake. One eats the cake, the other saves it. Later they come back inside, and Billy complains that Timmy has a piece of cake but he doesn't. Is it fair to make Timmy share his piece of cake? It is true that Timmy has cake and Billy doesn't, so we have inequality. But what should our response be?

[msmith537]

Originally posted by dal_timgar
capitalism got phased out around 1900
a corporation is a form of collective ownership, not private ownership. if you had a corporation where all the stock was owned by the employees, wouldn't that be workers owning the means of production? a corporation is a form of communism. ROFL!

An interesting idea. I had to go online to get the specific definitions of each system.

From http://dictionary.cambridge.org
communism noun [u]
the belief in a classless society in which the methods of production are owned and controlled by all its members and everyone works as much as they can and receives what they need

capitalism noun [u]
an economic, political and social system based on private ownership of property, business and industry, and directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people
Capitalism is also based upon the free exchange of goods and services in the world market.


I believe to be a form of communism, every person in the US would have to own stock in that corporation. That way everyone would receive the benefits. Even if all 200,000 employees of GE owned the stock, it can still creates a class society where only the owners of the company benefit. I think the core belief of communism is the "classlessness" of the system. Or in other words, the entire population, not individual owners should benefit from the success of the company.


As a side note to the OP. We have a much greater distribution of wealth now than we did in the 1800-1900s. J.D. Rockafeller and J.P. Morgan each had more money (adjusted to 2001 dollars) than Bill Gates and Steve Jobs ever will. Back then you were either a billionare or you worked in their textile mill for 20 cents a day.

[dal_timgar]

the problem with definitions is they are STATIC and human socio-economics is DYNAMIC and in a continuous state of flux. the definitions NEVER WERE ACCURATE. what is a FREE MARKET and when did we ever have one? human history is worse than chaos theory. what did carl marx say about planned obsolescence of gasoline powered road vehicles? he died 1883 and the 1st gas car was 1886. i call the current system corporate consumerism and feel that thinking in terms of capitalism/socialism/communism keeps the mind in a socio-technologically obsolete rut.

we got ECONOMIC POWER GAMES and POLITICAL POWER GAMES and an unlimited number of ways to play them and advances in technology just increases the tactics and strategies.

Dal Timgar

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by kabbes
In particular capitalism deals well with the problem of distributing scarce resources. But as civilisation progresses some scarce resources may become less scarce. Here's an example that depends on future technology. Let us postulate the existence of extremely advanced robots that are capable of doing all work that we do not want to do - and does so more efficiently than man. All production and service industries need employ no people at all. As a species we have the ability to do no more than sit around all day, if that's what we want.

Thanks kabbes for a cogent and persuasive response to an utterly silly OP. I've quoted just this part of your post because its the only part that needs commenting on - the rest I wholeheartedly agree with.

In this section of kabbes' post is the answer to the OP - capitalism will exist until resources stop being scarce.

Sua

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
In this section of kabbes' post is the answer to the OP - capitalism will exist until resources stop being scarce.

Well, except resources aren't scarce in the U.S. and haven't been for at least the past 50 years.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by jmullaney
Well, except resources aren't scarce in the U.S. and haven't been for at least the past 50 years.

Sure they are. Personally, I have nowhere near the amount of gold I want. Ditto bread, meat, oranges, sex, computer games, etc. Someone else has plenty of each, and in order to get them, I have to give him something he values. We simplify that process by using currency.

Sua

[Jackmannii]

Gad, I feel like I've wandered into the middle of a soapbox speech in Washington Square, circa 1932.

Originally posted by One Cell
Being relatively new to SDMB, this topic may have already been debated to death.

It can't be both. Continue.

I have already studied all writings of Noam Chumsky

Wrong spelling. It's Noam Chumpsky.

...with the arrival of the Bush Empire, the pressure is on to increase those percentages. (If you don’t believe it, just look at the face of the rich Secretary of State in Florida as she is interviewed on TV. Isn’t her smile ugly).

The Wicked Witch Of The East is supposed to have an ugly grimace. Classy remark tho.

The Wink of the Republicans (as displayed by George W. Bush) means that it is time again for the few to go on sucking the ordinary people’s earnings dry and kick some asses

It would take incredible dexterity to accomplish both tasks simultaneously. If Dick Cheney tried it he'd be in traction for months.

These guys would never share or disclose their know-how or intellectual property with anyone who wants to catch his own fish, thus pushing people into the streets begging for some fish. How far are we away from the time that everyone pours into the streets.

Never happen, as long as you can get 24 microscopic fried shrimp for $1.99.

Seriously though, it'll have to get a lot worse before the masses kick some asses and suck the oppressors dry. Conditions were far more harsh in the '30s without a revolution occurring here. If the continuing cycle of mega-mergers and thousands of people being thrown out of work with each deal* hardly raised eyebrows under Clinton, it's hard to see anything changing under Bush.



Is the Wink of the Republicans Wink Martindale?






*How many SDMB Friends of the Masses use Verizon Wireless?

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
Personally, I have nowhere near the amount of gold I want. Ditto bread, meat, oranges, sex, computer games, etc.

So, you want some shiny pebbles, a bologna sandwich, fruit, a prostitute, and a mindless distraction to take you away from the tedium of life for a while? And then you'd be happy?

I thought when kabbes was talking about scarcity, he meant needs, not wants. So, what you and kabbes are really saying is that capitalism is eternal, right?

[Mr.Zambezi]

Jmull said

Well, except resources aren't scarce in the U.S. and haven't been for at least the past 50 years.

I, I can't believe I am reading this. Food, cars, shelter, clothes are just laying around for anyone who wants them?

If what you say is true, then there logically must be a person or group that is withholding necessities from people. otherwise, in a free market lacking scarcity of resources, everything would be free. Those things that are not scarce, air, sunshine, etc... are free.


But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You must mean "raw materials" when you say "resources." I guess if someone wants iron, they can just go and mine it...if they own land with mineral rights....but land is also scarce from an ownership stance...

OK, I wont give you the benefit of the doubt. That statement is just plain wrong.

[Mr.Zambezi]

”. Never before in the history of capitalism, such high percentage of wealth has been accumulated by such few percentage of people.

hmmm. We have more wealth concentration than ancient Rome, honduras, El Salvador, Columbia? Never before in the history of socialism have I heard such a groundless assetion.

And now, with the arrival of the Bush Empire, the pressure is on to increase those percentages.

and hpw is this to be accomplished?

(If you don’t believe it, just look at the face of the rich Secretary of State in Florida as she is interviewed on TV. Isn’t her smile ugly).

indeed, a woman is to be judged by her looks, and an ugly smile on the Secretary of State of one of the 50 states is proof of the intent of the president

The Wink of the Republicans (as displayed by George W. Bush) means that it is time again for the few to go on sucking the ordinary people’s earnings dry and kick some asses (as his father used to say).

YOu mean sucking them dry by increasing the tax rate for working people? like Clinton and the Dems did? If I am not mistaken, Bush wants to decrease the tax rate for EVERYONE. and this is sucking them dry how?

Note that the $500 possible tax relief by George will hardly pay for uncontrolled rental or mortgage increase of ordinary people.

Who is going to create "uncontrolled rental or mortgage" increases?

No one is taking your money except for the government. IF you don't want to work to make it, that is not GWB's fault.

[erislover]

jmullaney
The thing is, needs are already addressed in modern society. Bums can live into late middle age off soup kitchens and the occasional shelter if they are determined enough.

In fact, it all depends on what you want the needs to be. Do they need and education? A place to live? Transportation? Etc...?

Capitalism is relatively eternal, sure, so long as we allow restrictions to be placed on it and turn it from strict capitalism to a mixed economy. But sure, its as eternal as multiple soveriegn states. I don't believe a closed market can truly be considered capitalism (ie-a one-world government) but hey, that's just me

msmith

I believe to be a form of communism, every person in the US would have to own stock in that corporation. That way everyone would receive the benefits. Even if all 200,000 employees of GE owned the stock, it can still creates a class society where only the owners of the company benefit. I think the core belief of communism is the "classlessness" of the system. Or in other words, the entire population, not individual owners should benefit from the success of the company.

As a side note to the OP. We have a much greater distribution of wealth now than we did in the 1800-1900s. J.D. Rockafeller and J.P. Morgan each had more money (adjusted to 2001 dollars) than Bill Gates and Steve Jobs ever will. Back then you were either a billionare or you worked in their textile mill for 20 cents a day.

Whoa! That's a pretty strict cegmentation of the population. Somehow I don't beleive it.

As far as the communism goes, yeah...er, are you saying we should do this err, umm... that would be a form of communism.
[/msmith]

Incidentally, what can replace capitalism but socialism as an economic system? That is, every time we address the "inherent problems" that a "free market" creates, we always remove the capitalistic component and replace it with a socialistic one. Or am I missing something?

[erislover]

Originally posted by aynrandlover
cegmentation

Eh? I've seen proximity-based typos, you know, because the "d" key is next to the "s" key, or order-based typos, where "the" gets spelled "teh," but I odn't think I've seen a phonetic typo before...

[kabbes]

Originally posted by jmullaney

So, you want some shiny pebbles, a bologna sandwich, fruit, a prostitute, and a mindless distraction to take you away from the tedium of life for a while? And then you'd be happy?

I thought when kabbes was talking about scarcity, he meant needs, not wants. So, what you and kabbes are really saying is that capitalism is eternal, right?

Ah - well this is where it gets interesting and we may be able to force a debate. Scarcity is not a binary there-or-not state. Some things are scarcer than others. At the moment pretty much all material goods are scarce - but we do have the capacity to remove scarcity of food should we choose to do so. I think (my opinion). At the moment scarcity is dominant enough to force us to choose a scarcity-based system for our society and capitalism would appear to be the best bet.

But! I postulate that one day super-uber-robots will be able to build us anything we want we no human intervention. Scarcity, whilst not eliminated by a long shot, will be greatly reduced to the extent that it may not be our overriding concern. Want a car? Have a car! Want an ice-cream? Have an ice-cream! I note that land, for example, will still be scarce - but there are other ways to deal with this kind of small restrained scarcity. In this case we may decide that capitalism is not worth its side-effects. That day is still a paradigm shift in technology away though.

And thankyou to Sua for being nice about my post. 'Tis much appreciated.

pan