- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 2,577
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
love for them to know.
The wealthy have more money, money is used to acquire power and controls the political scene, organizational skills play a tiny part in it.
I agree, the only reason I point at turtledude is his disrespect of "grunt workers" as he calls them..
re : lobbying. they win at that. the non-wealthy mostly walk around stunned in their routines. when it gets bad enough, they wake up. then they have the numbers.
we're better off with some kind of balance in between. right now, i'd argue that the balance is tipped to those with money, but not unstably so. a big part of the reason is readily available food, entertainment, and access to health care for the very poor.
I respect anyone who does his job well, no matter what his job is
That's the problem with capitalism, it relies on exploitation of what one's labor is worth for profit. That's all there is to it. People literally agree to acquire a source of monetary income without much of a say, or have no source of income to buy food, shelter.. all controlled by capitalism.
That's a condition of life, not just of capitalism. When you have resources to sell then you sell those resources, but all you have is your labor then you have to sell your labor.
It's a condition of life under capitalism and where a system like we have regarding money exists. :applaud
I'm sympathetic to your view, but what's the practical alternative?
Capitalism succeeds because it maps very closely to humanity's rapacious nature.
The systems that attempt to ignore or change that nature are doomed to devolve into capitalism.
No, it's pretty much a condition of life unless you go around stealing everything or you're all alone.
You've examined human nature under capitalism, and assume that is human nature.
How do you think we survived our evolution? By working together and collectively sharing to make sure we survived. It's not human nature.
and the wealthy have a dependence on social safety nets to prevent unrest and significant increases in their level of taxation, especially considering the current level of income inequality.
re : the French Revolution; US Depression
We'll have to disagree there. That only ever worked on a very small scale.
Can you point to a present day nation that has a better system?
The whole concept of selling resources exists under a system like capitalism, as well as the concept of selling labor for monetary income. :roll:
'Course they do. They didn't buy the power, though- they didn't even take it. It was given to them on a platter by poor idiots who equate wealth with worth. "He's worth $3billion!" they say and when the billionaire tells them that global warming is a myth they leap in their thousands and chant, "Myth! Myth! Myth!". Another billionaire tells them that government health care is unworkable and will ruin the country and the poor idiots denounce the best improvement in their lives since the Model T. A billionaire tells them that unions are wrong and that moving factories to Mexico is right and that minimum wages will destroy the economy and, well, by God if he's so rich he must be smart! Right?
That's power, when you can make people believe that right is wrong and bad is good.
Better system then capitalism? None that's been done in a stable, democratic nation.
All you are really talking about is trade using a medium of exchange. Regardless if currency exists or not people will need to trade their labor in certain situations in order to get the resources they're after.
I'd agree. So it's like the old joke.
It's the worst possible system, except for all the others.
Yes. /thread
Wait, you're telling me to keep a balance, we need to help the poor and make sure people have food, healthcare?
Socialist.
(Seriously though, this makes sense, I've never thought of it like this) But unfortunately, money is linked to power, corporations control the most watched media by the voters, money controls advertisements run.. I wouldn't call it balanced.
yes.
not really. European center left; on the American political scale, that would be further to the left. socialism is giving the means of production to the workers.
it's tipped towards the wealthy at this point, as they can buy legislation, and the successful legislators who are beholden to them can draw their own districts. also, money is viewed as speech now. however, there are still more poor and middle class people, and that does count for something. power balance is probably 65 / 35 in favor of the wealthy. this is skewed a bit more when you take into account that you're talking about ten percent of the population.
it might be skewed more or less than that. the numbers that i threw out are really rough estimates based on my observations.
Not if everyone collectively works together, in a hypothetical communist society. where such a surplus exists that enough resources exist for everybody.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?