The fundamental flaw in capitalism

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
User avatar
black elk speaks
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:48 pm

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by black elk speaks »

got tonkaed wrote:
Japs wrote:Not really if youve read any of this discussion hes not better he just has better views just like me.


Id be willing to wager that there are a reasonable number of people who would disagree. Anytime BES or really most others want to seriously argue why we should get away from any welfare state, id be happy to discuss it with them. The problem is its usually not something that can be done without arguing emotively from the other side.

Also BES: I like freeriding the much as the next guy, but that doesnt make it right.


What are you talking about Freeriding for? That is risky stuff right there. I don't play that way. Sound investments in the form of payroll IRA deductions are about all I do. I plan on working a long time and living very simply when my kids are grown and gone. Hopefully, I can pass anything that we inherit through to their educations so that they won't have to take on debt as I have in order to get a sound education. I plan on teaching them that there is no free ride.

I believe Jesus was the one that said something about teaching a man to fish...
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
User avatar
Japs
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Waterford, MI

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by Japs »

Black Elk would you like to form a Conservative clan with me as a co-leader? its all set up but it would be good if you helped
Image
User avatar
got tonkaed
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by got tonkaed »

Japs wrote:Well I doubt those other people that disagree with him are non partisan so it would really be a biased kind of thing. Please read a few pages before you add your two cents. Need at least a dollar to buy in here.


Japs, are you implying that everyone always reads every post before they put something in. Because that would seem to be rather uncommon. I invite you to read anyone of the longer threads on the board, and ask yourself if something such as i did never happens.

And id be willing to offer again i could find people who agreed with him but thought i argued more effectively if i felt like being an E-thug about it. While admittedly its clearly to see what is going about in this thread (though you havent gotten their yet) its not BES ideas, but rather sometimes his deliever that is the difference in the vast majority of our posting (my little rant on this page - admittedly not of the best form not included of course).

BES: your not freeriding at all? Not using road systems in states where you dont pay taxes ever, not recieving the benefits of pay for cheaper goods as a result of government intervention and subsidizing not including the pharmaseuticals which of course also recieve some benefit? Nor i suppose are you benefiting from the trade agreements that larger goverments can enact that give the consumer an advantage, though your not paying an equal share to what your getting out of it? What about the scientific benefit that you getting from subsidizing of other technological advancement (occuring all throughout our economy) that enables you as a consumer (and perhaps a producer) to be invovled more freely in the marketplace.
User avatar
Japs
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Waterford, MI

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by Japs »

I read a page at least before i put in my two cents just so i have a handle at what people are talking about. And I pay federal taxes so ill drive wherever i want
Image
User avatar
black elk speaks
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:48 pm

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by black elk speaks »

Japs wrote:Black Elk would you like to form a Conservative clan with me as a co-leader? its all set up but it would be good if you helped


sure. I will give it a whirl.
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
User avatar
Japs
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Waterford, MI

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by Japs »

viewtopic.php?f=273&t=69085&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Ill add you as co-leader. Ill do that but then ill be getting off for a bit as its late in EST
Image
User avatar
got tonkaed
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by got tonkaed »

Japs wrote:I read a page at least before i put in my two cents just so i have a handle at what people are talking about. And I pay federal taxes so ill drive wherever i want


You clearly arent paying enough in federal taxes to assume you arent essentially freeriding in large quanties in regards to the federal maintaince of our very large transit system. Its fallacious to assume otherwise.
User avatar
black elk speaks
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:48 pm

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by black elk speaks »

got tonkaed wrote:BES: your not freeriding at all? Not using road systems in states where you dont pay taxes ever, not recieving the benefits of pay for cheaper goods as a result of government intervention and subsidizing not including the pharmaseuticals which of course also recieve some benefit? Nor i suppose are you benefiting from the trade agreements that larger goverments can enact that give the consumer an advantage, though your not paying an equal share to what your getting out of it? What about the scientific benefit that you getting from subsidizing of other technological advancement (occuring all throughout our economy) that enables you as a consumer (and perhaps a producer) to be invovled more freely in the marketplace.


By free riding, I didn't know what you were talking about. you mean that I am utilizing the public services that I pay taxes for. or to say, that I contribute towards... you can add police and fire fighting, library services, water treatment and trash / recycling services.

Make no mistakes here. There is a federal government in place to serve people in fundamental ways. Infrastructure and Military are but 2. there really aught not be much more than that other than to bear the burden of maintaining the institution itself. But problems start compounding when you create a system that never (NEVER) sees the common sense of working within its means. Our federal government has no business governing in affairs of welfare. If you want a liberal welfare system, do it at the state level and see how well that works for you.

Please bear in mind also that here and now in this country, our "welfare class" is already privy to exuberant amounts of public programs. You are virtually guaranteed to a full belly if you but apply for food stamps. You are also guaranteed a free public education. It is with that education, which so many choose to neglect and forsake, that should be your ticket out of the poverty that you seem to think is so terrible. And yet, around the world, there are places where people have so much less.
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
User avatar
black elk speaks
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:48 pm

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by black elk speaks »

got tonkaed wrote:
Japs wrote:I read a page at least before i put in my two cents just so i have a handle at what people are talking about. And I pay federal taxes so ill drive wherever i want


You clearly arent paying enough in federal taxes to assume you arent essentially freeriding in large quanties in regards to the federal maintaince of our very large transit system. Its fallacious to assume otherwise.


this makes no sense. you meant to say "clearly are paying too much in federal taxes..." I think.
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
User avatar
got tonkaed
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by got tonkaed »

Im well aware of the idea that there are worse places, i am not a believer that relative poverty is worse than absolute poverty. Admittedly i should be less condescending, but dont you think you should know what things like free rider problems are before you start talking about not wanting to pay taxes? I believe it would serve you far better to realize what some of the things you are getting from your tax dollars are going to. I am a reasonable man, i dont expect you (i certainly dont) nor anyone to go line by line through a local, state or national budget, but i would expect that many who decry the levels of taxes they pay to have an understanding of why we pay them. Otherwise its simply looking at ones check at the end of whenever your getting paid and thinking that you should get more money, well everyone tends to think that while they are looking at the check.

Admittedly this is tangential, but i think you are also failing to understand some of the structural issues with our education system. Im not trying to make you out to be a fool, i believe you probably have just as good as grasp as i do that there are many problems with our educational system. While we both theoretically likely agree privatizing schools could be part of a solution, i dont know if ive bought into the idea of that working in reality (as currently im teaching in a private school -admittedly abroad, and i can see even in a rather simplistic way where problems could easily arise). Ancedotal evidence aside, your schooling out of poverty truism fails to note that in many cases the places we are talking about with the large numbers of working poor are places where the schooling is that great. While this holds a ton of common sense type of weight the idea i think your missing is that the true greatness of the American education system (at least in terms of international competitiveness) is in the higher institutions, especially those than many do not have much of a chance to get into from those positions. Now certainly some can and do and do very well, but again the stratification in our society is far greater than i think a simple analysis of ancedotal evidence and common sense seems to provide. The problem is outside of the think tanks - which produce things that make more compelling arguments if not without their own flaws of course - most libertarian thought hinges on rather simplistic notions of what i deserve and what i should have to pay.

The fact that capitalist systems perform the best when individuals act with perfect information, suggests we need to advance far behind the type of lines of thinking you provide as the justification for the system that is propped up by it. This philsophically and intellectually suggests many potential problems if people took it seriously, which thankfully most do not.
User avatar
black elk speaks
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:48 pm

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by black elk speaks »

got tonkaed wrote:Im well aware of the idea that there are worse places, i am not a believer that relative poverty is worse than absolute poverty. Admittedly i should be less condescending, but dont you think you should know what things like free rider problems are before you start talking about not wanting to pay taxes? I believe it would serve you far better to realize what some of the things you are getting from your tax dollars are going to. I am a reasonable man, i dont expect you (i certainly dont) nor anyone to go line by line through a local, state or national budget, but i would expect that many who decry the levels of taxes they pay to have an understanding of why we pay them. Otherwise its simply looking at ones check at the end of whenever your getting paid and thinking that you should get more money, well everyone tends to think that while they are looking at the check.

Admittedly this is tangential, but i think you are also failing to understand some of the structural issues with our education system. Im not trying to make you out to be a fool, i believe you probably have just as good as grasp as i do that there are many problems with our educational system. While we both theoretically likely agree privatizing schools could be part of a solution, i dont know if ive bought into the idea of that working in reality (as currently im teaching in a private school -admittedly abroad, and i can see even in a rather simplistic way where problems could easily arise). Ancedotal evidence aside, your schooling out of poverty truism fails to note that in many cases the places we are talking about with the large numbers of working poor are places where the schooling is that great. While this holds a ton of common sense type of weight the idea i think your missing is that the true greatness of the American education system (at least in terms of international competitiveness) is in the higher institutions, especially those than many do not have much of a chance to get into from those positions. Now certainly some can and do and do very well, but again the stratification in our society is far greater than i think a simple analysis of ancedotal evidence and common sense seems to provide. The problem is outside of the think tanks - which produce things that make more compelling arguments if not without their own flaws of course - most libertarian thought hinges on rather simplistic notions of what i deserve and what i should have to pay.

The fact that capitalist systems perform the best when individuals act with perfect information, suggests we need to advance far behind the type of lines of thinking you provide as the justification for the system that is propped up by it. This philsophically and intellectually suggests many potential problems if people took it seriously, which thankfully most do not.


I never suggested that we, the people should not pay any tax. This thread started with the idea that all money that you have left over at the end of your life should somehow be redistributed back into the population as opposed to taking the will of the departed into account, and executing that will by leaving money to the children of the departed. We then diverged into the whole concept behind welfare. while I recognize that there are cases for the allowance of assistance to people in need, I refute the notion that it is the federal government's responsibility to do this. Our federal government is a gargantuan machine of rules and regulation, full of horrible inefficiencies. Anything that goes into the Fed is corrupted and depleted with so much overhead that it, to me, seems hardly worth the effort. It is my assertion that assistance and aid should come from charitable organizations and state level programs, where the funding for such programs are voted on, managed, and funded locally or regionally. the Fed should only have very limited duties regarding its role as a governmental power.

I mean, can you not see how abusive and colossal it is? We are maintaining an impossible empire around the world and we the people hardly know why. The government is printing up more and more money, based of promises of the future generations to pay it back. Its folly and it is going to rupture soon. Only then, no one will know how to fend for themselves. the "Welfare Mentality" has now escaped the politic of the individual, it has elevated into the corporate world with bailouts and cash injections into the auto and airline industries, and now, actual states are asking for "bailouts." It just won't end until this government is dead.
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
Ditocoaf
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by Ditocoaf »

black elk speaks wrote:
got tonkaed wrote:Im well aware of the idea that there are worse places, i am not a believer that relative poverty is worse than absolute poverty. Admittedly i should be less condescending, but dont you think you should know what things like free rider problems are before you start talking about not wanting to pay taxes? I believe it would serve you far better to realize what some of the things you are getting from your tax dollars are going to. I am a reasonable man, i dont expect you (i certainly dont) nor anyone to go line by line through a local, state or national budget, but i would expect that many who decry the levels of taxes they pay to have an understanding of why we pay them. Otherwise its simply looking at ones check at the end of whenever your getting paid and thinking that you should get more money, well everyone tends to think that while they are looking at the check.

Admittedly this is tangential, but i think you are also failing to understand some of the structural issues with our education system. Im not trying to make you out to be a fool, i believe you probably have just as good as grasp as i do that there are many problems with our educational system. While we both theoretically likely agree privatizing schools could be part of a solution, i dont know if ive bought into the idea of that working in reality (as currently im teaching in a private school -admittedly abroad, and i can see even in a rather simplistic way where problems could easily arise). Ancedotal evidence aside, your schooling out of poverty truism fails to note that in many cases the places we are talking about with the large numbers of working poor are places where the schooling is that great. While this holds a ton of common sense type of weight the idea i think your missing is that the true greatness of the American education system (at least in terms of international competitiveness) is in the higher institutions, especially those than many do not have much of a chance to get into from those positions. Now certainly some can and do and do very well, but again the stratification in our society is far greater than i think a simple analysis of ancedotal evidence and common sense seems to provide. The problem is outside of the think tanks - which produce things that make more compelling arguments if not without their own flaws of course - most libertarian thought hinges on rather simplistic notions of what i deserve and what i should have to pay.

The fact that capitalist systems perform the best when individuals act with perfect information, suggests we need to advance far behind the type of lines of thinking you provide as the justification for the system that is propped up by it. This philsophically and intellectually suggests many potential problems if people took it seriously, which thankfully most do not.


I never suggested that we, the people should not pay any tax. This thread started with the idea that all money that you have left over at the end of your life should somehow be redistributed back into the population as opposed to taking the will of the departed into account, and executing that will by leaving money to the children of the departed. We then diverged into the whole concept behind welfare. while I recognize that there are cases for the allowance of assistance to people in need, I refute the notion that it is the federal government's responsibility to do this. Our federal government is a gargantuan machine of rules and regulation, full of horrible inefficiencies. Anything that goes into the Fed is corrupted and depleted with so much overhead that it, to me, seems hardly worth the effort. It is my assertion that assistance and aid should come from charitable organizations and state level programs, where the funding for such programs are voted on, managed, and funded locally or regionally. the Fed should only have very limited duties regarding its role as a governmental power.

I mean, can you not see how abusive and colossal it is? We are maintaining an impossible empire around the world and we the people hardly know why. The government is printing up more and more money, based of promises of the future generations to pay it back. Its folly and it is going to rupture soon. Only then, no one will know how to fend for themselves. the "Welfare Mentality" has now escaped the politic of the individual, it has elevated into the corporate world with bailouts and cash injections into the auto and airline industries, and now, actual states are asking for "bailouts." It just won't end until this government is dead.

Everything you've said here is understandable... but on a side note, I hardly think welfare is the worst waste of money in the government today, by a long shot.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
User avatar
black elk speaks
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:48 pm

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by black elk speaks »

Ditocoaf wrote:Everything you've said here is understandable... but on a side note, I hardly think welfare is the worst waste of money in the government today, by a long shot.


If you are talking about "bridges to nowhere" kind of stuff, I would say that it is equally as bad as some of the pork barrel crap that gets stuffed into bills as they traverse out government system. Welfare, and the tax that goes to support them only succeed in propping up a socialist mentality that will fail in our country.
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by PLAYER57832 »

Frigidus wrote:
black elk speaks wrote:
Yeah, f*ck that. Why are people working three and four jobs? Had a bunch of kids and they need to make a lot of money? They want to keep the cable on? Sorry. I propose a "live within your means" option, which would suggest that you have to get rid of the stuff that you don't need if you are going to shed a job so that you can take the time to get better training.


Many of them already have gotten rid of everything they realistically can. Unless you suggest they drop below first world living standards, it isn't that easy.


Definitly true.

I got most of my kids' (and my .. when I was actually still buying stuff for myself) clothing and toys at garage sales. (I DO look for the hardly used stuff, but still..)

I buy food on sale. I get books from the library. I don't drive unless I HAVE to. And my one "big" expenditure is that annual CC membership.

But a few medical bills was all it took to put us heavily into debt.
User avatar
black elk speaks
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:48 pm

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by black elk speaks »

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
black elk speaks wrote:
Yeah, f*ck that. Why are people working three and four jobs? Had a bunch of kids and they need to make a lot of money? They want to keep the cable on? Sorry. I propose a "live within your means" option, which would suggest that you have to get rid of the stuff that you don't need if you are going to shed a job so that you can take the time to get better training.


Many of them already have gotten rid of everything they realistically can. Unless you suggest they drop below first world living standards, it isn't that easy.


Definitly true.

I got most of my kids' (and my .. when I was actually still buying stuff for myself) clothing and toys at garage sales. (I DO look for the hardly used stuff, but still..)

I buy food on sale. I get books from the library. I don't drive unless I HAVE to. And my one "big" expenditure is that annual CC membership.

But a few medical bills was all it took to put us heavily into debt.


So are you still there or have you worked your way out of it yet?
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
spurgistan
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by spurgistan »

black elk speaks wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:Everything you've said here is understandable... but on a side note, I hardly think welfare is the worst waste of money in the government today, by a long shot.


If you are talking about "bridges to nowhere" kind of stuff, I would say that it is equally as bad as some of the pork barrel crap that gets stuffed into bills as they traverse out government system. Welfare, and the tax that goes to support them only succeed in propping up a socialist mentality that will fail in our country.


You could throw a lot of frivolous military expenditures on that.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
User avatar
black elk speaks
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:48 pm

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by black elk speaks »

spurgistan wrote:
black elk speaks wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:Everything you've said here is understandable... but on a side note, I hardly think welfare is the worst waste of money in the government today, by a long shot.


If you are talking about "bridges to nowhere" kind of stuff, I would say that it is equally as bad as some of the pork barrel crap that gets stuffed into bills as they traverse out government system. Welfare, and the tax that goes to support them only succeed in propping up a socialist mentality that will fail in our country.


You could throw a lot of frivolous military expenditures on that.


That would be an entirely different debate, I think. Research and development into the most advanced military technology is pretty important, IMHO.
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
User avatar
Stephan Wayne
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:20 pm
Gender: Male
Location: EAST TN

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by Stephan Wayne »

you mean besides the advocation of evil and manipulation
User avatar
black elk speaks
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:48 pm

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by black elk speaks »

Stephen Wayne wrote:you mean besides the advocation of evil and manipulation


Hi Stephen. Come to be utterly retarded again?

Hey, I thought you were going to kill yourself. Looks like you changed your mind. Glad to hear that.
ICAN wrote: im not finishing this game ball-less wonder go find another eunich to play with.
PLAYER57832
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Gender: Female
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by PLAYER57832 »

black elk speaks wrote:
That would be an entirely different debate, I think. Research and development into the most advanced military technology is pretty important, IMHO.

What was it that Albert Einstein said?

We cannot simultaneously prepare for and prevent against war?
User avatar
Jenos Ridan
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:34 am
Location: Hanger 18

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by Jenos Ridan »

Ditocoaf wrote:
The concept of the market regulating itself is quite an ingenious one, and it often works: people, working towards their best interest in the form of profit, will do what's best for others in exchange for better business. I, as a customer, am more likely to buy a quality product from a responsible company; therefore the company will will act responsibly to earn my business (or at the very least, try to look responsible). People with more knowledge of economics than I will tell you how this specifies into more individual-based sense, and expands into a more general, national sense.


But all of economic conservatism goes off something else as well: the assumption that money is something we earn. Someone with a lot of money deserves it, because they earned it. That's why it's fundamentally wrong to share benefits equally. That's why we shouldn't take money from the rich and use it to help others.
Unfortunately, this assumption is incorrect.

The reason capitalism is flawed is because we're able to inherit our parent's money, thereby achieving wealth we didn't earn. Either the law should be changed so that a person's wealth disappears when they die (it actually goes back to the government), or since children inherit wealth, they should also inherit parents' debt, crimes, etc as well.

Right now, a new person randomly inherits their social status from someone random (your parents could be rich or poor, and you had no effect on that). If we simply shift our application of "inheritance" slightly, something else will make more sense: we all inherit our wealth from everyone who came before us. Family ties are still an important construct, don't get me wrong. But they fragment our society into millions of smaller societies, all fighting against eachother. If we simply view the entire country as fundamentally our family, individual inheritance becomes rather silly... and this is how we should view things, from a policy perspective. If you truly believe in the ability of the best to earn their way to the top on their own merits, then everyone should start out equal. According to capitalistic theory, Bill Gates would have been successful if he had been born in a ghetto, right? Well, with shared inheritance, everyone would begin their lives with a moderate, if not especially helpful, amount of wealth--better than many do today.


Sounds like a Bill of Attainder to me, with an overlapping Bill of Attactment. There is a reason that the US cannot legally issue Bills of Attainder.
"There is only one road to peace, and that is to conquer"-Hunter Clark

"Give a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life"- Something Hunter would say
User avatar
Frigidus
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by Frigidus »

Jenos Ridan wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:
The concept of the market regulating itself is quite an ingenious one, and it often works: people, working towards their best interest in the form of profit, will do what's best for others in exchange for better business. I, as a customer, am more likely to buy a quality product from a responsible company; therefore the company will will act responsibly to earn my business (or at the very least, try to look responsible). People with more knowledge of economics than I will tell you how this specifies into more individual-based sense, and expands into a more general, national sense.


But all of economic conservatism goes off something else as well: the assumption that money is something we earn. Someone with a lot of money deserves it, because they earned it. That's why it's fundamentally wrong to share benefits equally. That's why we shouldn't take money from the rich and use it to help others.
Unfortunately, this assumption is incorrect.

The reason capitalism is flawed is because we're able to inherit our parent's money, thereby achieving wealth we didn't earn. Either the law should be changed so that a person's wealth disappears when they die (it actually goes back to the government), or since children inherit wealth, they should also inherit parents' debt, crimes, etc as well.

Right now, a new person randomly inherits their social status from someone random (your parents could be rich or poor, and you had no effect on that). If we simply shift our application of "inheritance" slightly, something else will make more sense: we all inherit our wealth from everyone who came before us. Family ties are still an important construct, don't get me wrong. But they fragment our society into millions of smaller societies, all fighting against eachother. If we simply view the entire country as fundamentally our family, individual inheritance becomes rather silly... and this is how we should view things, from a policy perspective. If you truly believe in the ability of the best to earn their way to the top on their own merits, then everyone should start out equal. According to capitalistic theory, Bill Gates would have been successful if he had been born in a ghetto, right? Well, with shared inheritance, everyone would begin their lives with a moderate, if not especially helpful, amount of wealth--better than many do today.


Sounds like a Bill of Attainder to me, with an overlapping Bill of Attactment. There is a reason that the US cannot legally issue Bills of Attainder.


Just to let you know, this thread was mostly an attempt at trolling. That said, welcome back, it's been a while.
Ditocoaf
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by Ditocoaf »

Frigidus wrote:
Jenos Ridan wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:
The concept of the market regulating itself is quite an ingenious one, and it often works: people, working towards their best interest in the form of profit, will do what's best for others in exchange for better business. I, as a customer, am more likely to buy a quality product from a responsible company; therefore the company will will act responsibly to earn my business (or at the very least, try to look responsible). People with more knowledge of economics than I will tell you how this specifies into more individual-based sense, and expands into a more general, national sense.


But all of economic conservatism goes off something else as well: the assumption that money is something we earn. Someone with a lot of money deserves it, because they earned it. That's why it's fundamentally wrong to share benefits equally. That's why we shouldn't take money from the rich and use it to help others.
Unfortunately, this assumption is incorrect.

The reason capitalism is flawed is because we're able to inherit our parent's money, thereby achieving wealth we didn't earn. Either the law should be changed so that a person's wealth disappears when they die (it actually goes back to the government), or since children inherit wealth, they should also inherit parents' debt, crimes, etc as well.

Right now, a new person randomly inherits their social status from someone random (your parents could be rich or poor, and you had no effect on that). If we simply shift our application of "inheritance" slightly, something else will make more sense: we all inherit our wealth from everyone who came before us. Family ties are still an important construct, don't get me wrong. But they fragment our society into millions of smaller societies, all fighting against eachother. If we simply view the entire country as fundamentally our family, individual inheritance becomes rather silly... and this is how we should view things, from a policy perspective. If you truly believe in the ability of the best to earn their way to the top on their own merits, then everyone should start out equal. According to capitalistic theory, Bill Gates would have been successful if he had been born in a ghetto, right? Well, with shared inheritance, everyone would begin their lives with a moderate, if not especially helpful, amount of wealth--better than many do today.


Sounds like a Bill of Attainder to me, with an overlapping Bill of Attactment. There is a reason that the US cannot legally issue Bills of Attainder.


Just to let you know, this thread was mostly an attempt at trolling. That said, welcome back, it's been a while.

If it were just an attempt at trolling, then my purpose would have been to just rile people up and watch reactions. While I may not 100% believe the point I was talking about in the OP, I sincerely wanted to bring it up as a serious topic of discussion. Of course, I admit that I associate with a lot of trolls, and they've been active in this thread, but I promise you that I wish they weren't.

This is something that intrigues me... money is simply a note that says, "people in general owe me something, and I can use this to redeem it." Would it therefore follow that children should also inherit debt? I'm certainly not advocating passing a law based on my musings, but it's something that we should consider.
Image

>----------✪ Try to take down the champion in the continuous IPW/GIL tournament! ✪----------<

Note to self: THINK LESS LIVE MORE
User avatar
Frigidus
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by Frigidus »

Ditocoaf wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
Jenos Ridan wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:
The concept of the market regulating itself is quite an ingenious one, and it often works: people, working towards their best interest in the form of profit, will do what's best for others in exchange for better business. I, as a customer, am more likely to buy a quality product from a responsible company; therefore the company will will act responsibly to earn my business (or at the very least, try to look responsible). People with more knowledge of economics than I will tell you how this specifies into more individual-based sense, and expands into a more general, national sense.


But all of economic conservatism goes off something else as well: the assumption that money is something we earn. Someone with a lot of money deserves it, because they earned it. That's why it's fundamentally wrong to share benefits equally. That's why we shouldn't take money from the rich and use it to help others.
Unfortunately, this assumption is incorrect.

The reason capitalism is flawed is because we're able to inherit our parent's money, thereby achieving wealth we didn't earn. Either the law should be changed so that a person's wealth disappears when they die (it actually goes back to the government), or since children inherit wealth, they should also inherit parents' debt, crimes, etc as well.

Right now, a new person randomly inherits their social status from someone random (your parents could be rich or poor, and you had no effect on that). If we simply shift our application of "inheritance" slightly, something else will make more sense: we all inherit our wealth from everyone who came before us. Family ties are still an important construct, don't get me wrong. But they fragment our society into millions of smaller societies, all fighting against eachother. If we simply view the entire country as fundamentally our family, individual inheritance becomes rather silly... and this is how we should view things, from a policy perspective. If you truly believe in the ability of the best to earn their way to the top on their own merits, then everyone should start out equal. According to capitalistic theory, Bill Gates would have been successful if he had been born in a ghetto, right? Well, with shared inheritance, everyone would begin their lives with a moderate, if not especially helpful, amount of wealth--better than many do today.


Sounds like a Bill of Attainder to me, with an overlapping Bill of Attactment. There is a reason that the US cannot legally issue Bills of Attainder.


Just to let you know, this thread was mostly an attempt at trolling. That said, welcome back, it's been a while.

If it were just an attempt at trolling, then my purpose would have been to just rile people up and watch reactions. While I may not 100% believe the point I was talking about in the OP, I sincerely wanted to bring it up as a serious topic of discussion. Of course, I admit that I associate with a lot of trolls, and they've been active in this thread, but I promise you that I wish they weren't.

This is something that intrigues me... money is simply a note that says, "people in general owe me something, and I can use this to redeem it." Would it therefore follow that children should also inherit debt? I'm certainly not advocating passing a law based on my musings, but it's something that we should consider.


As an argument for the philosophical nature of economics, I'll agree with you. If the logical progression of the supposed underlying philosophy of any particular economic system does not line up with the way the system actually works, then perhaps we're not actually using that philosophy.

I may have confused this thread with another one designed specifically for trolling, and if so I apologize for the confusion.
strike wolf
Posts: 8345
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:03 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Sandy Springs, GA (just north of Atlanta)

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Post by strike wolf »

I maybe a little late with this comments but aren't there fundamental flaws with all the modern forms of economics?
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”