jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (95 posts)

What happens to Capitalism if...

  1. A Thousand Words profile image79
    A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago

    There's no one to step on/take advantage of anymore?

    Capitalism is defined as:
    - free-market system: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit. Doesn't raise any red flags for anyone?

    It's also define in Webster's New World Dicionary as:
    - an economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, communications, and transportation systems, are privately owned and operated in a relatively competitive environment through the investment of capital to produce profits: it has been characterized by a tendency toward the concentration of wealth, the growth of large corporations, etc. that has led to economic inequality, which has been dealt with usually by increased government action and control.

    What happens when the corporations are paying off the government? What happens to the system of checks and balances, then? What happens when right under our noses, companies are becoming monopolies while putting on the facade of them being multiple companies?

    The same system that is fueled by greed, the strong desire for more: an overwhelming desire to have more of something such as money than is actually needed, is slowly pushing all of the wealth into the upper class. The poor are becoming poorer, the middle class is disappearing. Everyone's ready to blame the individual, but individuals that don't know what the hell to do are a SYMPTOM of a broken society! Everybody wants to put blame ONLY on the individual. No one is saying that to a certain extent, we all aren't responsible for our decisions. BUT the society is just as responsible.

    What's being taught in our schools? How are things being advertised? Why do advertisements work? People are sheep! To say that the herders have no fault over the actions of the sheep is preposterous! Corporations understand the mentality of people. That's what they play on to make more money! If the school systems don't teach the kids how to be smart and vigilant, how to be aware, how to be their own person, how to fight for what they want, and then these same children become parents and teachers, and the children under them aren't being taught, how the hell are they supposed to know?

    Any person being honest with themselves has to realize that any system of control only works if there are people who are dumbed down and who don't know any better. Capitalism is the vehicle for just that! You say people can pull themselves up, but ask how good that would be for the companies making billions off of these people? How much do you think they're going to put into making sure people stay dependent and ignorant?

    ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS MONEY. Back to that "motivation by profits" bit of the definition. I personally have a problem with that. Why am I not rolling in the dough? Because my conscience won't let me. Saying so doesn't make me a "communist" or a "socialist." I'm just an observer. I could've been quite successful by now or at least much more so than I am. Anybody who thinks there isn't something broken about this economy is either blind or well off and desperately trying to hold onto his riches at the cost of other people. It's easy to place the blame solely on individuals. That way you can sleep at night rolling around in your beds laid with money and comforts on top of the backs of people buying into the lies and reveling in their ignorance. Working like slaves to make you richer and barely getting by. The foods that are better for us are more expensive. Those that are poorer and had no one to teach them how to make good decisions DO continue to make stupid choices. OR they don't put wealth before time now with their families. Or the ones that do, that are working 3-4 jobs to get the bills paid have kids being neglected and are out there on the streets perpetuating the cycle of poverty. And that's exactly how the  companies want it, because at the end of the day, no matter what a company's "Mission statement" is nor the product, they are "motivated by profits." Those three words sum up the real problems.

    Ignorance is a tool for the greedy. The Catholic Church did it, wayward communists/socialist leaders did it, now corporations and the government are having at it, too!

    There's no point is raising the minimum wage, all the prices will just go up because they want to keep that wealth gap. That is the ugly truth.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why would a motivation of profit raise a red flag?  Are you assuming that a profit cannot be had if you don't step on someone or cheat them? 

      Capitalism works very well between honest, caring people.  We all have different strengths and weaknesses; capitalizing (no pun intended) on our strengths will yield a profitable business, allowing our weak areas to run the business will not.  We can thus all make a profit without trampling anyone.

      Notice, however, that I do NOT say that no one tramples others in their struggle for profit; many do just that, both buying and selling.  Doesn't mean it is necessary, just that there are greedy, uncaring and unethical people out there.  What else is new?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What about them paying their "fair share?" The real question is this:

        Are people too dishonest and blindly-ambitious for trickle-down to work? Sounded good in Theory, but...

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I find that smaller companies make money one of two ways; by great employees/service/product and by low price.  Of the two the low price is much harder to compete with as you've got things like WalMart out there that specialize in low prices.

          I'm also seeing that employees of WalMart and other low price outfits are becoming much more civil and helpful.  Will it last past the recession?  My guess is no, when the good employees find better work, and then the question becomes "Will the giant corporations take notice when their business falls from lousy employees?"

          IMHO the recession has made it very difficult for many good employees to find work commensurate with their abilities and willingness to work.  That will end (is ending) and the pendulum will once again swing to become an employees market.  I've seen both in the past; we'll see both in the future.

      2. A Thousand Words profile image79
        A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        When profits become the sole motivation, what does that lead to? Money. Money's ok. Your scenario is nice, but because of the nature of men, it doesn't work out that way. Greed easily follows that.

        "Oh, wow. I'm making a pretty good profit."

        "How can I be more efficient?"

        "How can I make more of a profit?"

        Maybe at one time they were being noble. Taking care of those who worked under them. Then greed comes along.

        "Hey, if I fire the old people, I can pay newer people less than what they started with, and make more of a profit."

        "Hey, I can cut into their break time! Time is money."

        "Whoa, wait now there's competition? Ok, hmmm...what's going to make people buy... Oh wait, I can outsource! Then things get really cheap because I don't have to pay people here in the US!"

        etc, etc

        Suddenly, it's all about the profit and how to get more. More. More. More. And then this corrupted view flows into different parts of the system. Schools, government, health insurance, etc.

        I think all economic systems had good intentions initially. But each had its flaw that led to the masses being at the mercy of those on top. Capitalism, especially in this country, is on its way there. Actually, it's basically already there, but it's getting worse.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Simply put, I disagree.  I know there are big corporations out there that operate that way, but I also know there are some out there that value their employees and do what they can for them.  I recognize full well that the common viewpoint is the one you push here, but I just do not find it to be the norm.  Rather, it is the exception and unless there are other reasons those business usually fail or at least do poorly.

          Now I also know that outfits such as WalMart are unfairly accused of such actions; people accuse them of every possible greedy method under the sun of paying their employees less; what those same people do NOT do is look at how much WalMart could pay.  It is startlingly little in spite of their huge profits; that's what happens when a company is the size of WalMart. 

          And finally, I find it almost amusing to glance at the other side of the coin; the side that is taboo to even mention in polite company.  And that is just how much damage the overly powerful unions have done to the country - just what the greed of the worker has done to company after company.  There is absolutely no difference in big companies mistreating their employees and big strong unions mistreating the hand that feeds them.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            We have to be careful not to paint with the broad brush. Jaxon Raine would often mention this.

          2. A Thousand Words profile image79
            A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I agree that unions have become problematic! Just look at the school system! A horrible teacher can keep their job in places with unions because of them, and that happens quite often! It's one thing if a good, inspiring teacher works hard and has people to provide for and is fired for downsizing. It's another thing for a teacher that doesn't want to be there, that's ruining the education and experience for the students, the one that's lazy and doesn't do anything to help the students learn is able to keep her job because teachers have unions in her state.

            No one's saying, or I'm not saying that this isn't true! Of course it is. But why did unions have to be started? Because people were losing their jobs for sh*t reasons. So people made a stand to say, "that's not going to be us anymore." But now that system is corrupt. That happens to everything, eventually, because people are greedy and people are only kept accountable for so long.

            Also, no one's saying that all businesses fall under this. Especially not small businesses (of course as they become bigger, there will be more room for this to start entering in). But what do they teach you that it's all about in corporate? THE BOTTOM LINE. That is undeniable. That is their main concern because they are driven by profits. Some businesses may consider their employees, but at the end of the day, it's about money and the product. And really it's about the money, because if the product doesn't sell enough, they toss it. IF the workers aren't top notch, they're tossed. No nothing taken into consideration except that somehow money's being lost. The only time you don't see this happening is with businesses that are in it for more than just the money, but this is where we'd disagree because this is the rarity. Any business where there's a product that doesn't sell a lot, but they continue and they have just themselves and maybe a few workers if they can afford it, because they're doing more for the passion and hobby than the money.

            But at the end of the day, the people in charge of bigger businesses are more concerned with the welfare of themselves and their own. They're going to make sure that their families live in luxury and without want, and eventually, especially when they become less personally involved, it will really become all about the profits. It doesn't matter who gets fired and that they're just trying to provide for their families. It doesn't matter who's taken advantage of, who's given the run around. None of that matters because they don't have to know these people. Really know them. Sit down with them and look at their bills and their families. And they don't want to. I was watching this documentary that turned my stomach because there were real businessmen discussing how to take advantage of people after having sat down with them and found out their situations. I'll find the name of the documentary and recommend it to you.

            You have to understand that even though this may not always apply to small business, big businesses/corporations are the only thing that matter BECAUSE the most people are affected by it. Back to health insurance. People have to pay an arm and a leg for insurance, but if they become terminally ill, the companies don't want to pay for it. Forget it if you're already terminally ill, good luck finding any. Health insurance shouldn't even be a business. But at the end of the day, it's about how much money they can make because the people behind the financial decisions couldn't give a rats ass about the people getting the coverage. They majored in finance and business, not social work. They care about MONEY. That's what they think matters. That's what they're taught matters. People are no longer people, they become tools needed to make a dollar. THAT's the problem with being motivated by profits.

            Look at the food industry. I mean what the hell? Food is an industry? That is THE most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Food is a basic necessity for every human being to survive. We're under the illusion that we can grow it and sell it to other people because we own it? LoL, we can "own" food? Look at Monsanto. Do you know who they are? They are the company that basically owns the gmo corn industry. Every time you see an ingredient in processed food that's some derivative of corn, or you buy corn that doesn't say non-GMO, it's 80-90% likely it came from Monsanto. Do you know what's illegal? It's illegal for you to sue Monsanto even if you become ill by one of their products. This video is from 2013, but this bill has been continued,

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABsyhLbFfM8#t=82

            You can look at every facet of how our nation works, and see how the greed that easily follows capitalistic thinking has corrupted those things that were maybe once good. Capitalism isn't the whole problem. But the greed that it becomes a vehicle for is. Capitalism with MANY, MANY more checks and balances and A LOT more accountability can work.

            But ANYTHING can work with the right provisions. I personally I am pro community grown food and small scale specialization, bartering between communities, little government, working for needs (everyone has to help with crops, or people choose how to help with building environment friendly homes and methods of transportation, etc), sharing when a neighboring community is in trouble, no longer pushing the psychological want for excess (and really the need for advertising becomes minimal and limited to not going beyond excess), spending time with our own families (instead of always hiring nannies although we can also collectively watch each others children), spending time with our neighbors, and living healthily. But of course, greed and ego collectively say NO NO NO, absolutely not. I need the next best thing. The bigger thing. The faster thing. The thing that makes things most convenient. I need more things than them. I need to be better than them. I need. Need. NEED. When all of those things are vain wants and these wants are put before the needs of others.

            Individualism to a fault is just as bad as collectivism to a fault. We've still yet to reach a healthy middle.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think part of the problem lies within the corporate concept.  When you have ten thousand investors and one person being told to run the company to get them all money the inevitable result is that that is what happens.  If you were in charge, and your job (and food on your table) depended on maximizing income, what would YOU do?  Overpay the employees, knowing you would be fired and their pay cut?  Or maximize income, as you were instructed to do in the job description?

              I just don't have an answer for it, as the start up capital for most business is SO huge anymore.  One cannot, for instance, make a salable car without billions in capital to start with, and that takes investors.  Investors that don't care one whit for your employees, only that they get a return for their investment.

              1. A Thousand Words profile image79
                A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The answer is that the corporations are the problem. That's the whole point. Even if some of these men did care, they are part of a cyclical system that perpetuates the greed and corruption. But it only matters that they "care" if they do something to try and change the system. But because of the very things that you point out, they just perpetuate it. And that's how the system is set up. It's a machine, not an interaction between people.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually corporations and their leaders can't care. The only thing they can care about is making money for their shareholders. It's up to governments to regulate things like minimum wage and monopolies as they can't be expected to regulate themselves. If you look at what happened to banks in countries with more governement regulations you'll find that they did fine during the market crash. Even apple produces most of it's products using cheep labour oversees. It does't lower their prices it just raises profit.

                  My two cents.

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So how do we change it, without having to change every human being on the face of the earth?  Have government set all wages, prices and contracts between individuals?  The cure is worse than the disease!

                  1. janesix profile image61
                    janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    We don't change it. We let things play out their course.

                  2. A Thousand Words profile image79
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Not at all. There's not much anyone can do except raise awareness, and if they really want to get feisty, they can boycott, protest, etc. But the way the laws are going...

    2. janesix profile image61
      janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1 BILLION

      smile
      smile
      smile

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Really, janesix?

      2. A Thousand Words profile image79
        A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        LoL, that's a lot, but thanks. smile I've been thinking about this a lot and a recent forum I ran across just really annoyed me so I vented a little.

    3. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Very good points and a very good post! smile

      1. A Thousand Words profile image79
        A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, smile. I'm just venting my frustrations. >.>

    4. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't the question more about greed than capitalism?

      Hasn't society asked for more or better products? Who steps up to the plate if there is nothing in it for them? (I am not just thinking monetary) Should we castigate those who are wealthy because they have pandered to those who wish to buy or use their products?

      How would you deal with the greed within society? Shoot those you deem to be to greedy? implement a socialist/communist system? Demand that people be happy with what they have?

      What people see is the CEO's of these large corporations making $millions in salary and benefits but don't seem to see the mangers, middle managers and workers providing for their families. They manly see the greedy rich shareholders who pocket millions in dividends but don't see the pensioners and pension funds that provide incomes after retirement.

      It would be nice to think that we could get rid of greed in the world but I just wouldn't happen. That's why I wont concern myself with what someone else has but will always focus on what I have.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do you think the trickle-down theory of taxing the wealthy less was a good idea?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Instead of benefiting the wealthy first, the policy (supply side/trickle down economics) actually benefits the working class first. This may sound impossible -- after all, it's the wealthy who get the tax breaks, not the poor. However, Sowell maintains that because the wealthy make investments in order to make a profit, they spend the money first on expenses of the business venture. (In other words, spending money to make money.) These wealthy investors must pay workers, thus creating jobs, before they can expect to see any profits. Therefore, it's the workers who receive the most immediate relief." Source: Thomas Sowell
          http://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle- … omics3.htm

        2. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am not to sure how it works in the US but here in the UK the top 1% of earners pay almost 33% of the tax.
          If things were fair shouldn't everybody be taxed at the same rate?
          Maybe we should look at how that tax money is spent rather than where it comes from?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes.  "Fair" means the same amount from every citizen, whether man, woman or child.  Rich or poor, black or white, sane or insane.

            Unfortunately that pretty obviously isn't going to work.  You'll have a hard time collecting much from a newborn, or from most asylum inmates.  The poor will die if required to pay their share, leaving insufficient people to run the factories we all want. 

            So we use a graduated method, basing it on what people can afford to pay but the problem is that the wants of the poor quickly override their ethics and ever more is demanded of anyone with more money than they have.

    5. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Who exactly? Do you have names of the greedy and why they are considered greedy?  A good check is to let us know and then we can stop buying their products. Then the company/corporation will fold and all the mistreated employees will be spared of miserable under-payed conditions.
      Also, exactly who is responsible for allowing monopolies to form when it is illegal? Could it be the person at the top? Lets hold that person accountable the next time we're in the voting booth.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think "the greedy" is every stockholder in the country, which includes me.  They are the owners, they want a profit, they want an income as much as the worker does.  Which makes them greedy.

        You're right though - we should all refuse to buy stock, ever, as a starting point.  Don't want to be one of the greedy bourgeois.  And definitely stop buying the products - better to put the employees on the unlimited entitlement programs of the libs than to have them work at what some consider to be too low a wage.   Even though they chose the job and agreed to the wage, they should not be allowed to work there.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          oh, yes... much better for the self-esteem of these individuals, (who are trapped by those who are greedy enough to build successful, (I shudder at the word,) business empires...) to be released into the wilds of Welfare!

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Absolutely.  Work is so...so...demeaning, you know!

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "While it might­ be true that some wealthy members of society seek tax breaks for self-serving purposes and might even bribe politicians into voting for these policies, trickle-down economists would consider this irrelevant to the question of whether the theory works for everyone. John F. Kennedy showed his support of the trickle-down economic theory when he said, "a rising tide lifts all boats" -- meaning that a growing economy benefits you whether you're rich or poor [source: Nugent]."
              http://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle- … omics3.htm

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                ...what about a "flat tax?"

  2. Hendrika profile image71
    Hendrikaposted 3 years ago

    Does not matter how you look at it, it will never work again. People are too greedy. They want BIG houses smart cars and eat in expensive restaurants. I can remember a time when people were perfectly happy with less. My father had a very high post with a good salary but, he was perfectly happy driving around in his "Volksie" as we called the beetle. Our home was comfortable but perfectly "ordinary"
    So, bottom line, people are too greedy so capitalism cannot work as the "motivated by profit" has gone completely out of control

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe we should blame High IQ. Many people who know how to get what they want are very intelligent.
      Darn smart people.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ...what happens to the smart people when there is no one left willing to be to stepped on and taken advantage of, (in the smart people's quest to make money and lots of it?)
        Random options:
        1. They offer better employment packages!
        ( If no one step up to the new plate, it will be because those who (also) need money, didn't know that the jobs would offer more than welfare checks.)
        (Note: After people have been unemployed for more than a year these smart people will not hire them because they know work skills diminish through disuse.)
        2. They determine to treat new employees with more respect, realizing that without them they will have to look for new hires.
        3. They outsource and hire very hungry foreigners thankful for work.
        4. They merge with other companies.
        5. They sell their company/ies.
        6. They file for bankruptcy.

    2. A Thousand Words profile image79
      A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hendrika, I completely agree. Thanks for sharing.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    don't worry,
    be happy...
    tall skyscrapers
    will tumble
    Into the sea
    eventually...
    after the asteroid hits
    and our skills are gone...
    after the gold rush
    of civilization.

  4. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    Excellent analysis!  This is why I follow you.

    1. A Thousand Words profile image79
      A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      LoL, thanks Sooner. I had just finished browsing a forum topic about poor people with the usual, ridiculously ignorant rant and I felt like this forum needed to be made.

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There are some sold arguments against capitalism.

        One is that it tends to concentrate power.  Concentrated power in any form is dangerous.

        The other one is that capitalism is incompatible with the ultimate survival of the human species.  Just think about it.  Capitalism is based on everyone consuming as much as their income allows.  Add to this that the population keeps growing, and it's a recipe for pure disaster.

        1. janesix profile image61
          janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yep. You certainly got that right.

        2. A Thousand Words profile image79
          A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed. Well said.

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            SOLID!  Wow.  Can't believe I missed that typo.

        3. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Capitalism is a natural form of free trade. It supplies the demand that is required to obtain a profit. It weans out the weak as the demand dictates what is solvent in obtaining the most for any given profit. Where it goes horribly wrong is when those that want to absorb or abolish competition through the use of government interference and or regulation. We have a group of elites industrialists who wish to buy their way out of accepted practices by increasing profits through avoiding tariffs and taxes on their products coming into the country. This upsets the balance of trade and slowly eliminates the competition they had within the US. Subsequently we are seeing some manufacturing coming back sans the union and wage restrictions on the amount of their profits as they played the foreign labor against us. Pretty good gig if you can make it happen and more assuredly if you can put a congressman or a President in your pocket.

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Heres a great plan......make all the people poor and then make 'em dependent on the government for food stamps and free healthcare. Make 'em want to elect wolves in sheep's clothing.

    Split the people up into halves and have nots, etc etc etc..
    We cannot afford to hate each other.

    1. A Thousand Words profile image79
      A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I assume you're probably being sarcastic. but like I said to wilderness:

      "I personally I am pro community grown food and small scale specialization, bartering between communities, little government, working for needs (everyone has to help with crops, or people choose how to help with building environment friendly homes and methods of transportation, etc), sharing when a neighboring community is in trouble, no longer pushing the psychological want for excess (and really the need for advertising becomes minimal and limited to not going beyond excess), spending time with our own families (instead of always hiring nannies although we can also collectively watch each others children), spending time with our neighbors, and living healthily. But of course, greed and ego collectively say NO NO NO, absolutely not. I need the next best thing. The bigger thing. The faster thing. The thing that makes things most convenient. I need more things than them. I need to be better than them. I need. Need. NEED. When all of those things are vain wants and these wants are put before the needs of others."

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Who will have the heavy industry instead of farms?  Who will make cars, trains and refrigerators?  Who will fly the next moon rocket?

        And who will supply the banana's?  I don't think I've ever lived in a community that grew all of it's food within a 50 mile radius; food production is far too specialized for that.  For example, where I am now specializes in sugar beets; sugar beets makes up a large portion of what is grown but cannot provide any real nutrition at all.  We have a little grain and some mint.  Some potatoes, but that's about it.  Where do we get the rest of our food supply, and how do we barter for it?  Trade the computer printers manufactured here, or train engines, for carrots?

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Who "needs" cars, trains and refrigerators? Who "needs" to fly to the moon?

          The point s that we don't need corporate giants to feed us, we don't need Monsanto to dictate to us what we eat and we don't need GM or Ford to dictate to us what we drive.

          Sugar beet is a wonderful cheap way of bulking up more essential food whilst detracting from the nutritional value of that adulterated food. There is absolutely no reason outside economics and the quest for even more profit, why that land used for growing sugar beet shouldn't be used for more nutritional crops.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            We all nee cars, trains and refrigerators.  We all need to fly to the moon (as a nation or species, not individuals).

            Monsanto does dictate what you eat, and neither GM nor Ford dictate what we drive.

            Of course it can be used for more nutritional crops - but no one will have any sugar if everyone takes that stance.  Which is the point - going the way of small, self sufficient communities we will all miss out on a great deal of this we really enjoy.  Cell phones, computers, cars, planes and microwaves for a start.  Followed by electricity, clean water and heated homes.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why do we all need cars? I get along fine without one! Why do we all need trains? I haven't been on a train for at least a decade. Granted refrigerators are useful, but we don't need them. Why do we need to fly to the moon (as a nation)?

              I don't think you are agreeing with me that Monsanto does dictate what we eat, maybe not yet entirely but one day soon they will. Try building cars in  your garage, how will you get type approval?

              It wouldn't be any loss to us if we had to cut down on sugar in our diet, no one says we would have to do without it entirely.

              Why is food production linked to cell phones and computers?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                ...why don't we just learn a thing or two from the American indians?  In fact, why don't we give the land back to them? Why did we not adapt to them and become like them? 'Cause we are bad evil souls who care nothing for the uncivilized life of nature and natural iving.
                Right John?
                Oh never mind, you are British.
                I heard the Scots were as uncivilized and brutal as the American !ndians back in the day. Is this true, do you suppose?

                1. janesix profile image61
                  janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Now I see why I'm so wild and crazy, it's my Cherokee and Scottish coming out!

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Really?

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I didn't know the Scots were civilized yet (my wife is of Scottish heritage). smile

                  1. janesix profile image61
                    janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    We're NOT;)

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Because if all the people are involved in running inefficient 1 acre farms without modern equipment or chemicals, there will BE no cell phones, computers or the like.  No one to make them, no one to finance the infrastructure to make them.  And no one with the time to use them, even, with everyone out hoeing the north 40.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So every farm apart from big industrialised farms are inefficient! Bull.

                  And why do they have to be one acre?

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    To become self sufficient the estimates say you would need about 2 acres or 89050sq ft. To just grow food for yourself you would need a quarter of an acre.

  6. profile image84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    Corporations are bad?

    If corporations are so horrible and  greedy, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

    The people who bash corporations immediately advocate and provide a favorable, massive stimulus to keep those same corporations solvent when the economy tanks.  I find this thinking slightly paradoxical.  The Left's thought process is: corporations are bad, government is good, corporations didn't build themselves without government assistance, big corporations are too important and big to fail, and corporations unduly influence government.  It seems as if some of these opinions/thoughts seem to conflict.

    Frankly, I don't trust the government, and I don't trust corporations.  Each has an agenda.  The difference is that the corporate agenda is clear, profit.  The government's agenda vacillates.  Some politicians want power.  Others want profit.  Others want prestige.  Some want to actually do what's best for America.  A CEO's intentions are clear; a politician's intentions are mercurial.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      ...and suspicious, if you ask me..

    2. A Thousand Words profile image79
      A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      LoL, I hope this isn't towards me. If you even read the whole opening post, you'd notice that I said that corporations and government are having at the corruption, too.

      "If corporations are so horrible and  greedy, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?"

      Why should I be happy when corrupt corporations try to be greedy and corrupt on other soil? That's pretty selfish.

      "The people who bash corporations immediately advocate and provide a favorable, massive stimulus to keep those same corporations solvent when the economy tanks.  I find this thinking slightly paradoxical. "

      That's not paradoxical, it's hypocritical. Especially if those corporations themselves are corrupt. But people are afraid of change, and many people have certain views without really understanding why. But people would rather their economy stay afloat than let corrupt businesses fail if they have a big hand in "helping" said economy stay afloat.

      "Frankly, I don't trust the government, and I don't trust corporations.  Each has an agenda.  The difference is that the corporate agenda is clear, profit.  The government's agenda vacillates.  Some politicians want power.  Others want profit.  Others want prestige.  Some want to actually do what's best for America.  A CEO's intentions are clear; a politician's intentions are mercurial."

      Absolutely. Then we agree. Except CEOs want prestige and power as well, but money/profits are what drives them to continue their antics. The politicians are no different. The only difference is they get voted in.

      1. profile image84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If I had intended to direct it at you, I would have responded to one of your posts. 

        Best wishes.

      2. junko profile image80
        junkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        A thousand words, A very good rant, you just said that because its true.

 
working