Some say that capitalism pretty much causes *hell on earth*.
How could we bring about *heaven on earth*, instead?
Well, the theoretical answer to that question would be Communism, but we know that doesn't work out so well.
I don't know that humanity is capable of getting it entirely right, but I'm of the opinion that a social market economy (like Germany) is probably the best option.
Would a social market economy be a better option than capitalism?
"Social market economy (German: Soziale Marktwirtschaft) is a form of market capitalism combined with a social policy favoring union bargaining and social insurance, and is sometimes classified as a coordinated market economy. It is often referred to as Rhine capitalism to stress the various similarities with the contemporary economic order in many Western European countries and Japan." Wikipedia
"Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and capital goods, and the production of goods and services for profit in a market economy. Central characteristics of capitalism include the process of capital accumulation, competitive markets, and wage labor. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged." Wikipedia
I so don't want to get in on this argument, but I can get behind this.
This is like the best example of hyperbole I have ever seen.
Capitalism does not create hell on earth and the alternatives don't produce utopias
But there is something deeply, deeply wrong with assuming we have done the best we can and reached the pinnacle of that is possible in our political and economic system.
The best system of both those things is inevitably one we have not discovered yet but the only way we will ever find an approximation of it is change and experimentation.
Nothing is worse for civilization and societies than stagnation or (somehow) even worse, regression.
The monarchists thought they had the best system, the Romans though they did, the Greeks thought they did, the communists thought they did and the capitalists still do and they are and were all wrong, people who think the best system is already created ALWAYS have been.
"The best system of both those things is inevitably one we have not discovered yet but the only way we will ever find an approximation of it is change and experimentation. "
This is a solid statement. I agree with this, though I would experiment and change less than many might.
The first place to start, no matter the social or political system, would be to change the nature of our currency - i.e. use a currency that can't own interest - this is very much the idea in The Future of Money by Bernard Lietar, an ex investment fund manager. There are already local schemes in place in the UK where this happens. This kind of currency bonds a community together. In fact, to take it a stage further, currency that is held too long could be penalised with loss of value.
Currency needs to circulate. All this money hoarded, and earning interest, is in many ways the cause of social and economic failures. Interest making is really no good for anybody.
So perhaps we should all put our money in Islamic banks! :-))
It's a very interesting point and a different solution to the standard presentations for dealing with that inefficiency in a capitalist system, one way or the other the problem needs to be solved.
Use that money collecting interest and turn it into businesses and you could get rid of unemployment.
The interesting thing is if this is run publicly it means #1 the state can stop providing welfare to people who will not work because now there is plenty of work there is no excuse to not be working barring disability/illness/old age etc. #2 and tangentially these businesses created don't have to be very profitable, so long as they break even (or even very slightly don't I guess) it's still a win since it means the people employed don't have to be provided with welfare.
Which means suddenly some money is freed up which you can depending on your stance use to reduce taxes and thus allow more growth (though studies of tax rates in American history show that doesn't actually occur) or use that money to aid growth by investing in better education, health etc.
It's very exciting I think.
YOU JUST WANT TO KILL THE LITTLE CHILDREN!!
Wow, that felt good. First time I ever had the opportunity to say it.
But you are, you know - there is zero chance that providing jobs for everyone means everyone (healthy, etc.) will work one. And less, if that is possible, that they will work one that will pay enough to support them and their children. But you're going to end welfare for them anyway.
You are a cruel, insensitive, unethical, immoral, evil, nasty, terrible person for even suggestion such an awful thing, just to improve the nation enormously. Because
YOU JUST WANT TO KILL THE LITTLE CHILDREN!!
(Can I scream it again - that's fun! )
I specifically answered that in my post.
Read it again.
*sigh* Fine I will quote it.
"now there is plenty of work there is no excuse to not be working barring disability/illness/old age etc."
"The state can stop providing welfare TO PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT WORK because now there is plenty of work "
And there is absolutely no reason that people can't have jobs that will provide for them and their family, even if they don't if they are working full time and it's still not enough then you can provide welfare on top of that but it's still a massive saving (that should be obvious).
So nope, try actually reading it and thinking.
So to be clear anyone who can't work will still be covered, anyone who can work will have work available and those few for whom full time work is still not enough extra welfare will be easily provided given the massive savings. Where are the Children dying?
See unlike you I am not OK with a system where kids go hungry so you don't have to worry about that.
I'd say you need to read yourself. I did see and understand that.
"there is zero chance that providing jobs for everyone means everyone (healthy, etc.) will work one" See that bolded will? Read it again. And again until you understand that not everyone that can, will work and particularly will work a job that pays enough to support them (nice that you added that part of welfare back in!). So in the final call, your welfare plan is very nearly what it is today and there are virtually no savings at all.
It's a nice dream that everyone loves their job enough to work when they don't have to, but not always true. Nor is health, disability, old age, etc. the only reason not to; under current thinking a single mom is enough reason to never work a day in her life as long as she can keep a kid at home.
You're back to that
YOU WANT THE LITTLE CHILDREN TO DIE.
Offensive, isn't it, even when not true?
Yeah I also bolded the section that made it clear that there are people who will not work and they are are accounted for.
SO if there is plenty of work available and the person can work but is not refusing to work then why aren't they working?
Single raising a child under the current conditions might fall under that etc.in my first comment might not, I don't really know. Probably it would fall under a justification to work part time, it's a detail.
Just the other day you were telling me how there were so many people who don't want to work and receive welfare, well under this system there aren't, surely that means a big saving then? Plus the reinstatement of this supposedly lost work ethic?
Oh also not offensive, just wrong. Of course I never made that comment either, the comment I made to another poster is their system does (and it actually factually incontrovertibly does) make children go hungry not that they wanted them to go hungry and certainly not that they wanted them to die. So double wrong.
I'm sorry Josak, but you are trying to live in a fantasy world. There is absolutely nothing in your plan that will force a job on anyone that can work. Instead, you pretend that everyone offered a job, any job, will jump at it rather than take charity.
It's a fantasy, for God's sake! There are millions of people in this country that work ONLY because they have to, and pretending otherwise won't change that.
That "detail" of what to do with a single Mom that regularly pops out a new baby to keep and expand her welfare is indicative of your response; sweep it under the rug and pretend it isn't there.
Because at the bottom of it all you and I aren't that far apart. You won't feed somebody that won't work (not "can't", "won't") any more than I will, you just won't look at the reality that there are a great many people out there that are willing to force the issue. Same with those that could find some OT, could get some training/education, but won't do either. I won't pay them either, while your solution is to pretend they don't exist even as you hand them a steak, saying you won't pay them.
So when you want more money for more poor people needing help, consider the child that you pay the parent to feed them 3 squares at home and then pay again to feed them at school. And explain again how you won't pay people not to work, but you will pay them twice to feed their kid the same meal.
Get rid of the waste, get rid of the people that actually can support themselves, stop buying luxuries for people that can't afford it themselves, and there is absolutely no lack of money to take care of every person in the country. To feed and heal, as much as possible, every disabled vet without requiring them to go hungry for years fighting the system. To help out the elderly widow eating dog food because, after paying her mortgage, that's all she has left and has chosen hunger rather than losing the home she's been in for 50 years. To maintain the life and possessions (home, second car, RV, etc.) of someone temporarily down on the luck from medical costs or job loss instead of requiring them to divest themselves of a lifetime of earnings first.
You talk a good story, but you aren't any happier with the unnecessary welfare than I am, and claim you would do something about it (refuse them anything to eat). And you won't follow through with it any more than I will, because neither one of us wants the children to die. Why not come into reality and find a solution instead of pretending that everybody is a good guy, won't screw the system, and enjoys working for a living?
A solution have been put before you time and time again and that is to make people more important than profit and stop hiding behind the claim that most of the unemployed don't want to work. if there was work for all who wanted it the few who didn't want to work would be easily affordable..
That of course is assuming that wages are high enough to live comfortably off, who in their right mind would want to work for less than the government thinks is the minimum needed to sustain life?
All our problems can be traced back to the greed of a few.
So you can't save capital until you have enough to build the new factory or the new machine to go in the one you have. And you can't borrow it, paying for the privilege, because no one else has it, either and if they did they won't give it to you with a return.
What's the answer then? Make all business govt. owned as only they have the capital to build it? Effectively prohibit entrepreneurship by require that there be thousands of partners in any business of any size?
And when you've figured that one out, how do you save for a new car, house or even retirement when money cannot be borrowed or saved?
#1 an exclusion would obviously apply if you are saving to make a business with an escrow account etc. to ensure people don't just claim they are.
#2 Not necessarily, see above.
#3 There can be exclusions for small sums. And we already have special accounts and plans for home buyers etc. these can simply be extended.
Not sure I see anythiing "obvious" about the new exclusion, but OK. An exclusion for saving if it's in an escrow account (no interest though!) to start a business. Guess someone else will have to verify the value of the business to be purchased, too, so that you don't sneak a Big Mac out of it when you buy?
3) I don't see hundreds of thousands, intended to live on the last 40 years of your life, as a small sum. Outside of a mortgage, just what "special plan" is used currently to buy a house? I DID know one guy that put it on his credit card, but even that's a loan!
In that escrow account interest could be accumulated, no reason why not. Yes you would have to verify your expenses with receipts, not complicated.
Yes hence a plan can be created specifically for people who are buying homes.
Sorry I got confused, this happens in most of the first world, I forgot how far behind we are. In most counties when you are buying your first home or a retirement home etc. there are special mandated plans that increase your interest if you put money aside for that purpose and also programs to limit how much you can be charged on your mortgage a little.
The author of The Future of Money saw our normal currency running alongside an alternative currency - in essence, two currencies running side by side. It's an interesting idea and worth exploring fully. Certainly, he was in a position to deduce the effect of interest making in our society.
In fact, he saw further efficiencies at work using a dual currency, where 4 day working weeks would be the norm. So our currencies would serve us, not us serving our currencies.
I have to confess I don't see any currency increasing the physical efficiency of the work force enough to get 5 days work done in 4 days.
Nor do I see the slightest reason to think that saved money is sitting in some bank vault, doing nothing. Not only is it out on loans, banks leverage it into loaning several times what is actually deposited - loans that are used to buy things, putting money right back into circulation. More money that was saved in the first place.
"The accumulation of capital is a form of growth. Growth is simply an increase in capacity, throughput, or physical size—that is, an increase in power to do more and expand one’s domain of influence. In the real world growth is limited by resource availability, a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics (“nothing comes for nothing, and nothing comes for free”). When a system grows to the limits of its resource base it must stop growing.
However, it may nevertheless continue in its attempts to grow. But such attempts meet with success only to the extent that resources tied up somewhere within the system are sacrificed (‘liquidated’), which can only lead to one thing: death of part or all of the system.
Free market capitalism is a system motivated by the accumulation of wealth. As such it exists for one reason and one only, and that is to grow. Growth is its sole project, its raison d’etre. But the laws of thermodynamics do not allow unlimited growth—as any astute observer of nature knows. When the growth of a system reaches the limits of its resource base, continued efforts to grow cause some part of, and possibly the whole, system to collapse. This is a thermodynamic fact. It is the reason why cancer kills its host.
Like cancer, free market capitalism does not recognize the limits to growth, and it does not self-regulate for the greater good. It is an engine of growth—nothing more, and nothing less." ~ Jim Coffman
http://joyuscrynoid.hubpages.com/hub/Fr … is-Immoral
When capitalism turns into "Greedism" there is little one can do when it invades our psyche and becomes our culture.
Dear Rod Rainey.
I have taken the liberty to share these links here as well.
Thank You for posting them.
http://www.lietaer.com/2012/07/the-pote … d-lietaer/
http://trustcurrency.blogspot.com/2010/ … ircle.html
http://www.complementarycurrency.org/cc … potkin.pdf
Well, better minds than mine have tried to predict the eventual outcomes of such policies, so I largely base it on my overall opinion that the correct answer in a two-sided issue almost always lies somewhere in the middle.
The independence and "freedom" involved in a capitalist free market, minus the rampant corruption and greed in the private sector would be ideal were it possible, but on the scale we're discussing I don't believe that it is. However, I think this is theoretically at least one of the better options.
...so is capitalism to blame for *hell on earth?*
How would social market economy bring about *heaven on earth?*
Or at least be better than free markets?
"A free market is a market structure which is not controlled by a designated authority. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government policy intervenes in the setting of prices. An economy composed entirely of free markets is referred to as a free-market economy." Wikipedia
Well if you want to pick up a history book and go look at what a pure free market system looks like (see industrial revolution England for example) you'll see it's a pretty awful system.
People working sixteen or seventeen hours a day, regular deaths on the job, constant exposure to dangerous chemical's, child labor, no healthcare people cold afford, wages so low people could starve while working full time, being fired without warning or severance, short lifespans and the elderly starving to death when they could no longer work.
I recommend "The ragged trousered Philanthropists" By Robert Tressel written by a working man during the turn of the century in a free market economy if you want an inside look.
I believe unions CAN be a good thing, and in a true free-market economy, you would have collective bargaining.
Yes, I'm a conservative, and I know I'm saying something that appears to go against conservative thought; I'm saying it out of conservatism. I believe unions are a part of a true free market. This quote says it best:
"And it’s particularly annoying because the vast bulk of the union-bashing is coming from the alleged free-market conservatives. What the hell is so conservative about beating up on unions, anyway. Unions are the quintessential model of a market based solution to a problem. The management and the money people might not like them, but that alone doesn’t mean they’re not a market solution – unless the real criteria for 'free-market' is “stuff that makes people who already have money happier.”
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2008/ … et-soluti/
Yeah I sort of agree.
We used to believe that (socialists I mean), that we wouldn't have to fight about unions because capitalists would support them too...
Unfortunately we discovered how much political support magnates can buy when things like unions threaten their profits and thus the right became and remains anti union. They were initially very successful at destroying unions and so eventually unionists were forced to turn to government when their doors were constantly being kicked down in the middle of the night, when they were being shot by company men while protesting and when every injustice imaginable was perpetuated on them.
It didn't have to be that way.
That would be comical (the post) if not so sad.
Unions started out as a very good thing, and they did a lot of good. Until they got greedy, wanting ever more income regardless of the company ability to pay, and until they begin using mafia tactics, terrorizing both non-union members and company workers. Violence was common and business had to turn to the law in many cases to keep them restrained from kicking doors in and such. Personal injury from union goons was common in big strikes, as was destruction of company property and the private property of non-union workers.
Even today, I've had work destroyed myself by union thugs; thugs continuing to fight for a job they couldn't land because their price was too high. So they destroyed the work that the non-union laborers did to try and force the company off the job site.
Business wasn't alone, then, in the crap that went on; unions most definitely played their part and did their share of violence and damage.
Uhuh please post examples of unions massacring groups because I can post plenty of examples of the opposite.
Unions definitely strong armed and stuff, don't get me wrong and it was bad but the scale is just incomparable.
Unionists in the South had the US army turned on them, they were bombed from planes for Christ's sake.
Those criticisms you level at unions now were the same ones leveled at them when you think they were doing good, in 50 years I am sure conservatives will look back at the decline in average wage and increasing work hours etc. and say the same thing abut now compared to then.
Then you would fail to have a free market at all, not a true free market.
Stop! No common sense. Extremist views only.
Free markets have created Hell on Earth according to Josak's comment: "People working sixteen or seventeen hours a day, regular deaths on the job, constant exposure to dangerous chemical's, child labor, no healthcare people cold afford, wages so low people could starve while working full time, being fired without warning or severance, short lifespans and the elderly starving to death when they could no longer work. "
It seems that a free market breeds greed. And greed breeds masters who pretty much turn their workers into slaves. What are the checks on greed in a more "mixed approach"? How is the master-mentality reduced or restricted?
Same as a free market. At the end of it all, the only check is the people of the system, whatever it is. When the slaves are willing ones, it's very difficult to eliminate the greed.
1. What about the need to experiment and find a new direction in government?
a. What can government do to check the abuse of greed?
1. Laws should be enacted to prohibit people from taking jobs they
determine are unsuitable.
2. Business, finance and economics should be mandatory classes in High School.
3. High school students should be expected to mentor with successful businessmen, teachers, architects, etc. according to chosen interest and aptitude.
4. Aptitude tests should be part of the High School Entrance and Exit examinations.
I specifically avoided that hyperbole of , "Hell on Earth" capitalism as a system is not all bad in fact I believe that compared to most systems it is pretty good, I just think it is reaching the end of it's usefulness.
Absolutism is the symptom of a rigid and unthinking mind, don't dishonestly lump me in with that.
#1 imposes tyranny.
…And suggests that heaven on earth cannot be brought about by government at all. Not even changes, or new directions will make it possible.. WHY do we think it can? As wilderness explains, "At the end of it all, the only check is the people of the system, whatever it is." (Thank you wilderness. and thank you all for your wise posts.)
#2 through 4 above can be freely undertaken by any school district, as long as there are not too many governmental educational mandates preventing implementation of them. I think they are a good idea to empower the youth and foster actual survival capabilities in the real world… as long as there is a real world.
Hell on Earth vs the Real World.
This would make an interesting forum topic too. But, we can just take it from here, if anyone is game.
America in its golden ages was thriving and prosperous. There were social issues still being worked out, but the economy was percolating, scientific inventions and new technologies were prolific and our space and military programs were thriving. That period was short lived, however. Maybe it was a glimpse or a sample of a better future. In other words, maybe the future will be similar to the 50's and 60's, but without the unfortunate social issues. What will bring it about? What did bring it about? What ended it? In many ways this period serves as an example of the *real world* I am hoping will return minus the problems.
Hell to me is pretty much what we are headed into and its not caused by capitalism.. < :- (
Hint: We can't take away freedom for the sake of abolishing its effects! (- to not understand this is to loose everything!)
At least some of what you find good in the 60's, and that we have lost, is the productivity of the country. At that time, people worked to produce something - something of value that someone else wanted.
Today we are in a transition, thinking we can become a nation of paper pushers feeding off one another and getting the products and solid goods we want from other countries. White collar workers, in the final analysis, produce little of value. They are there to make a profit, not a product, and it shows. There are exceptions of course - some of the hubs here on HP classify as products people want for instance - but in general the white collar worker does not produce.
It also hurts. There are other ways we can go - information, maybe, or pure research - but to simply push papers around in search of the almighty dollar will hurt us and hurt us badly in the long run. We built the country on it's factories, not of it's office buildings, but didn't seem to learn that those office buildings are worthless without the factory behind it.
Yes. Increased regulations forced out the production and factories. They left looking for a cheaper place to produce their goods. Cut the regulations and government restrictions and they'll come back!
(What do we still produce?
cars, printing, clothing, trucks, windows... the list is endless and we have the capability to produce everything, but not in the current business environment.)
Maybe. I'd be concerned that the workforce has changed too much. Manual labor, blue collar stuff, carries a stigma now that would be funny if not so pathetic.
Example: working in schools or businesses, I would very often be treated like less than dirt by teachers, secretaries, etc. Ignored as much as possible, spoken to only when absolutely necessary and generally assumed to have nothing of any value to say. Just another ignorant, uneducated trained monkey wandering through the office.
Yet, I have more secondary education than most of them. I was certainly more highly skilled, and in something they could not learn to do in a lifetime. And we as a nation tend to do that to all too many of the people that make our world go around. The car mechanic that we entrust our lives to. The plumber that makes life in our home even possible. The baggage handler that we depend on to make our long awaited vacation pleasant for us.
We need to re-think our attitude that these people are somehow less than we are. Only then can we again produce the work force necessary to become a productive part of the world. We pretty much outproduced the rest of the world combined in WWII; we can do it again, but not by pushing papers around a desk top and not by relegating the people that CAN produce to the bottom of the social ladder.
"Increased regulations forced out the production and factories".
Yes, cheap labor in third world countries forced out the production of factories in the U.S. Just in case you are not aware, this is what cheap labor looks like:
And this is what unregulated factories look like:
Yes let's cut all those pesky regulations, then we too could achieve this. After all, profit is king right?
The real world can be heaven on earth. The real world is based on…
*Recognizing the vital necessity for plumbers, electricians, mechanics and all "blue-collar" trades and services.
*Bringing back industry/production-friendly environment by getting rid of over-regulating government.
*Encouraging small business by dropping burdensome governmental regulations.
*Producing, selling and buying everything we need!
*Keeping taxes low, allowing people to keep most of the money they make.
*Keeping money in the form of coins and dollars to hold and see in the concrete realm.
*Establishing more hospitals like Kaiser that offer their own insurance.
*Keeping unions fair and manageable through democratic means.
*Producing our own energy sources, such as coal and oil, etc.
*Close the borders tighter using voluntary (or paid) in-state militia.
*Educational focus on mathematics realizing the need for bridges, buildings architects...
*Educational focus on math/science realizing the need for space exploration, biologists, researchers...
Let us keep what remains, value what we have and get back what we have lost!
And let us keep our trans-fats … A little trans-fat once in a while hurts no one!
I just had a mental image of voluntary militias policing the border, I don't think I have ever thought of something more disturbing than the kind of people who would volunteer for that with guns around illegals in the middle of nowhere.
I agree. It is a disturbing image.
But aren't cops voluntary? And the soldiers, seamen and pilots? And Forest Service agents, some of whom are armed? And the national guard?
Aren't all of the members of the various "militias" that we use voluntary? None whatsoever conscripted?
Trained and vetted professionals are not quite the same. Even that makes me a bit uncomfortable.
What I was getting at is I can see a lot of white supremacist and illegal hating sorts joining up. I don't see it working out well.
Well, with you 100% here - a gang of untrained yahoos with their guns, working the night patrol and looking for an illegal to shoot, doesn't make it.
I am very much for securing our borders and keep illegal aliens home, but that isn't the way to do it.
I just threw that out there. I have no idea. Wasn't sure about the union thing either. thanks for discussing it. Maybe I have too much faith in human nature. That is where the real checks must come in… the check on human nature… the bad parts.
...what is the best way to secure the borders?
which must be done.
Do we really? Show me a system for doing so that would cost less than simply having illegals and I might agree. But good luck with that since most economists say that illegals in the country either has no effect or a small net positive effect on the economy.
I am yet to see a solution that won't cost tens of billions of dollars.
Speaking of heaven on Earth if every country made that investment in foreign aid we could pretty much eradicate poverty in this generation, seems like a way more worthy goal to me.
Not that difficult. Check ID for every job, every form of welfare or any other thing that involves change of money not a simple product purchase.
Penalize, heavily, any company hiring an illegal. With some caveats, second or third offense to result in dissolution of the company and confiscation of all assets.
Provide zero welfare in any form to illegals. Provide no drivers licenses, or any other licenses. No ID of any kind.
Quit deporting mexican citizens and instead, dump them on the nearest embassy. If the embassy turns people loose in the US without valid VISA's, close the embassies.
None of that is too difficult to do. If possible we badly need to end the idea that any child born on US soil is automatically a US citizen, along with the idea that any and all relatives of a citizen deserve to be a citizen as well.
The reason for the anchor baby laws was to protect ex-slaves and their progeny, not provide a loophole for anyone wanting to take advantage of and feed at the American trough.
And any system that costs less than a billion per year is a huge gain; we spend at least that much educating their illegal children and illegals give birth to some 350,000 kids each year, the vast majority of whom will be educated with no financial help from their parents.
We already penalise business owners who employ illegals heavily, around £10,000 per person.
It makes not a jot of difference.
Wow a massive list of incorrect statements and terrible ideas.
Dump illegals on Mexican embassies? They can't afford to fly 30 million people back to Mexico they will simply close,all you have achieved is cutting off diplomatic relations with the US's second biggest trade partner, well done.
Fine companies? Lots of countries tried that, never worked and it costs tons just to find these people, as in watch footage in Britain, to do this successfully you need a full military style police raid on a business so they don't escape through boltholes, then you need at least ten cops searching the building with a fine tooth comb to find the very clever hiding places that people create (I mean secret rooms between walls sort of stuff).
As Is aid the cost of illegals is according to most economists net positive or even, many many illegals pay taxes voluntarily.
We aren't talking a Billion dollars, we are talking hundreds of billions.
Without even getting into the ethics of shipping children back to a country where a full on drug war is going on.
Why would you believe economists who believe cheap labour is good for the economy?
Why would you not try and restrict the influx of cheap labour that is obviously affecting the jobs market?
Why would you support the capitalists in their never ending search for cheap labour?
To say immigrants have no or little economic affect on a country is a myth perpetrated by governments who haven't got a clue how to deal with them.
Why support those things? Look again at the bottom sentence; it boils down to the eternal cry "YOU WANT TO KILL THE LITTLE CHILDREN" used when an ethics problem is detected and reality is shunted aside in favor of a short term solution but a long term disaster.
But the country DOES have a clue; the biggest thing it can do is require ID for work purposes. We don't because the companies hiring the illegals make more and the people like cheaper products at the same time. So short sighted companies, politicians and consumers all pile onto the bandwagon and repeat the farce that illegals support themselves, while Americans require many times to income to do the same thing.
We have a system in the UK where you are required to have a national insurance number to start work, it works quite well until those businesses who wish to bypass the system employ illegals. There have been many cases where the illegals have been used as slave labour and I believe this to be a huge problem in the fast food industry here.
Maybe the answer would be to jail the owners of the companies?
As for the children dying I would like to think that I would help as much as I could but I should not be penalised for the inability of others to look after their children.
Well, you're supposed to here, too, but without any penalties on employers ignoring the law it isn't of much use. I don't know that jail time is necessary - that just just puts another cost onto society - but total confiscation of the business assets will quickly put a stop to hiring illegals.
The children - Some people try to take complete responsibility for all others, regardless of the cost both economic and otherwise. When they can't do it they then try to put it onto their neighbors, again without regard to cost. It doesn't work, and can't, so they just scream that anyone disagreeing wants to kill all the children to try and shame others into agreement.
Yes, we all want to help people in need, but when we can't when the price is too high, I don't want to be blamed either. No one does, but no one (however loudly they snivel that their neighbor needs to give more) will give all they have, either. They are unwilling to pay the cost of helping all they could.
Some people are incapable of seeing the potential for a solution, and see only futility in any effort. Those people hold the rest of us back, because they never want to move forward with anything. Not every idea will work. Some will soar and others will die a miserable death. But those who criticize and nitpick the doers while reaping the rewards of those who took risks and succeeded might as well be ignored, because they believe nothing is ever good enough to attempt, much less spend money on. Once we figure out who they are, we might as well stop listening to them because they don't offer anything positive and only serve to impede progress.
My little rant of the day. Some people will not have a clue why I posted it in this thread. lol
I see it and for that reason am much less inclined to post to this thread than I might be normally.
- are you criticizing those who want to preserve what has proven to be workable and common sense based,
(as opposed to those who believe in bringing forth change,)
- or neither?
You know logic kind of dictates that if the old was that great it would still be around.
I would like to be relatively precise, when do you think was this period that we should bring back?
If something has been "proven to be workable and common sense based" then there would be no problem for which a solution is needed and therefore no need for change now, would there?
However, if a problem is identified, there are some people who never want to move forward with any solution because nothing is ever good enough for them. I'm saying, once you figure out who this person is, just ignore them. They are doing nothing except preventing progress.
- by person…are you referring to the original poster… which is me?
Also, Pretty Panther:
* Which type of solutions, in particular, are never good enough?
* Which people should be ignored?
*What type of progress is being prevented?
Those are very big questions. One could write a book, but here are my simplistic answers.
*Which type of solutions, in particular, are never good enough? For the people I am referring to, anything that requires time, money, or change.
* Which people should be ignored? Those who acknowledge a problem exists, but think every new idea or solution won't work.
*What type of progress is being prevented?
prog·ress (prgrs, -rs, prgrs)
1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization.
Can we add, in the people to be ignored, those that continue to propose solutions that use large amounts of resources and effort but that experience shows us are ineffective?
And, although not part of the dictionary, to make that #1 definition to be "Movement, as toward a common goal? Not all people have the same goal, but certainly all present "progress" as something towards their goal.
My point is, some people will never identify a common goal they will work toward, or even a common goal they will support someone else working toward, because nothing is ever good enough to implement. Leave them behind because they are useless.
Too true. And others will define a goal they find good, forever refusing to modify even a tiny part in an effort to compromise, to bring others on board. They and only they have all the answers; no one else need apply.
For the most part it is those that I reference; their goals do not fit those of society but are still considered to be the only one to progress towards.
And those people are also useless. So tied up in their own ego that they cannot participate in a group function with others at all.
But that would not be a common goal, now would it?
A compromised goal that 2 (or more) people can accept and work towards is indeed a common goal. Not the perfect solution to either one, but a workable one acceptable to both.
And what government and society is all about. Those demanding that only THEIR concept of a "proper" goal is acceptable are a drag on society and should be ignored as the useless weight they are.
Just as those who nitpick every possible idea or solution. Two sides of the same coin, really.
No, I don't see then as sides of the same coin. One says they have the only acceptable solution, that no one else's opinion is of any value. Their ego prevents them from working out a solution that anyone else will accept.
The other picks at problems beyond reason. It is right and proper to look for problems (and solutions) before investing resources and effort, but there comes a point where the probability of a specific problem is just too low to worry about. It's time to stop thinking and start working, but some just don't get that. Too worried there will be problems to ever get anything done.
This is why I like quoting others in some of these forums. I think slow and type slower; quotes of others often say what I’m thinking more eloquently than I could and without the time consuming exposure of my soul to be ignored or picked apart. So, how about some more?
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." ~ Albert Einstein
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” ~Richard Buckminster Fuller
Thank You, Rod.
However, I believe it is also important to preserve what was new and still works: Our Constitution.
Great quotes. I like these, too.
"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome."-- Samuel Johnson
"Criticism comes easier than craftsmanship."-- Zeuxis
"A person may cause evil to others not only by his action but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury."-- John Stuart Mill
"The derision of the cynic comes from a wound of crushed idealism and betrayed hopes. We received it on a cultural level when the Age of Aquarius morphed into the age of Ronald Reagan, and on an individual level as well when our youthful idealism that knew a more beautiful world is possible, that believed in our own individual destiny to contribute something meaningful to the world, that would never sell out under any circumstances and would never become like our parents gave way to an adulthood of deferred dreams and lowered expectations. Anything that exposes this wound will trigger us to protect it. One such protection is cynicism, which rejects and derides as foolish, naïve, or irrational all of the expressions of reunion.
The cynic mistakes his cynicism for realism. He wants us to discard the hopeful things that touch his wound, to settle for what is consistent with his lowered expectations. This, he says, is realistic. Ironically, it is in fact cynicism that is impractical. The naïve person attempts what the cynic says is impossible, and sometimes succeeds.
If you are thinking, “All this stuff about oneness is a lot of garbage,” if you feel disgust or contempt, I ask you to look honestly at where the rejection is coming from. Could it be that there is a lonely, timid part of you that wants to believe? Are you afraid of that part? I know I am. If I allow it to grow, if I allow it to guide my life, if I trust all those statements
of the new story I listed above, I open myself to the possibility of immense disappointment. It is an exquisitely vulnerable position to believe, to trust in purpose, guidance, and that I will be OK. Better stay cynical. Better stay safe.
If you respond to this talk of oneness not with cynicism but rather a feeling of vindication, that doesn't mean you do not bear the same wound as the cynic. Perhaps instead of exercising it like the cynic does, you are ignoring it. Could it be that whenever the doubt creeps in, you assuage its pain by picking up the latest book on angel healing or reincarnation? Are you committing spiritual bypass? One way to tell whether your belief in oneness and its associated paradigms conceals an unhealed wound is whether the derision of the skeptic provokes outrage or personal defensiveness. If so, then something beyond a mere belief is being threatened. Skeptic and believer are not so different, as both are using belief to shelter a wound. So, whether you feel indignant at my mention of UFOs, or feel indignant toward the skeptic's doctrinaire rejection of them, I encourage you to reflect on where this emotion comes from. We want to see what is hidden inside us, so that we won't blindly replicate it again and again in what we create." ~ Charles Eisenstein
And, sometimes, the dreamer mistakes realism for cynicism. He wants us to believe that anything, anything at all, is possible and support him in his impossible dreams.
Unable to truly distinguish his fantasies from reality he will forever flit from one dream to the next, never able to succeed at anything he does and forever misunderstanding why others won't help him with the latest impossible dream.
I have heard that the problems of the future will be caused by an excess of creativity. (I think I heard that quite a while ago.)
I never thought of that, but suppose there could be some truth in it.
Give people time, time with no purpose or important thing to do, and people dream. The dream creative things, they dream impossible things, they dream things they want and may work hard to get.
And if the impossible things begin to take over, if the creativity is oriented towards too much of the impossible, it could be a problem.
As long as there is collective agreement…until the younger generation balks. And they always do, don't they.
Must be getting late. Right over my head. Again.
As long as there is mass agreement, the illusion everyone agrees to can manifest… like the story of the king with no clothes: The townspeople agreed that the naked king wore very fine clothes as he walked down the street in a parade… it was a child who declared the truth and exposed the falsity. Then, the king had to put on real clothes, I imagine.
Uhuh and that is why generation to generation America never changes politically... Wait that isn't true.
Boy, you've got that right!
As affluence rises in the nation, and we give our kids more while requiring less of them (think 50-100 years ago here) the more they come to depend on Mom and Dad to provide for them. And then Uncle Sam, when they're a little older.
The more nanny state they want, in other words, and the more sharing of the wealth
I think I have moved beyond feeling indignant toward the cynic. I give people the benefit of the doubt for a very long time, but once I conclude they will never offer a positive solution or agree to let anyone else move forward with a new idea, I leave them behind. Naysayers offer a useful function, in that their criticisms often illuminate problems with a particular idea or process before it is implemented. But, if you listen to them for too long, you will never move forward. Stagnation is a terrible thing.
* What is the vision of the real world in the future?
* What will reality be based on?
* What will "real" be?
* What is the emerging collective vision?
( To answer these questions it is necessary to pinpoint the problems first… before offering solutions.)
* What are the actual problems of today will be solved in the future to create a better world?
( PS I will not be sharing any more opinions, as I am obviously way old school.)
pretty frightening, a few thousand people wealthy beyond all dreams, living in a tightly protected enclave with armies to protect them and servants to serve them.
The rest of the worlds population living and dying in poverty having spent their short lives serving their masters for a few crumbs.
Every one of them worshipping their masters and praising them for letting them call themselves capitalists.
Okay for hell...but what would bring about heaven? (I use these terms for the sake of exaggeration and abbreviation.) I am very curious to know what you think, John about positive possibilities / potentialities for the future and how they could be implemented either by governments or otherwise.
There is no alternative. By the time enough people know what is happening to them it will be too late to stop it.
So, there is no stopping the negative effects of capitalism? And we, here in the land(s) of the free, are bringing us all, nonstop, to UNO where? In other word Capitalism is the problem and must be what...
... stopped or modified?
or never should have come into existence in the first place? It was an evil experiment and we just should have remained loyal to King George?
I ask to get your point of view. I am objectively surmising based on your viewpoints.
What is a better option?
Staying loyal to King George wouldn't have helped one bit, remember we were there along time before you.
As I said, it's too late to stop it now.
Even people who have ascended as gods over the common populace, can't do much against the fits and starts of evolution.
- how do they reveal themselves… these fits and starts?
Okay, so America in particular is not responsible for all capitalistic bad guys. Germany, India, Japan…all have their share of capitalistic culprits too? Is China now considerd capitalistic?
Too much hope.
"Hope is, in fact, a curse, a bane. I say this not only because of the lovely Buddhist saying “Hope and fear chase each other’s tails,” not only because hope leads us away from the present, away from who and where we are right now and toward some imaginary future state. I say this because of what hope is; hope is a longing for a future condition over which you have no agency; it means you are essentially powerless."
“Many people say they hope the dominant culture stops destroying the world. By saying that, they’ve assumed that the destruction will continue, at least in the short term, and they’ve stepped away from their own ability to participate in stopping it.”
"When we realize the degree of agency we actually do have, we no longer have to “hope” at all. We simply do the work."
"When we stop hoping for external assistance, when we stop hoping that the awful situation we’re in will somehow resolve itself, when we stop hoping the situation will somehow not get worse, then we are finally free—truly free—to honestly start working to resolve it. I would say that when hope dies, action begins."~ Derrick Jensen
Since human beings are fallible, and heaven is a place of infallibility, there is no such concept as "heaven on earth."
However, we could be much better than we are. No more war, poverty, or deadening work. Organize how you wish to achieve those goals.
First we must isolate the difficulties:
Q. What is the cause of deadening work?
A. Realities of life.
Q. How can we be rid of the human propensity toward conquest, power, wealth?
A. We can't
Q. What is the true cause of poverty?
A. Its the luck of the draw.
You present the solution: "Organize yourselves according to how you wish to achieve the goals of no war, no poverty, and non-deadening work.
Q. How can we organize ourselves to bring about a Utopia, (that which can never be?)
A. We can't.
Q. How can we check the folly of human shortcomings?
A. Through the checks and balances instituted in our Constitutional system.
Individual ambition, (tempered by the boundaries of ethics and morals,) in the pursuit of survival will bring about the desired results. Common sense will help us achieve a good life for ourselves and our loved ones. The government is the actual enemy without checks and balances. Follow the laws of the land or ELSE, you representatives of the people!
In last century we experienced both isms Capitalism and Communism and later cold war rivalry . Both claimed superior over other but we found communism failed or is almost fading and capitalism from single ownership it has turned into large corp orates and . They built strong foundation of their businesses and backed by research but monopoly and profit oriented structure is cause for few failures too.
When capitalism promoted defense related business and sold arms and earned , lobbying for orders that became business to manage governments across globe.
This capitalism and rich corp orates can not grow in vacuum, they need support of government and market .
If USA beats economic crisis then again we can see glory of capitalism.
The question is, are we being fed lies in regard to corporate greed? How are corporations elements of tyrannic conquest? How? This is what we must know. We need proof.
You said this:
"India's VIPs ( Politicians, bureaucrats, new privileged class) transfer illegal wealth to Europe and deposits in Swiss banks,we help Swiss economy to go strong.This is called International understanding!! cooperation. New world order!!"
*What is "illegal wealth?"
*Why is it detrimental to deposit proceeds into Swiss Bank Accounts? Maybe there is a reason for them to hide or protect their money.
*Why/ How does this prove" New world order?"
Most people in the USA do not get on board with conspiracy theories. We know we have internal problems. There is a push from within to destroy the foundation of the country by the radical left toward social democracy… is this push from only from within or without, (as in New World Order/ One World Government.) or both?
We must know the enemy... it is either the radical left and or the radical right, and/or the the NWO.
My stance is that we must protect the Constitution and the founding principles this country was established by. When we all agree to this, we will gain the economic victory you mention.
Politicians in India makes money in land deals(land Mafia) own agencies of industrial products,(No audit for their business) Member of parliament presented bogus bills of treatment and looted millions ,This fraud was recently declared intelligence agency CBI
we need thousand of agencies to search and investigate frauds of our politicians
They transfer money to Swiss banks as safe custody.
looters are always afraid of future and our looters are creative but feudal and crude they save money in foreign banks for children or next generations because they are feudal no aims at all.
Money laundering a big business where unaccounted money is being brought to India by purchasing PN ( participatory notes0 by selling these notes here money is proved legal income.
I will reply you next day.thank for reply
Wow, this was a while ago. Pretty heady. I don't remember thinking about these implications at all.
After all, WE have rules, and laws and justice.
... should I have?
by ga anderson 7 weeks ago
Peterstreep posted a thought about today's capitalism being different, (and the implication was that it is more dangerous), than the capitalism of the early 20th Century. Here is what he said:On the basics, I disagree, I think it is the same game, just with different players and boundaries. But in...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
enterprise- capitalist system while many CONSERVATIVES do?
by TruthDebater 10 years ago
Does Capitalism create equal opportunity for all or just for the elite? The same with socialism, does it create equal opportunity for all or only those affiliated with government? Is both capitalism and socialism simply illusions making false claims of equal opportunity while those in power and...
by ga anderson 7 months ago
Sanders' positive comments about Cuba's socialism prompted a look around.I found plenty of anti-Bernie thoughts, but I kept looking until I found one that I thought was least biasedMy thoughts:First, Cuba has a lot of problems, and not a few of them are caused by American sanctions. So, we are not...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
by William Jordan 8 years ago
Capitalism is economic of America but it's not working for the whole, submit your comments on how to make it work for the whole
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|