My question is, what the fuc is going on here?Honestly, I was in a dialogue in another thread with a guy who was giving me crap about a statement that I made suggesting that unregulated capitalism is not a good thing. It was in an introductory thread, so not really appropriate for the discussion. So I opened this thread to give him and anyone else an opportunity to support the idea of unregulated capitalism. The guy hasn't shown up, yet. In the meantime, I am being a facetious dick. Everything would be private and would cost everyone money to use, if the owners decided to let just anyone buy or rent them, incuding roads and bridges. The wealthy could charge whatever would bring in the money they want and they could pay as little for labor as they could get away with. There would be so many starving people jobs would pay subsistance wages. Slavery would be common. You could be cheated, robbed, raped, killed and there would be no public security or justice system, only that which some people could afford to pay for. . Wealthy people would take all the property, resources and assets they could get their hands on. Water would be contaminated--but you could buy clean water with any wages you have been able to hold onto. Everywhere would be filled with the homeless, including starving children. Sounds like paradise to me. Let's hear it for anarchy. Lois
Sounds like paradise to me. Let's hear it for anarchy. LoisJust when I was thinking you didn't understand this thread you ended with a nice save.
The Statue of Liberty stands proud, but who would perform the maintenance? Oops that was gift of those French wasn’t it? FUC that.
In the meantime, I am being a facetious dick.Got it.
Everything would be private and would cost everyone money to use, if the owners decided to let just anyone buy or rent them, incuding roads and bridges. The wealthy could charge whatever would bring in the money they want and they could pay as little for labor as they could get away with. There would be so many starving people jobs would pay subsistance wages. Slavery would be common. You could be cheated, robbed, raped, killed and there would be no public security or justice system, only that which some people could afford to pay for. . Wealthy people would take all the property, resources and assets they could get their hands on. Water would be contaminated—but you could buy clean water with any wages you have been able to hold onto. Everywhere would be filled with the homeless, including starving children.Hey Tim, we've already been there and done that in the 19th Century. And it's useless to argue that the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery. Even though they were free by law the former slave states found ways to disenfranchise and bind them back to the land. Everything else is right on the money so to speak, i.e. Justice only for the wealthy, starvation wages, unions outlawed, child labor, no public assistance, none, contaminated water and food (Sinclair's The Jungle) ghettoes filled with starving orphans, lower life expectancy, government controlled by corporations, e.g. Political party bosses, crime syndicates, monopolies setting prices and wages, you know the "good old days". But let's "make America great again"! Cap't Jack
Who needs clean air and safe cars anyway? We want cheap junk that kills us!Yeah!!! Freedom!!!If it wasn't for cheap, low quality crap that is manufactured with little or no regard for either human or the planet's welfare, what would I put in my kids stockings at Christmas or in the now mandatory gift bags I have to hand out at my own kids birthday party? We need that stuff to make us happy.
Sounds like paradise to me. Let's hear it for anarchy. LoisJust when I was thinking you didn't understand this thread you ended with a nice save. Darron, Why would you think that? I had not posted to this thread before and, anyway, you should know me better than that by now. For the record, I'm in favor of a mixed economy, something like what we and most Westen democracies have to varying degrees--capitalism tempered with social programs and policies designed to help those hurt by capitalism, which should be paid for with fair taxation on the population, including the uber-wealthy and corporations. There should be a much better distribution of wealth than we have in the US, which corporatioms and the uber-wealthy are against and which they pay off politicians handsomely to resist. Yes, social programs do put a brake on runaway capitalism, but that's as it should be. There is a happy medium somewhere. Someone wise once said that if both sides are unhappy with the way taxes are imposed, it's probably a worthwhile system. That's the bare basics of my position. As with everything, the devil is in the details. Anarchy is absolute capitalism, with no brakes. 99% of any population would be impoverished under such a plan, if not immediately, within a relatively short amount of time. The economic and political positions of Richard Wolff, who has a series of talks on television, track with mine. If you haven't heard him, I recommend that you give a listen. He's on a PBS station here and you can listen to podcasts of his talks on iTunes. His delivery is very pleasant and informative. Lois
Ok, now that I and others have had a chance to vent facetiously, I would like to make some, what I consider to be, genuine points. There is no such thing existing in any functioning state, in the world, that has pure unfettered Capitalism. I think that is because it doesn’t work. Every nation has some form of controlled Capitalism. I think that is because it does work. Most, if not all nations also have some form of Socialism. I think that is because it works.
As a child, and for many years after, I, and my contemporaries, faced the prospect of imminent nuclear annihilation. “Communism” was the enemy (even worse than Atheism, perhaps, and that’s saying something back then). Communism was considered a vile and horrible threat, and rightly so (except when the fear of it lead to paranoid measures to, ostensibly, combat it). Rightly so, because, among other severe problems, its attempted implementation had lead to tyranny (e.g. Joseph Stalin).
Also, there is no country today that implements pure Communism. I think that is because it doesn’t work.
Even today, the very word “communism” has a pejorative connotation for most Americans. And by association, the word “Socialism” has a pejorative connotation. So much so, that Democratic Candidates will not answer the question: “What is the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat?” IMO, their answer should, without reservation, be something to the effect that “Democrats ARE Socialists, like Republicans ARE Socialists, only moreso. And that’s a good thing.”
My wife is a care-giver for disabled people and makes a paltry $18/hr. She has to work weekends, evenings and nights; cleans feces, urine, vomit, spittle, etc. many times per shift; feeds, bathes, doses medication and handles extreme physical behaviors; and she treats the clients with dignity. If one were to compensate people for how much they contribute to society, she should make more than any professional athlete… she doesn’t, Chess Daily News by Susan Polgar - No chess player even comes close to making this list (no, I’m not a chess player, I just thought it was a cool site to get the info from.)
There are many thousands of people who work to improve the lives of others, yet they are, for the most part, some of the lowest paid people. Can you imagine how much worse they would fare in a system where there is no government intervention?!? In the most optimistic of my imagined scenarios, it would be a nightmare.
3point, I have known many people like your wife.
Also, your comment about compensation for professional athletics, brings to mind how our society seems to value the most exceptional athletes, so much moreso, than the diligent, dedicated and kind people who work to directly help others. And it also led to thinking about how we pay athletes in some sports like boxing and football to effectively risk getting chronic encephalopathy.
I saw the owner of the Panthers, when they scored their 40th point in the Conference Championship, just sit there, still, with a flat affect. When accepting the trophy later, he wasn’t very eloquent, to say the least, and his affect remained pretty flat, considering the circumstances. I heard an announcer say, in passing, that this guy had been a football player, himself. And I wondered whether he, and many retired football players are secretly or unknowingly suffering from some level of brain damage.
3point, I have known many people like your wife. Also, your comment about compensation for professional athletics, brings to mind how our society seems to value the most exceptional athletes, so much moreso, than the diligent, dedicated and kind people who work to directly help others. And it also led to thinking about how we pay athletes in some sports like boxing and football to effectively risk getting chronic encephalopathy. I saw the owner of the Panthers, when they scored their 40th point in the Conference Championship, just sit there, still, with a flat affect. When accepting the trophy later, he wasn't very eloquent, to say the least, and his affect remained pretty flat, considering the circumstances. I heard an announcer say, in passing, that this guy had been a football player, himself. And I wondered whether he, and many retired football players are secretly or unknowingly suffering from some level of brain damage.Salaries in professional sports are so far out of line with their value to society it boggles the mind. And this is with government paying caregivers. How wide would the wage gap be between useless but popular people like athletes/entertainers, and invaluable but unsung people teachers/caregivers, if there were no governments to support the latter? Only someone with no experience with humans in the real world would think FUC a good idea. It's even a crappy idea theoretically.
3point, I have known many people like your wife. Also, your comment about compensation for professional athletics, brings to mind how our society seems to value the most exceptional athletes, so much moreso, than the diligent, dedicated and kind people who work to directly help others. And it also led to thinking about how we pay athletes in some sports like boxing and football to effectively risk getting chronic encephalopathy. I saw the owner of the Panthers, when they scored their 40th point in the Conference Championship, just sit there, still, with a flat affect. When accepting the trophy later, he wasn't very eloquent, to say the least, and his affect remained pretty flat, considering the circumstances. I heard an announcer say, in passing, that this guy had been a football player, himself. And I wondered whether he, and many retired football players are secretly or unknowingly suffering from some level of brain damage.As to the brain damage issue, yes there are many athletes and ex-athletes who have permanent damage to their brains. It's seemingly becoming more common , but that's because of all the press and publicity, which is a good thing. I used to enjoy watching UFC, but now don't, because I can't stand seeing all the blows to the head. I have many friends and relatives who won't let their children play hockey or football or lacrosse for this reason. Sadly, kids have a hard enough time being active now-a-days, so throwing the fear of brain damage into the minds of parents is another obstacle to getting them out doing things. I don't watch NFL, so I'm not familiar with the guy you're talking about, but some people just have a non-expressive face. My brother-in-law hasn't smiled or frowned for the 10 years I've known him - he's like a robot when it comes to facial expressions. But he really is a great guy with all the right stuff going on in his head, just nothing external shows up.
My wife is a care-giver for disabled people and makes a paltry $18/hr. She has to work weekends, evenings and nights; cleans feces, urine, vomit, spittle, etc. many times per shift; feeds, bathes, doses medication and handles extreme physical behaviors; and she treats the clients with dignity. If one were to compensate people for how much they contribute to society, she should make more than any professional athlete... she doesn't, https://chessdailynews.com/no-chess-player-even-comes-close-to-making-this-list/ (no, I'm not a chess player, I just thought it was a cool site to get the info from.) There are many thousands of people who work to improve the lives of others, yet they are, for the most part, some of the lowest paid people. Can you imagine how much worse they would fare in a system where there is no government intervention?!? In the most optimistic of my imagined scenarios, it would be a nightmare.I have a daughter who is a nurse in two nursing homes. She works two jobs, a full time one on weekdays and a part time one on alternate weekends, and she's often on call on her days off. She barely makes ends meet and wouldn't if I didn't help her. She would not be able to pay her housing and transportation costs otherwise. She has many years' experience. There is something seriously wrong with this picture, and it's happening all over this land of liberty and justice for all. Lois
Ok, now that I and others have had a chance to vent facetiously, I would like to make some, what I consider to be, genuine points. There is no such thing existing in any functioning state, in the world, that has pure unfettered Capitalism. I think that is because it doesn't work. Every nation has some form of controlled Capitalism. I think that is because it does work. Most, if not all nations also have some form of Socialism. I think that is because it works. As a child, and for many years after, I, and my contemporaries, faced the prospect of imminent nuclear annihilation. "Communism" was the enemy (even worse than Atheism, perhaps, and that's saying something back then). Communism was considered a vile and horrible threat, and rightly so (except when the fear of it lead to paranoid measures to, ostensibly, combat it). Rightly so, because, among other severe problems, its attempted implementation had lead to tyranny (e.g. Joseph Stalin). Also, there is no country today that implements pure Communism. I think that is because it doesn't work. Even today, the very word "communism" has a pejorative connotation for most Americans. And by association, the word "Socialism" has a pejorative connotation. So much so, that Democratic Candidates will not answer the question: "What is the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat?" IMO, their answer should, without reservation, be something to the effect that "Democrats ARE Socialists, like Republicans ARE Socialists, only moreso. And that's a good thing."I don't see much socialism in most Republicans. They want to trash the ACA and will if they get a chance, and many say they want to trash Medicare and Social Security. Though they had plenty of opportunity they never came up with an alternative plan for health insurance for the uninsured. They also vote for tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations under the guise of "creating jobs," even though the majority do no such thing, at least not for Americans. So I don't see where Republicans are socialists in any way. Many are far more like fascists, and Trump leads the pack. Republicans vote for weak-kneed social programs only when popular opinion forces their hand or when they fear they won't be elected. Such votes are always compromises. If they had their way we'd have untrammeled capitalism--and the widespread poverty that goes with it. Lois
Ok, now that I and others have had a chance to vent facetiously, I would like to make some, what I consider to be, genuine points. There is no such thing existing in any functioning state, in the world, that has pure unfettered Capitalism. I think that is because it doesn't work. Every nation has some form of controlled Capitalism. I think that is because it does work. Most, if not all nations also have some form of Socialism. I think that is because it works. As a child, and for many years after, I, and my contemporaries, faced the prospect of imminent nuclear annihilation. "Communism" was the enemy (even worse than Atheism, perhaps, and that's saying something back then). Communism was considered a vile and horrible threat, and rightly so (except when the fear of it lead to paranoid measures to, ostensibly, combat it). Rightly so, because, among other severe problems, its attempted implementation had lead to tyranny (e.g. Joseph Stalin). Also, there is no country today that implements pure Communism. I think that is because it doesn't work. Even today, the very word "communism" has a pejorative connotation for most Americans. And by association, the word "Socialism" has a pejorative connotation. So much so, that Democratic Candidates will not answer the question: "What is the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat?" IMO, their answer should, without reservation, be something to the effect that "Democrats ARE Socialists, like Republicans ARE Socialists, only moreso. And that's a good thing."I don't see much socialism in most Republicans. They want to trash the ACA and will if they get a chance, and many say they want to trash Medicare and Social Security. Though they had plenty of opportunity they never came up with an alternative plan for health insurance for the uninsured. They also vote for tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations under the guise of "creating jobs," even though the majority do no such thing, at least not for Americans. So I don't see where Republicans are socialists in any way... Lois The Republicans are involved in support of defense, national and local security, and law enforcement and paying for elections and elected officials. But that is basically socialist, in that money is gathered from the citizens and allocated by the govt to promote the common good. I, and Democrats, support those things, too, but I admit that they are a form of socialism. Of course, extremists among the Republicans would likely want to privatize all of those things, along with everything else, if they could, but it wouldn't be very functional.
... I don't watch NFL, so I'm not familiar with the guy you're talking about, but some people just have a non-expressive face. My brother-in-law hasn't smiled or frowned for the 10 years I've known him - he's like a robot when it comes to facial expressions. But he really is a great guy with all the right stuff going on in his head, just nothing external shows up.Well, brain damage isn't the only possible explanation for Jerry Richardson's very low key response to his team going to the Super Bowl. He could have other health issues, and/or have extremely low energy, as do some people of his age. Or he could just be, like your friend, who has a consistently non-ebullient (Is that a word? I typed it and I'm sticking to it. I hope it means what I think.) personality. But 3point, I would not expect you, as a Canadian, to recognize the importance that an NFL fan ascribes to his team winning a Conference Championship. Thus one would expect the owner of such a team to experience and have some reflexive expression of intense emotions in such a situation.
It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who sees the evil that government spreads and that the only cure is a government free society.I find it odd how many people think government is evil, but we can't do without it. Capitalism would be great, if we didn't have monster private companies bigger than governments, What we have isn't capitalism, any more, imho Ever think the problem is too many people on top of too many people on top of too many people - no way to fix all the escalating problems that causes.
It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who sees the evil that government spreads and that the only cure is a government free society.I find it odd how many people think government is evil, but we can't do without it. Capitalism would be great, if we didn't have monster private companies bigger than governments, What we have isn't capitalism, any more, imho Ever think the problem is too many people on top of too many people on top of too many people - no way to fix all the escalating problems that causes. 'Government' is a very general term that has no good or bad associated with it. An evil government is evil. A good government is good. We need to teach children different ways of being happy. Having stuff isn't what should make us happy, making other people happy should make us happy. Our goal should be to make the world a better place over the long term, not take what we want and screw the future. When we get our collective priorities straightened out we'll have a chance at fixing things. But as long as a the majority of people remain short sighted and demanding of immediate gratification the problems will remain and things will get worse. We can fix the world's problems on here, but good luck spreading our collective genius on the rest of the world. **Edited to add and change things. This post is all over the place and crappy. I should have thought about making a point instead of a scatter-shot of ideas.**
It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who sees the evil that government spreads and that the only cure is a government free society.I find it odd how many people think government is evil, but we can't do without it. Capitalism would be great, if we didn't have monster private companies bigger than governments, What we have isn't capitalism, any more, imho Ever think the problem is too many people on top of too many people on top of too many people - no way to fix all the escalating problems that causes. 'Government' is a very general term that has no good or bad associated with it. An evil government is evil. A good government is good. We need to teach children different ways of being happy. Having stuff isn't what should make us happy, making other people happy should make us happy. Our goal should be to make the world a better place over the long term, not take what we want and screw the future. When we get our collective priorities straightened out we'll have a chance at fixing things. But as long as a the majority of people remain short sighted and demanding of immediate gratification the problems will remain and things will get worse. We can fix the world's problems on here, but good luck spreading our collective genius on the rest of the world. **Edited to add and change things. This post is all over the place and crappy. I should have thought about making a point instead of a scatter-shot of ideas.** I don't consider our govt to be evil. There are definitely some consequences of our govt not working as well as it conceivably could, that one might characterize as evil. But when I was facetiously compiling a list of all the things that govt does (and that list was probably far from complete), it struck me as to how much of those things actually work pretty well. It struck me that the taxes that I have paid in my lifetime, have actually been a pretty good bargain, all in all.
I had a conversation with a Swedish socialist some years ago. He said he was a high school teacher. He told me that he objected to the idea of mandatory accounting in the schools on the grounds that the math would make capitalism seem logical.
But I do not hear capitalists suggesting mandatory accounting either.
I made my contribution to the subject years ago:
http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html
If accounting had been mandatory since the 60s could the sub-prime mortgage business have played out the way it did?
psik