Thread: Capitalism isn't working ?

Originally Posted by gugi

I am not convinced people's primary motivation for amassing wealth is to leave it to their children after they're dead. The ones with such interests are dynasties (family name trumps the individual) and they tend to be not the most productive members of the class.

It seems to me that those who are most productive do the things they do because they find fulfillment in that and that isn't going to change.

I am not sure I understand the issue with corporations. From what I understand the whole idea of them is to have the capital/ownership/decisionmaking be a lot more distributed.

It's a toy model I've thought of, that addresses directly one particular issue. I don't think it's practical and haven't really thought about many details because the chances of it happening are negligible. Plus I'm not an economist or politician or have any formal knowledge of governance, sociology, economics, .. I'm just a hack who tends to find a lot of problems interesting enough to put some thinking into them

Lol! Don't let that detur you! Most revolutionarys "were hacks." Want me to name a few lol?

Seriously though, I think I heard this in some form before. I thought it might have been taxing estates but I can't find anything on it right now. I find it kind of interesting.... Is all .

[QUOTE=crouton976;1330634]I have to say, I think that the meme below describes and illustrates capitalism in it's purist form, and at the same time illustrates why it has become perverted and "failed".

I do not think capitalism is bad, in fact, I think it's the best system out there, if not perverted. =Quote]
__________________________________________________ _________
__________________________________________________ ___________

I concur. All those in favor of more government regulations, intrusions, interventions and interference in general, take a hike.

Right, as you say you had to take a real loss on your house, but the big guys didn't have to. What the bailouts did for them is keeping those losses on paper only. If you'd had been given a low-interest bridge loan, or the mortgage holder would've taken a write-off on your policy in exchange for future profit when the value recovers, you could've kept your house and not having to short sell it.

Of course you did well with the resources you had. What I am saying is that certain people have a lot more resources available because of the huge wealth compared to yours. I do not mean resources in terms of capital or skills.
The problem is that big capital buys different treatment before the law.

Most people's basic premise is that justice ought to be blind - but the reality is that it isn't. It's nothing new though, as Mel Brooks would say "

It's good to be the king

", but I think that the path of 'the more money you have the more right you are" is leading to a big disaster.

Originally Posted by earcutter

Lol! Don't let that detur you! Most revolutionarys "were hacks." Want me to name a few lol?

Well, idle hands (or brains), you know...

Originally Posted by earcutter

Seriously though, I think I heard this in some form before. I thought it might have been taxing estates but I can't find anything on it right now. I find it kind of interesting.... Is all .

Yeah, the estate tax does that, except that it gives control of the money to the politicians. I'm thinking more of a very high estate tax (100% over X amount) and it given directly to the people to spend as they see fit - those who want to invest invest, those who want to convert it to H&B can do that as well. Of course, there is already fairly sophisticated mini-industry to avoid paying estate taxes (again accessible to those with very big wealths), so you'll have to dismantle that and ensure that the game is played fairly. Did I say, it isn't going to happen, but you still want my ramblings, you'll get them

Well China is liking capitalism lol! I just read that by the end of the year they'll be the worlds largest economy! Who cares about PPP (purchasing power parity)!! The worlds largest!!!

I never thought I would see the day!

I think as the world economy gets more intertwined countries would matter less. Large economy is only good if you could use that as a leverage and the country structure where few people have the ability to marshal enormous resources defined by 'a country economy'.
But if you look at the history that power is largely diminished and now corporations could be more powerful than countries. I see this trend only continuing.
So, yeah China may be the largest but that also means that the Chinese political leaders will have to share power with the new class of super-wealthy.
Like in USA - regardless of who the president is, even though he formally has enormous power, he remains in office only as long the 0.01% is fine with it.

OMG, how did I miss this thread. Maybe it was my belief in God. He was trying to save me from a heart attack.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

OMG, how did I miss this thread. Maybe it was my belief in God. He was trying to save me from a heart attack.

Come on, jump in, if the singularity was going to happen I'd be peeking from behind the sulphur and smoke.... Oh, wait is that why you guys look a bit hazy and it's also kind of toasty in here?

Originally Posted by gugi

Come on, jump in, if the singularity was going to happen I'd be peeking from behind the sulphur and smoke.... Oh, wait is that why you guys look a bit hazy and it's also kind of toasty in here?

Thank you my friend but the conversation has had such a head start, I don't know where to begin. Lol. Unless Glen is lurking around, I can't say that I'll be well represented. So, I may keep one eye open. But good night for now. Time to sleep here in Chi Town. After all, I'll need my rest to go against the prevailing winds here. And tonight I will dream of the new Filly that the post office is holding for me instead of these hot topics. Maybe if I have a spicy breakfast I'll jump back in.

Well, you know if 'God is with you' who can stand against you
It's not like it's a matter of vote here, either - good argument based on facts and reason is still a good argument regardless of whether there are hundreds or thousands of ignorance/faith-based rejections of it.

See you in the morning if I haven't killed the site by then