Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Politicians are always looking to make people more equal, this is as long as it does not affect them and the money that they are raking in

Superior logic indeed.

If it wasn't for poverty capitalism could not thrive. We all praise free markets like sliced bread, but who knows? In a hundered years will our great grand childeren be looking back calling capitalism the great blunder of the early 21st century?

Societies have been searching for the best methods to rule and after thousands of years and many systems capitalism combined with democracy is still the best. If you want to replace that with a system already used you are going back, not forward.

The Worst Form Of Inequality Is To Try To Make Unequal Things Equal. • Aristotle

Yossarian...........Capaltism has always been with us in one form or another, then we had Communism which sounded fine, especially for the Communist leaders who never went short of any thing, but did it work for the people or the have not's, I think not

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Yossarian...........Capaltism has always been with us in one form or another, then we had Communism which sounded fine, especially for the Communist leaders who never went short of any thing, but did it work for the people or the have not's, I think not

You can privatize the share holders from party members to business leaders, what turns the wheels will always be the masses, what takes in all those benifit's will almost never concern the same party that creates it.

This is our nature, unless an asteroid strikes tommorow, I don't ever seeing this changing.

Someone else stated that the progression to capitalism took thousands of years,

Same rules in my opinion of how we view of form of trade today, in time, we may look at today's system *the best for today's terms*. But may be outpaced or looked at as primitive by future generations.


You can knock all other systems for misallocation of wealth, their defenition of wealth or how "wealth" is created, but no human system of exchange has ever been equal, and I doubt it ever will.

I honestly feel our system of banking, and our views of currency that represents nothing these days is abolutely ridiculous.

We live in a world where a factory can build guns and make butter, but it's represented by electronic wealth, by an idea, a term typed into a computer.

Often by an entity that is no more Federalized than Federal Express.

This is how we trade, I wouldn't trust a strangers word on value, why should I trust this?

Originally Posted by Yossarian

Superior logic indeed.

If it wasn't for poverty capitalism could not thrive. We all praise free markets like sliced bread, but who knows? In a hundered years will our great grand childeren be looking back calling capitalism the great blunder of the early 21st century?

I think our problem is that we try to rigidly compartmentalise everything into distinct political categories and both sides are afraid to try for a merging of the two to broaden the "middle class". Both systems could be made to work better if we were prepared to approach them realistically.

Both Capitalism and communism really only work for those at the top, although communism professes to be the reverse, it certainly does not work out that way.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Societies have been searching for the best methods to rule and after thousands of years and many systems capitalism combined with democracy is still the best. If you want to replace that with a system already used you are going back, not forward.

The most literal form of capitalism was when human labour was sold in terms of slaves and children in the 18th and 19th centuries (and still today in a few countries) so we have progressed by legislating against raw capitalism.

The rich countries only approve the parts of free trade which suits them. Why do we restrict the movement of Labour more than goods? This restricts access to higher wages for the poor of developing countries and keeps wages higher for those who are already admitted into rich countries.

I'm not saying we should necessarily allow more immigration, only that we are hypocritical. Right wingers in particular suddenly fall in love with state control and throw away the principles of free trade when it suits them!

Originally Posted by senojekips

I think our problem is that we try to rigidly compartmentalise everything into distinct political categories and both sides are afraid to try for a merging of the two to broaden the "middle class". Both systems could be made to work better if we were prepared to approach them realistically.

You know I wonder on that thought all the time, if people weren't always so rigid and polarized to the same set of societal beliefs, then we could maybe have a chance to achieve more realistic solutions to especially in more recent times, the rise and spread of stagflation.

If only people were not so busy attacking other social groups while playing the viticmization card.

Finding a culprit to blame and a victim to sympathize with will not better anything in the long run to revitalize what we were once working towards, and put the "dream" back into the next generation.

Modern Capitalism is the best way for most people to achieve sucsess. Each person doing what's best for themselves push the envelope. The TV show "Shark Tank" is illustrative of this, people come up with ideas they think will sell & make them rich. Some are great, some stink. Some are good ideas, even if the experts disagree. Imagine if the Govt of Japan had been sucsessfull in talking Mr. Honda out of trying to make cars! The masses who sucker into the Class Envy/warfare are just constructing a glass cieling that will untimatly serve to keep them down.

Originally Posted by George

Modern Capitalism is the best way for most people to achieve sucsess. Each person doing what's best for themselves push the envelope. The TV show "Shark Tank" is illustrative of this, people come up with ideas they think will sell & make them rich. Some are great, some stink. Some are good ideas, even if the experts disagree. Imagine if the Govt of Japan had been sucsessfull in talking Mr. Honda out of trying to make cars! The masses who sucker into the Class Envy/warfare are just constructing a glass cieling that will untimatly serve to keep them down.

Not everyone can enjoy this "success" not every is born with the tools to do so, and it often benifits others to keep a majority of the people down.

The pie we are all looking at is not nearly as big as we think.

Allot of success is and how to achieve it these days seems more and more heavily based on assumption. And the mistake that work in itself is progress, when it is surely not.

Also the term for our younger generation who struggles to achieve the things their parents had at their ages by clucking one's tounge and saying they simply are not "entrepreneural enogh".

While ingnoring the inevtible slowing and locking up of our endless growth expectations, and utter lack of attention paid towards our practice of today of using debt, as oweing much more than you can ever hope to pay someone, as money itself.

As in saying, in order to succeed in life, you must indenture yourself to some other party because you will never be able to procreate the funds necessary via convential means to educate, and or/ employ or support yourself.

Hence why I feel we really maybe on the verge of discovering a true "lost generation".

Originally Posted by George

Modern Capitalism is the best way for most people to achieve success. Each person doing what's best for themselves push the envelope. The TV show "Shark Tank" is illustrative of this, people come up with ideas they think will sell & make them rich. Some are great, some stink. Some are good ideas, even if the experts disagree. Imagine if the Govt of Japan had been successfully in talking Mr. Honda out of trying to make cars! The masses who sucker into the Class Envy/warfare are just constructing a glass cieling that will untimatly serve to keep them down.

This has become as much an an outdated view as Communism. What is best for the individual isn't always best for society as we has seen with various financial scandals. However what is less commonly appreciated is that selfishness isn't even best for the individual in the long run. For example what if a fisherman decides to catch more than his quota, and then another and another, what happens?

Evidence suggests it is the co-operation of individuals into groups such as businesses, and the regulation of those groups which generate the most prosperous societies. Moreover, fledgling businesses require a lack of competition in the early stages to allow them to mature. Only once they are mature can they compete effectively in the global economy. This is what really happened in South-Korea for example. In contrast your individualistic competitive approach has been forced down Africas throat with disastrous consequences, for them at least.