Fancy having a go a sensible discussion?
03 February 2003, 08:41 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, what's your thoughts on Capitalism?
I've an uneasy feeling that its taking us down a road that we or maybe our kids will live to regret.
Good or bad?
Please share your views!
I've an uneasy feeling that its taking us down a road that we or maybe our kids will live to regret.
Good or bad?
Please share your views!
03 February 2003, 08:46 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
What was before? Feudalism? Similar number of wars, but worse standard of living (less goods produced).
Communism has been tried, it works to an extent in Amish communities but failed big time in the USSR / China / N. Korea / lots of other places due to the natural human instinct for greed.
Socialism seems to exist to a limited extent in some countries.
Dunno. Like bureaucracy - it's awful, but there isn't a better alternative.
Communism has been tried, it works to an extent in Amish communities but failed big time in the USSR / China / N. Korea / lots of other places due to the natural human instinct for greed.
Socialism seems to exist to a limited extent in some countries.
Dunno. Like bureaucracy - it's awful, but there isn't a better alternative.
03 February 2003, 09:11 PM
#6
BANNED
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, Capitalism. Usually defined by owning land and property (factories etc.) from which future capital can then be raised.
IMO you only need so much money to get by on, in one lifetime anyhow, and there are deffo no pockets in shrouds.
Everytime I get a higher paid job or come into any extra money, I usually manage to blow it just the same anyhow. Better car, better Hi-Fi, better this that and the next thing. Same stuff, just more expensive
Some in SN would have you believe you 'need' a min of £50/60 K pa just to 'exist' (might be down south right enough but it still seems a lot of dosh just to 'exist'), one or two £300,000 homes, a Villa in Spain, a few good cars (at least 'one' scoob), 4 holidays abroad each year, private education for yer kids, designers clothes, blah, blah, blah.
Me and me GF get by on less than £45K a year between us, have a meagre £50/60 K 3 bedroom home, have 1 or 2 'good' hols a year, 1 car, 1 motorbike, 2 pushbikes and 2 cats. I have no plans on becoming any wealthier, nor do I wish to (more stress imo). I really think we are doing OK and I usually spend any spare cash on enjoying the day in hand, relaxing, fishing, music, good wine and food, eating out etc, etc.
I think Im a tight git sometimes tbo and not at all the capitalist, but I guess my lifestyle is still capitalism at work in someones book
IMO you only need so much money to get by on, in one lifetime anyhow, and there are deffo no pockets in shrouds.
Everytime I get a higher paid job or come into any extra money, I usually manage to blow it just the same anyhow. Better car, better Hi-Fi, better this that and the next thing. Same stuff, just more expensive
Some in SN would have you believe you 'need' a min of £50/60 K pa just to 'exist' (might be down south right enough but it still seems a lot of dosh just to 'exist'), one or two £300,000 homes, a Villa in Spain, a few good cars (at least 'one' scoob), 4 holidays abroad each year, private education for yer kids, designers clothes, blah, blah, blah.
Me and me GF get by on less than £45K a year between us, have a meagre £50/60 K 3 bedroom home, have 1 or 2 'good' hols a year, 1 car, 1 motorbike, 2 pushbikes and 2 cats. I have no plans on becoming any wealthier, nor do I wish to (more stress imo). I really think we are doing OK and I usually spend any spare cash on enjoying the day in hand, relaxing, fishing, music, good wine and food, eating out etc, etc.
I think Im a tight git sometimes tbo and not at all the capitalist, but I guess my lifestyle is still capitalism at work in someones book
03 February 2003, 09:11 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what has greed got to do with the fall of communism ???
granted The cold war has bankrupted the USSR but i think political sociological and ideological slavery not to mention torture and poltical prisons had something!!! to do with it as well.
The trouble with communism is that its just so far left of fascism that it completes the circle and whats in the middle ???
granted The cold war has bankrupted the USSR but i think political sociological and ideological slavery not to mention torture and poltical prisons had something!!! to do with it as well.
The trouble with communism is that its just so far left of fascism that it completes the circle and whats in the middle ???
Trending Topics
03 February 2003, 09:17 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me and me GF get by on less than £45K a year between us, have a meagre £50/60 K 3 bedroom home, have 1 or 2 'good' hols a year, 1 car, 1 motorbike
04 February 2003, 09:13 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
capitalism isn't the problem: that's simply giving people the chance to apply their abilities to better their lives and create wealth. freedom.
(state) education's the problem: it is too poor for too many people and fails to give them the tools to compete and excel.
(state) education's the problem: it is too poor for too many people and fails to give them the tools to compete and excel.
04 February 2003, 09:30 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main problem with capitalism IMO is that it encourages waste. Trouble is that there are finite resources and so wasting a lot of everything will lead to using them up quicker. I would like to see everything manufactured to the stadard of say, a Linn turntable. These things will last a lifetime, therefore you only ever have to buy one. Go and get some Akai piece of sh*t and you will need another one in 18 months, and the first one will be residing in a landfill somewhere. But who makes more money - Akai for making rubhish or Linn for their engineering excellence?
04 February 2003, 10:00 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, we need to understand what we are talking about here.
True free market capitalism implies state control of barely anything. Everybody would pay for their schools, health, pensions, transport etc. The idea is that there is infinite choice for the consumer and infinite competition among suppliers (or at least a very large amount of it in either case). This is supposed to drive prices down, and quality up to the optimum supportable level for any Sate's economy, thus giving the people the best deal.
Conversely, the poloar opposite, pure socialism, requires state control of almost all goods and services, with each member of the society being on equal terms, with equality of treatment for all (supposedly of a sufficiently high quality). In addition, it would only really work in a global state.
In reality, we have never seen either system, and due to various reasons (corruption in the case of socialism, and international law in the case of capitalism (e.g. Int. Human Rights Law requires that all states provide free primary education to its citizens)), we are unlikely to see either 'pure-state' in the future.
What seems to work best in some ways, is the sort of capitalism we have in W Europe (less so the U.S. as they don't provide free health care for example). Here we have a balance between state control of public goods (health, education, fire service, military etc.) but free market capitalism in other areas e.g communications industry, food etc. I am oversimplifying here I know.
In order for the latter system to work, we need a competent government which is answerable to the electorate, an efficient cicil service and welfare state (so that our payments in the form of tax are used most efficiently) and an highly sophisticated understanding of how best to balance the needs of the people via in the proviosion of public goods, and the needs of the economy, via the provision of a free-market (with as little state regulation as possible). Do we have this in the UK? I think we all know the answer to that one.....
For what its worth, socialism is founded on some very sound ethical principles. What it does not sufficiently account for, as has been mentioned previously, is human greed and selfishness, especially on the part of leaders (of paramount importance in a socialist system). However, it can be argued that capitalism allows selfish rich men too much scope for the exploitation of others - just look at the behaviour of most transnational corporations. These organisations MUST be regulated way more than they are at present. Neither system is perfect by any means, and in both cases, a good government answerable to the people is the key. In order to improve things, we really need to improve democratic accountability IMHO.
Hope thats of interest to someone at least.
True free market capitalism implies state control of barely anything. Everybody would pay for their schools, health, pensions, transport etc. The idea is that there is infinite choice for the consumer and infinite competition among suppliers (or at least a very large amount of it in either case). This is supposed to drive prices down, and quality up to the optimum supportable level for any Sate's economy, thus giving the people the best deal.
Conversely, the poloar opposite, pure socialism, requires state control of almost all goods and services, with each member of the society being on equal terms, with equality of treatment for all (supposedly of a sufficiently high quality). In addition, it would only really work in a global state.
In reality, we have never seen either system, and due to various reasons (corruption in the case of socialism, and international law in the case of capitalism (e.g. Int. Human Rights Law requires that all states provide free primary education to its citizens)), we are unlikely to see either 'pure-state' in the future.
What seems to work best in some ways, is the sort of capitalism we have in W Europe (less so the U.S. as they don't provide free health care for example). Here we have a balance between state control of public goods (health, education, fire service, military etc.) but free market capitalism in other areas e.g communications industry, food etc. I am oversimplifying here I know.
In order for the latter system to work, we need a competent government which is answerable to the electorate, an efficient cicil service and welfare state (so that our payments in the form of tax are used most efficiently) and an highly sophisticated understanding of how best to balance the needs of the people via in the proviosion of public goods, and the needs of the economy, via the provision of a free-market (with as little state regulation as possible). Do we have this in the UK? I think we all know the answer to that one.....
For what its worth, socialism is founded on some very sound ethical principles. What it does not sufficiently account for, as has been mentioned previously, is human greed and selfishness, especially on the part of leaders (of paramount importance in a socialist system). However, it can be argued that capitalism allows selfish rich men too much scope for the exploitation of others - just look at the behaviour of most transnational corporations. These organisations MUST be regulated way more than they are at present. Neither system is perfect by any means, and in both cases, a good government answerable to the people is the key. In order to improve things, we really need to improve democratic accountability IMHO.
Hope thats of interest to someone at least.
04 February 2003, 11:52 AM
#13
BANNED
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
--Oh, and congratulations to Jye_O! You managed to actually write a post that doesn't sound like absolute crap!!! Well done!!--
I'm glad you approve pRO dOOd. I really, really worry what people who stay on the other side of the planet think of me, lol.
Pity you havent managed to practice what you preach though
I'm glad you approve pRO dOOd. I really, really worry what people who stay on the other side of the planet think of me, lol.
Pity you havent managed to practice what you preach though
04 February 2003, 01:21 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats the bit that scares me, Tractor. The fact that transnats are basically acountable to no one. They have shown time and time again that they will put profit before any ethical concerns. These companies are now more powerful than most of the worlds goverments bar a few. I simply do not believe they benefit the majority of the population.
If somebody came up with a fairer system there is no way that the transnats would play ball and change their ways, it would IMHO come to war. Just look at the way the ' anti-capitalist' rallies are put down. Sure, there is a few hell bend on rioting, but 99% of the people on these marches are ordinary folk that are just a bit concerned about the unfair distribution of wealth etc etc. There is no way they will accept regulation now, it wouldn't even get as far as that, to many politicians in their pockets.
If somebody came up with a fairer system there is no way that the transnats would play ball and change their ways, it would IMHO come to war. Just look at the way the ' anti-capitalist' rallies are put down. Sure, there is a few hell bend on rioting, but 99% of the people on these marches are ordinary folk that are just a bit concerned about the unfair distribution of wealth etc etc. There is no way they will accept regulation now, it wouldn't even get as far as that, to many politicians in their pockets.
04 February 2003, 01:40 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is possible to regulate TNCs, but the issue comes down to jurisdiction, which is a great face saver for W. Governments.
If a TNC has a head office in State A, but manufactures all its goods in Sate B, under, effectively a different company, which State is responsible for monitoring the TNC?
State A, a W. State, cannot legislate against behaviour by the TNC in State B because it would consitute a potentially illegal interference in the domestic affair of State B, and they wouldn't want to anyway as the TNC sponsors their election campaigns
State B, a developing state, is desperate for foreign investment, and so will do anything (e.g ammend their laws for the benefit of the exploitative policies of the TNC) to persuade TNCs to set up shop within their borders.
A win-win situation for the TNC then. However, via international treaties, these companies could be regulated. Nobody really bothers at the moment though..... some of the figures are scary.
If a TNC has a head office in State A, but manufactures all its goods in Sate B, under, effectively a different company, which State is responsible for monitoring the TNC?
State A, a W. State, cannot legislate against behaviour by the TNC in State B because it would consitute a potentially illegal interference in the domestic affair of State B, and they wouldn't want to anyway as the TNC sponsors their election campaigns
State B, a developing state, is desperate for foreign investment, and so will do anything (e.g ammend their laws for the benefit of the exploitative policies of the TNC) to persuade TNCs to set up shop within their borders.
A win-win situation for the TNC then. However, via international treaties, these companies could be regulated. Nobody really bothers at the moment though..... some of the figures are scary.
02 April 2003, 06:19 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAPITALISM IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THINGS, FULLSTOP. IF YOU ADOPT CAPITALISM YOU COME OUT BETTER OFF, IT IS THAT SIMPLE. IT REWARDS THOSE WHO ACTUALLY WANT TO DO SOMETHING WITH THEMSELVES.
Anyway, who would want this guy to organise your hard earned dosh?
Oh, and congratulations to Jye_O! You managed to actually write a post that doesn't sound like absolute crap!!! Well done!!
Edited to change my argument to CAPITALS.
TheScooby
[Edited by TheScooby - 2/4/2003 7:22:30 AM]
Anyway, who would want this guy to organise your hard earned dosh?
Oh, and congratulations to Jye_O! You managed to actually write a post that doesn't sound like absolute crap!!! Well done!!
Edited to change my argument to CAPITALS.
TheScooby
[Edited by TheScooby - 2/4/2003 7:22:30 AM]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post