Capitalism (657 hits)
Category: GeneralRating: 0.3 on 35 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by PepsiCoke (View user info) at 2008-09-23 17:43:23 EDT
Does anybody think this financial collapse is going to be enough to shut up Libertarians for a little while? I don't think so. If people like Stabkill are even remotely representative of Libertarians as a whole, then I think balls-to-the-wall capitalism is still going to have some strong proponents out there.
For those of you who believe so strongly in free markets, do you deny the ability of human beings to democratically govern themselves when it comes to financial matters? Instead of voting with our dollars, why can't we vote with out votes?
People are afraid of having their necessities in the hands of the government. But they don't realize that this is only a problem when the government is disconnected from the governed. In an active, direct, participatory democracy, people are the government.
There is no perfect system. There can't be a perfect system when human beings are so imperfect. But if we are going to move in the right direction, it is going to be through a government that is active and all-inclusive. If there is such thing as a civilization making progress, then that progress is not going to happen by sitting back and seeing where our greed will take us.
User Reviews
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2008-09-25 12:07:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
More like Crapitalism.
Submitted by Harmon (user info) at 2008-09-25 11:58:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Jack McCallum is a published author. You can buy his books on Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Made-U-S-Jack-McCallum/dp/0738867764
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-25 11:49:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-25 10:25:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Why, exactly, can socialized medicine not have a policy in place to deal with situations like your hypothetical? "
I am sure it will have a policy to deal with every situation. I just don't trust it to be good.
Look at the UK. No minor surgeries for smokers. How long until that applies to fatties or drinkers? And to be honest, I appreciate the states decisions. You are in charge of a limited asset, why waste it on people who will piss it away. in fact why give peopel the option to piss it away. If I was responsible for the health of a society I wuld ban fatty foods, alcohol, smoking, etc. Once the state is incharge of your healthcare, why shouldn't they have a say in prevention?
My big fear is when they apply affirmative action type policies to medicine. There are way less fat black crippled dykes in society so they should move to the head of the line for surgery.
/end anti govt right wing rant
I don't think our system is perfect but I don't like th implications of govt being responsible for your healthcare. I am fine with them being responsible for setting up a fair system, or a system where everyone can earn it.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-25 10:39:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-09-25 01:00:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i worked for hydro quebec and it was just like any other private sector company. they have previsions and objectives to reach just like any other corporations except profits go to the government and allow to keep prices relatively low.
owning something doesn't necesarrily mean running it.
i doubt washington bureaucrats will run fanny mae and freddy mac which are now "socialized".
------
Exactly.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-25 10:25:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-25 07:19:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In socialized healthcare the inequalities will be entirely beyond your control. In private healthcare the inequalities will be based on how much you make. Neither is perfect, but at least one allows for you to exzert some control.
--------
Why, exactly, can socialized medicine not have a policy in place to deal with situations like your hypothetical?
Anyway, there are plenty of rich alcoholics that need new livers and can afford them. That doesn't mean they deserve them. Being rich and being an asset to society do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-25 07:19:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-24 21:37:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-24 20:27:59 EDT (#)
>Ranking: 0
>
>Distribute energy fairly? How exactly would that work? You get X amount of energy a year, a month?
No. You buy it from the government, or a government-regulated monopoly.
------------------------
I don't have a big problem with this, but I get nervous when people throw out "fair" with energy. However I don't think it is the best way to go. I would prefer a govt-regulated competition.
"This hypothetical you bring up out of the blue has nothing to do with socialized versus privatized health care. There is nothing to say that socialized health care won't be able to have policies in place that can determine what to do in such a situation. What does our current system dictate in this situation, anyway? "
Yes it does. In socialized healthcare the inequalities will be entirely beyond your control. In private healthcare the inequalities will be based on how much you make. Neither is perfect, but at least one allows for you to exzert some control.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2008-09-25 01:02:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i agree with caul.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-09-25 01:00:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-24 21:37:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-24 20:27:59 EDT (#)
>Ranking: 0
>
>Distribute energy fairly? How exactly would that work? You get X amount of energy a year, a month?
No. You buy it from the government, or a government-regulated monopoly.
===
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BUREAUCRACY!?!
i worked for hydro quebec and it was just like any other private sector company. they have previsions and objectives to reach just like any other corporations except profits go to the government and allow to keep prices relatively low.
owning something doesn't necesarrily mean running it.
i doubt washington bureaucrats will run fanny mae and freddy mac which are now "socialized".
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-09-25 00:46:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-09-24 11:23:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-24 10:44:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-09-24 07:51:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What economic system would you have in place of Capitalism? We have seen how socialism/communisn has also failed to bring everyone up to a comfortable level.
---------
I'm not advocating communism by any means. I'm certainly not saying that every industry should be socialized. But when it comes to necessities like energy and medicine, why can we not make decisions, as as democratic country, to distribute these things fairly and sustainably?
---------
Because beuracracies have a track record of not being able to do anything efficiently, financially or procedurally
===
in my province, energy is nationalized and in my country, healthcare is socialized. we pay the lowest electricity on the continent and sell the rest at high price. and even though our healthcare system is far from perfect, it's available for anyone. despite that, Canada is the only G8 country with budget surplus, for almost a decade now.
i wouldn't say we are in heaven, but socializing aspects of society doesn't make you north korea either. there is such a thing called "centre".
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-09-25 00:40:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-09-24 07:51:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
We have seen how socialism/communisn has also failed to bring everyone up to a comfortable level.
====
is that why countries you'd consider socialists have been topping the quality of life index year after year?
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-24 21:37:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-24 20:27:59 EDT (#)
>Ranking: 0
>
>Distribute energy fairly? How exactly would that work? You get X amount of energy a year, a month?
No. You buy it from the government, or a government-regulated monopoly.
>How about healthcare? What is fair? Should an unemployed childless alcoholic get a liver transplant >before a hard working father?
This hypothetical you bring up out of the blue has nothing to do with socialized versus privatized health care. There is nothing to say that socialized health care won't be able to have policies in place that can determine what to do in such a situation. What does our current system dictate in this situation, anyway?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-09-24 20:27:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-24 10:44:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-09-24 07:51:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What economic system would you have in place of Capitalism? We have seen how socialism/communisn has also failed to bring everyone up to a comfortable level.
---------
I'm not advocating communism by any means. I'm certainly not saying that every industry should be socialized. But when it comes to necessities like energy and medicine, why can we not make decisions, as as democratic country, to distribute these things fairly and sustainably?
----------------
Distribute energy fairly? How exactly would that work? You get X amount of energy a year, a month?
How about healthcare? What is fair? Should an unemployed childless alcoholic get a liver transplant before a hard working father?
I don't think the market is perfect and I am all for a certain level of govt regulation, but as far as what is "fair" I think the market does a better job than the govt does in many cases.
/Given my druthers there would be free healthcare for children (under 18)and tards (real tards, not quasi tards like Kaos King), affordable healthcare for anyone who works or goes to school full time, and govt work centers where anyone can get a job picking up trash (or other public projects). If you can't be assed out to do any of the above I don't mind if you die of easliy treatable diseases.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2008-09-24 19:33:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by X54 (user info) at 2008-09-23 18:42:05 EDT (#)
Cool movie reference!! A very a-dynamic movie.
BTW: Bush 'forced' people in subprime mortgages back in 2002.
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2008-09-24 14:59:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-09-24 13:15:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-24 11:56:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Bureaucracy" and "big government" are scary phrases that libertarians and conservatives use to scare people away from any kind of socialization. Personally, when it comes to things like medicine, insurance, and energy, I will take the supposed bureaucracy of government over the unregulated greed of the corporate world. No, I absolutely do not trust my health in the "guiding hands" of the markets, and it's not because I don't understand the theory behind capitalism.
==================================================================
well said. i'm in total agreement.
Submitted by messmind (user info) at 2008-09-24 13:09:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Man, that weed fucks up my brain!
Submitted by messmind (user info) at 2008-09-24 13:08:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
awiting=awaiting. +.5 for nice reviews.
Submitted by messmind (user info) at 2008-09-24 13:07:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Capitalism is the snake that eats itself, when there's nothing left to absorb.
Dark ages of anarchy are awiting us.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-09-24 12:59:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
PepsiCoke -
I agree the corporate world has not done well either. Fire Departments and Utility companies also handle their business quite well, but I believe that is mostly due to their being local rather than federal groups.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-24 11:56:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-09-24 11:23:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Because beuracracies have a track record of not being able to do anything efficiently, financially or procedurally
-----------
So the bureaucracies that exist in the corporate world are somehow different and better than those which exist in democracy?
Would you say that the fire departments in the U.S. are efficient? I would say they are damn efficient. What about water departments? They are unbelievably efficient and they are able to provide water at ridiculously low cost. Granted, water is not the same as oil, but our water departments are certainly evidence of the good track record of government utilities.
"Bureaucracy" and "big government" are scary phrases that libertarians and conservatives use to scare people away from any kind of socialization. Personally, when it comes to things like medicine, insurance, and energy, I will take the supposed bureaucracy of government over the unregulated greed of the corporate world. No, I absolutely do not trust my health in the "guiding hands" of the markets, and it's not because I don't understand the theory behind capitalism.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-09-24 11:23:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-24 10:44:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-09-24 07:51:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What economic system would you have in place of Capitalism? We have seen how socialism/communisn has also failed to bring everyone up to a comfortable level.
---------
I'm not advocating communism by any means. I'm certainly not saying that every industry should be socialized. But when it comes to necessities like energy and medicine, why can we not make decisions, as as democratic country, to distribute these things fairly and sustainably?
---------
Because beuracracies have a track record of not being able to do anything efficiently, financially or procedurally
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-24 10:44:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-09-24 07:51:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What economic system would you have in place of Capitalism? We have seen how socialism/communisn has also failed to bring everyone up to a comfortable level.
---------
I'm not advocating communism by any means. I'm certainly not saying that every industry should be socialized. But when it comes to necessities like energy and medicine, why can we not make decisions, as as democratic country, to distribute these things fairly and sustainably?
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2008-09-24 07:51:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What economic system would you have in place of Capitalism? We have seen how socialism/communisn has also failed to bring everyone up to a comfortable level.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2008-09-24 05:45:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO7ZxPDFzyw
Submitted by sexualchocolate1984 (user info) at 2008-09-24 05:27:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Atheist Amen to that!
Fucking blues, Capi scum, polluting the planet with their fucking greed. Centuries of everyone trying to screw each other over to get to the top needs to end.
It may not happen in a year, it may not happen in ten, but it's the beginning of the end for capitalism.
The bailing out of the banks is the start, communism for the rich, sharing everyone's money to save their extended funds and investments. Those who can afford to save more the £38,000 (in the UK anyway) are being protected using the money paid in tax by those who can't afford to save that much. It's fucking appaulling.
CAPITALISM IS ON IT'S KNEES!
We just need a leader, a hero, an icon of a revolution to come and put that final bullet in it's fucking forehead.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-09-23 23:26:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This reminds me of that awful post I did on the subject about 2 years ago.
Except I was being sarcastic.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2008-09-23 22:15:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
it's remarkable that no one with any public clout seems to be questioning the fundamental economic system, even though it clearly is putting humans and habitat in peril
instead they fiddle around with funds injections and bans on short-selling and carbon trading schemes etc
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2008-09-23 21:41:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Is that Rainn Wilson from The Office?
Submitted by Jordan85777 (user info) at 2008-09-23 21:08:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-09-23 21:02:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"why can't we vote with out votes?"
-------
Should be "our votes".
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-09-23 20:30:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Jack_of_Spades (user info) at 2008-09-23 19:31:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I didn't read this, but you seem to be a real jackass.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2008-09-23 18:53:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What the hell happened to Play-Doh?
Submitted by X54 (user info) at 2008-09-23 18:42:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden."
"In the garden."
"Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again."
"Spring and summer."
"Yes."
"Then fall and winter."
"Yes."
"I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we're upset by the seasons of our economy."
"Yes! There will be growth in the spring!"
"Hmm!"
"Hmm!"
"Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I've heard in a very, very long time. I admire your good, solid sense. That's precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill."
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-09-23 18:18:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Some of your points make sense.