Current Events > Why do 90% of pro-capitalism arguments

(+) Yeah! (+)

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Do you seriously think I'm throwing out a real percentage?

I think you're throwing an estimate based on your perception.

Nemu posted...

Curious, are people in this topic who are extremely against it arguing for better regulations on existing policies to curb governmental and corporate greed, or are you arguing against it in its entirety as if there is a complete alternative that could realistically be implemented?

For the moment we need:

1. Socialized Healthcare
2. Wealth Tax which will basically pay for #1 all by itself

WingsOfGood posted...

Did you go to college?
You may not know this but it is very common that your professor graded you on a bell curve. This is leveling the playing field.
If they didn't do that, you likely would not pass the class.

All this amounts to is the same hand holding from high school into college. And doeasnt represent the real world. If you were generally carried from start to finish by your peers, depending on your career, this inability will inevitably catch up to you somewhere down the line.

TheOtherMike posted...

This makes no sense because it assumes having massive wealth is an equal benefit to being 2" taller than average or being slightly more athletic. Are you actually making the claim that being a little more talented at one thing is an equal benefit to having access to functionally limitless money from childhood, and therefore access to all the best resources available for health, education, emotional stability, and financial planning? Really? Because I don't believe anyone is stupid enough to seriously put forth that argument.

Even wealth has it's limits, which is the individual. Otherwise they wouldnt lose or fail at anything. If they lack the physical ability, intellectual capacity or mental drive to take advantage of it all then the most that wealth will amount to come adulthood is a safety net at best. And honestly, better their own money used then the tax payers.

Prismsblade posted...

If you were generally carried from start to finish by your peers, depending on your career, this inability will inevitably catch up to you somewhere down the line.

Do you not know that people hire their family and friends? Usually the best worker is not who is promoted.

I am guessing you have yet to live in the real world yet.

Nemu posted...

Curious, are people in this topic who are extremely against it arguing for better regulations on existing policies to curb governmental and corporate greed, or are you arguing against it in its entirety as if there is a complete alternative that could realistically be implemented?

Both. I think capitalism needs to be replaced with a better system, but at the same time, the transition wouldn't happen overnight. In the meantime, the negative effects of capitalism need to be minimized through regulation, including protections for the working class.

The Nordic countries have the best examples of capitalism, but IMO it's an inevitability that all capitalist systems will eventually fall victim to corruption due to the way wealth and socioeconomic power consolidate under capitalist structures.

WingsOfGood posted...

Do you not know that people hire their family and friends? Usually the best worker is not who is promoted.

I am guessing you have yet to live in the real world yet.

That's just further proves my point of how unfair life is, and always will be. So idk what point you were trying to make here.....

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Now now, let's give him a chance to justify this claim.

After all, I don't want to be a hypocrite.

The context was avoiding painfully high inflation. I guess they werent on your side if you like 7% inflation rates.

Seems like everyone's arguments here boil down to not actually addressing content and instead just making arbitrary assumptions about the other team's motivations

Spoilers: you dont have to be insanely wealthy to realize that life is good in today's economic systems, and you can also acknowledge things can improve without thinking you need to throw out the whole system.

No, i dont think i will be a billionaire some day, but you dont need to be a billionaire or millionaire to benefit massively from our economic system.

Prismsblade posted...

That's just further proves my point of how unfair life is, and always will be. So idk what point you were trying to make here.....

Your idea that things will catch up to you is proven false. In addition, I was a tutor in college and people who didn't know the very basics of programming had someone passed their classes and went into advanced classes. Some of these got jobs after graduating.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

it's an inevitability that all capitalist systems will eventually fall victim to corruption

That's ultimately an inevitability for any system of governance without enough checks and balances. I don't think there are any particular aspects to capitalism that inherently make it more or less likely. It's just more overt because power = cash in most regards.

g980 posted...

Spoilers: you dont have to be insanely wealthy to realize that life is good in today's economic systems, and you can also acknowledge things can improve without thinking you need to throw out the whole system.

If this is your real view then you should stop shilling so hard and admit that billionaires becoming trillionaires is a real issue, healthcare is a real issue, businesses stagnating wages is a real issue...

Because if you want to keep the system, continuing to deny these criticisms AS you have done over and over IS what will get people to throw it all out the window.
Somehow I feel you are not being genuine...but if you are, then you should take this advice. We can make a workable system without throwing away this system, I agree. But it takes rooting out the stupid mindsets people have that we are meritocracy, rich people are virtuous, all socialism is bad, etc.
So stop trying to reinforce such idiotic ideals.

Prismsblade posted...

That's just further proves my point of how unfair life is, and always will be. So idk what point you were trying to make here.....

lifes not fair argument is basically the core of capitlism

WingsOfGood posted...

If this is your real view then you should stop shilling so hard and admit that billionaires becoming trillionaires is a real issue, healthcare is a real issue, businesses stagnating wages is a real issue...

Because if you want to keep the system, continuing to deny these criticisms AS you have done over and over IS what will get people to throw it all out the window.
Somehow I feel you are not being genuine...but if you are, then you should take this advice. We can make a workable system without throwing away this system, I agree. But it takes rooting out the stupid mindsets people have that we are meritocracy, rich people are virtuous, all socialism is bad, etc.
So stop trying to reinforce such idiotic ideals.

Billionaires arent a problem, poverty is. You're assuming a dichotomy that doesnt exist.

Nemu posted...

That's ultimately an inevitability for any system of governance without enough checks and balances. I don't think there are any particular aspects to capitalism that inherently make it more or less likely. It's just more overt because power = cash in most regards.

The problem with capitalism in particular is that it begins to slowly erode those checks and balances as power concentrates in the hands of a few

g980 posted...

Billionaires arent a problem, poverty is. You're assuming a dichotomy that doesnt exist.

And voila, the man shows his hand and proves he was not saying this in good faith:

Spoilers: you dont have to be insanely wealthy to realize that life is good in today's economic systems, and you can also acknowledge things can improve without thinking you need to throw out the whole system.

But I will humor it.
If poverty is the PROBLEM, how do you solve it?

WingsOfGood posted...

Your idea that things will catch up to you is proven false. In addition, I was a tutor in college and people who didn't know the very basics of programming had someone passed their classes and went into advanced classes. Some of these got jobs after graduating.

Seems to me like that someone wasn't carried very much at all. And was actually a very smart person with potential in programing....

But go ahead and continue nitpicking my post. I'm sure you're find a 'gotcha!' Somewhere.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

The problem with capitalism in particular is that it begins to slowly erode those checks and balances as power concentrates in the hands of a few

Again, I'd say that's something that can happen in any system. There is no system of governance where the few don't have power of some sort, and the greedy of them will do what they can to use that power as leverage for themselves if given the chance. The problem is that we're competitive, tribal animals at our core. There's a lot of shit to fix for sure, but I think this is just a reflection of us a species more so than the system itself.

WingsOfGood posted...

And voila, the man shows his hand and proves he was not saying this in good faith:

But I will humor it.
If poverty is the PROBLEM, how do you solve it?

Seriously what do you think "good faith" means
Nothing i said was contradictory

Prismsblade posted...

Seems to me like that someone wasn't carried very much at all. And was actually a very smart person with potential in programing....

uhh...they literally would ask me what a for loop was....

g980 posted...

Seriously what do you think "good faith" means
Nothing i said was contradictory

"Billionaires are not a problem, being poor is."
Can you explain?

Tbh it's really unhealthy that you cant wrap your head around someone having a different viewpoint that you think that anyone who disagrees with you is either lying or delusional.

WingsOfGood posted...

"Billionaires are not a problem, being poor is."
Can you explain?

Its not a zero sum system

Someone being a billionaire isnt fundamentally harmful
Someone being impoverished is fundamentally harmful to that person

Nasty_Nitro posted...

lifes not fair argument is basically the core of capitlism

It's not a argument, it's a law of nature. One that goes far beyond capitalism, humans, society or even earth.

Humanity winning the evolution lottery as hard as we did isn't fair to literally every other lifeform on the planet. Earth existing within the habitable zone of the sun, and not to close to have runaway greenhouse gasses like Venus, or to far away to develop a proper atmosphere like Mars on galactic scale is a example of unfairness in the cosmos.

Idk why people blame and assumes unfairness in life is a result of capitlism.

g980 posted...

Its not a zero sum system

Someone being a billionaire isnt fundamentally harmful
Someone being impoverished is fundamentally harmful to that person

When you have billions, you are able to monopolize the market as Bezos had done in many aspects. This CREATES poverty as Bezos has worked to bust unions and stagnate wages. In addition, the employed at his company are treated poorly.

Odd that I can easily explain my viewpoint but you cannot offer and explanation.
Tell me, poverty is an issue, what do you propose to do about it? My proposal is wealth tax allows healthcare to become socialized which decreases the stress on the poor and allows people to freely leave jobs they hate since they don't need to stay to live (due to healthcare).

Prismsblade posted...

It's not a argument, it's a law of nature. One that goes far beyond capitalism, humans, society or even earth.

Humanity winning the evolution lottery as hard as we did isn't fair to literally every other lifeform on the planet. Earth existing within the habitable zone of the sun, and not to close to have runaway greenhouse gasses like Venus, or to far away to develop a proper atmosphere like Mars on galactic scale is a example of unfairness in the cosmos.

Idk why people blame and assumes unfairness in life is a result of capitlism.

It's not about being unfair as life is. Being a six foot tall, strong, good looking man with an above average intelligence and most other inherent traits are not going to put you on the same boat bound for success as the completely average billionaire child.

Engraining Mudsill Theory into capitalist culture is one of the biggest accomplishments of confederate slave owners

WingsOfGood posted...

uhh...they literally would ask me what a for loop was....

You already mentioned in your previous post said individual was a new comer who didn't know the basics of programming. Which I relied with that already in mind. So...okay?

Was this the 'gotcha' you were looking for?

90% of internet arguments in general involve arguing in bad faith.

Prismsblade posted...

You already mentioned in your previous post said individual was a new comer who didn't know the basics of programming. Which I relied with that already in mind. So...okay?

Was this the 'gotcha' you were looking for?

That is not what I said.

I said:

WingsOfGood posted...

I was a tutor in college and people who didn't know the very basics of programming had someone passed their classes and went into advanced classes.

Let me say it another way.

They were in senior level classes that required you to pass the basic courses and know what a 'for' loop is.
They come to the lab I worked in for help in the same class and didn't know what a 'for' loop was.
Some were even in the same class as me.

Understood?

Rexdragon125 posted...

Engraining Mudsill Theory into capitalist culture is one of the biggest accomplishments of confederate slave owners

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudsill_theory

Hammond argued that every society must find a class of people to do menial labor, whether called slaves or not, and that assigning that status on a racial basis followed natural law, while the Northern United States' social class of white wage laborers presented a revolutionary threat.[1]

It was directly used to advocate slavery in the rhetoric of other Democrats, who were struggling to maintain their grip on the Southern economy. They saw the abolition of slavery as a threat to their powerful new Southern market that revolved almost entirely around the plantation system, which was furthered by the use of primarily-African slaves but also used destitute whites.

Interesting.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

because the justification for it always boils down to greed and they don't like admitting that

It's this. It's why it immediately becomes defensive. Usually with a tone that screams "I refuse to actually think too into your perspective and risk feing guilty".

Might be a lil projection since Id feel guilty in their place. But something can be a projection and also have weight.

WingsOfGood posted...

This CREATES poverty

That's not how the world works. Poverty is the natural state of the world. Say you guys want to start a new country from scratch with your desired systems. You know what you are going to need to do? Raise capital. Value and wealth is the thing that needs to be created

Squall28 posted...

That's not how the world works. Poverty is the natural state of the world. Say you guys want to start a new country from scratch with your desired systems. You know what you are going to need to do? Raise capital. Value and wealth is the thing that needs to be created

Incorrect. The natives did not live in poverty. They had clothing, food, shelter and a rich culture.

What creates poverty is when the food is owned by a Capitalist and not shared because they want profits. And this happens when public lands become owned and you cannot hunt or scavenge on them.

WingsOfGood posted...

Incorrect. The natives did not live in poverty. They had clothing, food, shelter and a rich culture.

What creates poverty is when the food is owned by a Capitalist and not shared because they want profits. And this happens when public lands become owned and you cannot hunt or scavenge on them.

The natives had to work to create clothing, food, shelter, and culture. You don't just magically have those things. They had to CREATE them. Hence, you have to create wealth.

Rexdragon125 posted...

Engraining Mudsill Theory into capitalist culture is one of the biggest accomplishments of confederate slave owners

Major fax people dont talk about this enough

Squall28 posted...

The natives had to work to create clothing, food, shelter, and culture. You don't just magically have those things. They had to CREATE them. Hence, you have to create wealth.

Correct. So where in that did they raise Capital? Seems you agree with me they were rich. How then, could they be? Without raising Capital?
hmm

Nemu posted...

Again, I'd say that's something that can happen in any system. There is no system of governance where the few don't have power of some sort, and the greedy of them will do what they can to use that power as leverage for themselves if given the chance. The problem is that we're competitive, tribal animals at our core. There's a lot of shit to fix for sure, but I think this is just a reflection of us a species more so than the system itself.

While no system of governance is completely corruption proof, socialists believe that you can limit the scope of that corruption and the damage it's able to cause through democratic systems.

The problem with capitalism is that it's inherently undemocratic. Workers have little to no say in how things are produced, where things are produced or how goods/services should be distributed. This leads to the ruling class imposing rules within their own organizations that only benefit them to the detriment of everyone else. This, in turn, gives them the power to lobby governments for regulation favorable to them, subverting any democratic system we might have.

It's not just that this system is susceptible to greed and corruption; it literally rewards it.

Also, the idea that humans are naturally competitive is not supported by any factual data. If anything, when left to our own devices and without any external pressure, we're far more likely to form communities and cooperate with one another.

The idea that we're a competitive species comes from the fact that we've always lived under systems that forced us to compete due to the scarcity of resources (whether it's a natural scarcity or an artificial scarcity, as seen in capitalist systems). Given that humans are capable of producing far more than we ever have before, and the fact that we have more than enough to feed, shelter, treat and clothe every person on the planet, we're long past the point of this needing to be the case.

itachi15243 posted...

It's not about being unfair as life is. Being a six foot tall, strong, good looking man with an above average intelligence and most other inherent traits are not going to put you on the same boat bound for success as the completely average billionaire child.

No, but winning the genetics lottery will still get you far in many others ways. Good enough that I think many would be willing to pick it over being crazy wealthy even.

Prismsblade posted...

It's not a argument, it's a law of nature. One that goes far beyond capitalism, humans, society or even earth.

Humanity winning the evolution lottery as hard as we did isn't fair to literally every other lifeform on the planet. Earth existing within the habitable zone of the sun, and not to close to have runaway greenhouse gasses like Venus, or to far away to develop a proper atmosphere like Mars on galactic scale is a example of unfairness in the cosmos.

Idk why people blame and assumes unfairness in life is a result of capitlism.

damn that was smooth you did a great job of talking about literally everything but the topic at hand wow. Buddy why did you take the time to write that? None of that relates to how Capitalism is inherently and intentionally unfair.

Nasty_Nitro posted...

damn that was smooth you did a great job of talking about literally everything but the topic at hand wow. Buddy why did you take the time to write that? None of that relates to how Capitalism is inherently and intentionally unfair.

The point he tried to put forth is that since humans are inherently corrupt, we should ignore that Capitlism leads to corrupt unfairness and not look to Socialism because it will also be corrupt.

In other words, he did not say Capitalism wasn't intentionally unfair, he just said you shouldn't care that it is.

In other words, do nothing.
Be content in the way things are. Change bad. etc

Squall28 posted...

And for reference, even the Nordic countries most of you are so fond of have capitalism as a base. It's the most hands free, and the most proven to work. It just needs some extra social programs to bring the people in the bottom up which countries are already working on doing.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/9/0/AARLwzAABkHq.jpg

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

While no system of governance is completely corruption proof, socialists believe that you can limit the scope of that corruption and the damage it's able to cause through democratic systems.

The problem with capitalism is that it's inherently undemocratic. Workers have little to no say in how things are produced, where things are produced or how goods/services should be distributed. This leads to the ruling class imposing rules within their own organizations that only benefit them to the detriment of everyone else. This, in turn, gives them the power to lobby governments for regulation favorable to them, subverting any democratic system we might have.

It's not just that this system is susceptible to greed and corruption; it literally rewards it.

Also, the idea that humans are naturally competitive is not supported by any factual data. If anything, when left to our own devices and without any external pressure, we're far more likely to form communities and cooperate with one another.

The idea that we're a competitive species comes from the fact that we've always lived under systems that forced us to compete due to the scarcity of resources (whether it's a natural scarcity or an artificial scarcity, as seen in capitalist systems). Given that humans are capable of producing far more than we ever have before, and the fact that we have more than enough to feed, shelter, treat and clothe every person on the planet, we're long past the point of this needing to be the case.

This is like a 360 Windmill Slam Dunk in the 4th quarter to ice the game

WingsOfGood posted...

Correct. So where in that did they raise Capital? Seems you agree with me they were rich. How then, could they be? Without raising Capital?
hmm

They raised capital by WORKING to create things. At some point , society understood economy of scale and learned it was beneficial to have designated people do different things. Much rather pay $3 for a hamburger then to go hunt a buffalo, grow wheat, and cook all on your own. If you thinking having to do all those things on your own makes you rich, I don't know what to tell you

If having food and clothes is all we need to be rich, then I guess America is fine and dandy then. Most of us are rich by your definition.

Squall28 posted...

And for reference, even the Nordic countries most of you are so fond of have capitalism as a base. It's the most hands free, and the most proven to work. It just needs some extra social programs to bring the people in the bottom up which countries are already working on doing.

How did I miss this post?

Weird that every time I make a post about these social programs like universal healthcare, unions, paying employees more, taxing billionaires (who avoid paying tax atm)
Squall28 is always one of the first to post and is adamantly against implementing such programs and rants against them....

Why would he now....pretend to be for them...?

Hard to respond to a topic title question with no examples given

WingsOfGood posted...

The point he tried to put forth is that since humans are inherently corrupt, we should ignore that Capitlism leads to corrupt unfairness and not look to Socialism because it will also be corrupt.

In other words, he did not say Capitalism wasn't intentionally unfair, he just said you shouldn't care that it is.

In other words, do nothing.
Be content in the way things are. Change bad. etc

whats funny is he himself doesnt realize thats what hes been taught to do.

Is this one of those everybody who disagrees with me is a Nazi type of situations?

Im getting that feeling, the more I skim through the thread.

Squall28 posted...

They raised capital by WORKING to create things.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp

Capital is typically cash or liquid assets being held or obtained for expenditures. In a broader sense, the term may be expanded to include all of a companys assets that have monetary value, such as its equipment, real estate, and inventory. But when it comes to budgeting, capital is cash flow.

They don't create Capital.
They are what is known as self-sufficient. Capital is the opposite of self-sufficiency. It is a dependence on an outside economy.

Here is the part that really presents you a problem.

When they created anything, they owned it and whatever value you might assign to it 100%. By them I mean the whole community.
Fyi, their philosophy was one of sharing with all who were apart of their tribe.

WingsOfGood posted...

How did I miss this post?

Weird that every time I make a post about these social programs like universal healthcare, unions, paying employees more, taxing billionaires (who avoid paying tax atm)
Squall28 is always one of the first to post and is adamantly against implementing such programs and rants against them....

Why would he now....pretend to be for them...?

I've always have been for GOOD social programs. The stuff you share is usually nonsense.

Squall28 posted...

I've always have been for GOOD social programs. The stuff you share is usually nonsense.

So give an example of what you consider a GOOD social program.

I am waiting.

WingsOfGood posted...

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capital.asp

They don't create Capital.
They are what is known as self-sufficient. Capital is the opposite of self-sufficiency. It is a dependence on an outside economy.

Here is the part that really presents you a problem.

When they created anything, they owned it and whatever value you might assign to it 100%.

Do you know what "typically" means?

Capital

a stock (see STOCK entry 1 sense 1a) of accumulated goods especially at a specified time and in contrast to income received during a specified periodalso : the value of these accumulated goods

And I see you chose to ignore the point in favor of arguing semantics. The point is you have to work to create value. Either you don't take advantage of economy of scale and work your ass off for a lower quality of life, or you decide to get a job so you can buy these things doing less work than you would have to doing it yourself.