While in college, a 120 IQ guy told me that Europe works to live and American's live to work. — Shawn

This was an old multi-purpose lifestyle quote doing the rounds decades ago and generally applied to personalties. I have always considered myself someone who works to live. But what the hell does this really mean? I suspect it is about satisfaction with moderation.

I consider myself financially prosperous (I have no debts) and that is partly because I have never had much of an appetite for material things. Frugality is my modes operandi and I was a minimalist before this was just another commodified wankfest chasing authenticity in the absence of God. I think much of the juxtaposition of ideals versus profit depends upon your personal appetites and situation. In Western culture it may be easier to be virtuous if you are comfortable and happy in yourself. If you have an insatiable thirst for material goods, with a need to show off, it must surely be more tempting to sell out and suppress ideals.

I truly wish that people longing for socialism/communism or the abolishment of the free market will take an honest look at the actual track records of China, the Soviet Union, and Cuba in the 20th century. — fishfry

The best sense I can make of this is that you reject ideals completely in favour of some pragmatic measures. But I find it very odd, because i do not think that capitalism can function at least as you see it in the US for example, without a commitment to truth, justice, democracy, respect for persons, and kindness. Rather, the lack of these guiding principles results in exactly the tyrannical state capitalism of China and Russia that you condemn.

Walk me through the argument you constructed in your head where I point to other possible causes, without ever mentioning communism or socialism, as an argument for communism or socialism?

Walk me through the argument you constructed in your head — Benkei

You say that like it's a bad thing. In which body part do you construct your arguments? Sorry couldn't resist that one.

where I point to other possible causes, without ever mentioning communism or socialism, as an argument for communism or socialism? — Benkei

Can you remind me of the context? I was just struck by the anti-capitalist sentiment expressed here, such as the idea that even though capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty, that's no point in its favor because that's not its primary intent. I can't fathom the motive of such an argument, especially in contrast to the murderous and impoverishing reigns of Stalin and Mao. I don't remember if this particularly pertains to anything you said. If not, no offense given; and if it does, no offense intended.

Why should I remind you of the context when it's readily available above? If you would've read what I wrote instead of imagining what you think I said, we could have an actual conversation. So the argument you constructed in your head is clearly making several leaps of logic that cannot be derived from what I said.

I do take issue with the fairy tale that capitalism lifted people out of poverty. It's just propaganda, which tot apparently believe. I would argue that despite capitalism several social and industrial developments, and indeed policy decisions, caused a reduction in poverty. Simply put, it's not profitable to reduce poverty so capitalism doesn't cause it.

Why should I remind you of the context when it's readily available above? If you would've read what I wrote instead of imagining what you think I said, we could have an actual conversation. So the argument you constructed in your head is clearly making several leaps of logic that cannot be derived from what I said. — Benkei

I believe that I lumped your response in with someone else's, and my remarks were probably aimed more at the other poster than you.

I do take issue with the fairy tale that capitalism lifted people out of poverty. It's just propaganda, which tot apparently believe. — Benkei

So whose system do you prefer? Stalin's, or Mao's? Or is Castro's impoverishment of Cuba more to your liking? I'll give Castro one thing, he murdered orders of magnitude fewer people than Stalin or Mao.

I'll take the American system of the 20th century, warts and all.

I would argue that despite capitalism several social and industrial developments, and indeed policy decisions, caused a reduction in poverty. Simply put, it's not profitable to reduce poverty so capitalism doesn't cause it. — Benkei

It's extremely profitable to increase the economic well being of your potential customers. So you're factually wrong on this point. Postwar capitalism, Levittown, See the USA in your Chevrolet, all of that. Customers with money to buy stuff from corporations. Name a single country whose economic system works better. The problem with socialism is the truly awful economic and human rights record of every country that ever tried it.

I'm not defending whatever happened in the past 30 years. What did happen was that the globalists decided to sell out the US manufacturing base to China and hollow out the heartland of this country. Hence Trump and his deplorables. And hence the next Trump who will have a smoother personality and won't rage-tweet so much.

And may I note, in case this point isn't clear: Hence Bernie. The right wing populist Trump and the left wing populist Sanders together have far FAR more support in this country than the neocon/neoliberal center. In fact my idea, which was too brilliant to actually happen, was for Trump to dump Pence and offer Bernie the vice presidency. A Trump/Bernie ticket would have taken fifty states.

Of course you will argue (correctly) that it's capitalism that decided to ship the heartland jobs abroad. That's late-state capitalism, or global capitalism. Marx was right about that. But for a while, capitalism worked great. And socialism never worked and never will.

So whose system do you prefer? Stalin's, or Mao's? Or is Castro's impoverishment of Cuba more to your liking? I'll give Castro one thing, he murdered orders of magnitude fewer people than Stalin or Mao. — fishfry

You're such a child at times. Red herring and all that.

It's extremely profitable to increase the economic well being of your potential customers. So you're factually wrong on this point. Postwar capitalism, Levittown, See the USA in your Chevrolet, all of that. Customers with money to buy stuff from corporations. Name a single country whose economic system works better. The problem with socialism is the truly awful economic and human rights record of every country that ever tried it. — fishfry

Alleviating world poverty would cost about 1% of GDP of Western countries. If it was profitable, it would've been done by now. It isn't profitable because the system of capitalism requires the exploitation of natural resources (hello climate crisis) and people. All capitalism provide a mechanism to move wealth from one place to another or from future times to present times, without any consideration for ethics.

Whatever positive developments arose while capitalism spread was a consequence of social policy (eg. wealth redistribution, healthcare, worker protections, minimum wages ,etc.) and industrial and technical developments specifically leading to increased personal wealth. The washing machine created time for women to be productive in other areas, the combustion and steam engine allowed you to travel larger distances to get better jobs etc. etc. Capitalism has zero to do with poverty reduction.

The problem with people like you is that they don't stand in the way of "more capitalism" at the expense of people and the environment because you actually believe capitalism solves social problems without realising it causes most of them.

cYou're such a child at times. Red herring and all that.[/quote]

I asked you to name a country in which socialism has done better for its people in terms of human rights and economic well being, and you call me a child. Is that because you have no answer? Stalin and Mao are the datapoints of anti-capitalism in the 20th century. Your argument is stuck with them because they are what actually happened when communism took over countries. Look at the incredible ethnic diversity of the US. Look past the nonsense about this being a racist country. It's the least racist, most diverse country in the history of the world. Why? Because capitalists sell to anyone. The profit motive causes them to look past ideology to see markets. You honestly don't see this?

Alleviating world poverty would cost about 1% of GDP of Western countries. — Benkei

How so? Run me the numbers. I don't believe you. Are you saying we should just mail a percentage of our GDP to the poor people? Lay out your scenario, not just a slogan.

If it was profitable, it would've been done by now. It isn't profitable because the system of capitalism requires the exploitation of natural resources (hello climate crisis) and people. All capitalism provide a mechanism to move wealth from one place to another or from future times to present times, without any consideration for ethics. — Benkei

And how exactly are you planning to feed, clothe, and shelter the seven billion? Be specific. Or are you one of these globalists who dreams of massive population reduction? Kill a few billion poor and the world's problems go away. That's the actual dream of many radical environmentalists. Is that where you're coming from?

Whatever positive developments arose while capitalism spread was a consequence of social policy (eg. wealth redistribution, healthcare, worker protections, minimum wages ,etc.) and industrial and technical developments specifically leading to increased personal wealth. The washing machine created time for women to be productive in other areas, the combustion and steam engine allowed you to travel larger distances to get better jobs etc. etc. Capitalism has zero to do with poverty reduction. — Benkei

You liked it better when women stayed home and used scrub boards? You are not making rational sense.

The problem with people like you is that they don't stand in the way of "more capitalism" at the expense of people and the environment because you actually believe capitalism solves social problems without realising it causes most of them. — Benkei

I ask again: How are you going to feed, clothe, and shelter the seven billion? What system would you like to rule the world with. The trouble with "people like you" is that in the name of compassion you produce misery but feel good about yourselves.

And "people like you" are unable to hold an intellectual conversation without personalizing it You can have the last word. I'm out. Get some fucking manners and learn to argue with your mind and not your tantrums. I don't like personalized insult-fests and apparently that's all you've got.

Profit and profit motive need at least some working definitions here. I'm thinking (hearsay warning) that the concern with maximizing short-term profit at the expense of almost everything else is a result of Harvard Business School teachings and philosophies through most of the 20th century and even now, the neglect in the US of infrastructure being one result, for the repair of which Biden's $3T proposal is likely just a down payment. Nor should profit, wealth, and ownership be confused. Profits can be and are taxed, but I'm increasingly persuaded that wealth, assets, also need to be taxed.

US Banks take one or both of two actions with regard to dormant accounts. They 1) turn them over to government, or 2) control and reduce them through fees. The idea being to shield the bank from the effects of long-term compound interest.

Just a thought: Perhaps the problem is not with profits, or even so-called excess profits - no one gains any profit until someone else chooses to buy - but instead with passive wealth. Passive wealth deprives the community of the (compounded) benefits that money could pay for. Inflation is already a tax on passive wealth, but maybe a much sharper and targeted tax on passive wealth would put a lot of money back to work. The underlying philosophy of such a tax being, "Use it or lose it." — tim wood

:ok:

How so? Run me the numbers. I don't believe you. Are you saying we should just mail a percentage of our GDP to the poor people? Lay out your scenario, not just a slogan. — fishfry

Sigh. Of course, you don't believe me because you already bought into the capitalism is good nonsense.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143036580/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=visofear03-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399381&creativeASIN=0143036580

175 billion USD.

And how exactly are you planning to feed, clothe, and shelter the seven billion? Be specific. Or are you one of these globalists who dreams of massive population reduction? Kill a few billion poor and the world's problems go away. That's the actual dream of many radical environmentalists. Is that where you're coming from? — fishfry

Be specific? Like how you say "capitalism alleviated poverty" without proof? You think spending 175 billion USD on poverty alleviations is going to bring the whole system down to the point where we'll have trouble feeding, clothing ahd sheltering people and then have the audacity to imply I'm in favour of murdering a cool billion. Not only does it demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge about the problem of poverty but also is just another asshole comment.

You liked it better when women stayed home and used scrub boards? You are not making rational sense. — fishfry

Read again. I pointed to the washing machine as one of the most important inventions that created wealth for ordinary people. My point is that specific inventions and specific policies alleviated poverty, where capitalism is only a system that transfers wealth from one place to another or from future times to now, without ethical considerations. As a result it can never be a cause of alleviating poverty, merely a possible instrument but most of the time it is put to use entirely differently by merely causing shifts in wealth thereby empoverishing the many for the benefit of the few.

I ask again: How are you going to feed, clothe, and shelter the seven billion? What system would you like to rule the world with. The trouble with "people like you" is that in the name of compassion you produce misery but feel good about yourselves.

And "people like you" are unable to hold an intellectual conversation without personalizing it You can have the last word. I'm out. Get some fucking manners and learn to argue with your mind and not your tantrums. I don't like personalized insult-fests and apparently that's all you've got. — fishfry

It's tiresome to argue with assholes who don't even take the effort to read what I actually wrote and just go off on a rant based on the bullshit he's drunk his entire life. You haven't at any point engaged with my initial comment that poverty was alleviated by other things than a capitalist system, when I explicitly named several causes and you just went "Stalin! Mao!". So yeah, fuck you. You're so intellectually incurious I have no clue what you're doing on this site.

You can start with your first baby steps here to educate yourself about "capitalism": https://dimosioshoros.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/23_things.pdf

I think the profit motives drives a lot of human behavior, and especially economic activity, but it's not everything. There's nothing wrong with seeking profit, and nobody is saying it is the highest virtue out there, but I do think it's a basic one. By "profit motive" I'm really just talking about gain or one's ability to be compensated in a general sense for what one is doing. The ability to better one's condition and keep one's earnings.

Capitalism is value-neutral - it doesn't tell you to maximize profit at all costs. Capitalism doesn't dictate that you need to be an a**hole. Just play within the rules of the game and we're all good.

Hasn't capitalism brought more humans out of poverty than any other system? I'm not defending the late-stage capitalism we have today. I mean in the 20th century. Compared to, say, the massive impoverishment and death caused by socialist movements in the USSR and China. — fishfry

:100: Capitalism is by far the best system out there. It's only a question of how much we regulate it. There's no serious discussion nowadays about reverting back to socialism. It's a question today of whether we introduce a UBI, which has been advocated by prominent laissez-faire capitalists like M. Friedman. What are you specifically talking about in reference to late-stage capitalism that you don't like?

For the purposes of argument, let's say it has. Let's also admit that, other things being equal, wealth is preferable to poverty. Still one might prefer poverty in a healthy environment to wealth in a toxic environment, or poverty in freedom to wealth under coercion, and so on. This is not a notion invented by postmodern far left politically correct weirdos, it dates back 2000 years or so.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?
— Mark 8:36 — unenlightened

This is true. Capitalism or wealth is not a sufficient condition for a good or healthy society.

Maybe what you mean is that one can falsely claim to hold these values, when in fact one does not. — Bitter Crank

Gee, I wouldn't know -- who is the authority on what those values mean?

Yes, but I don't accept your proposal that they mean whatever you want to make them mean. They are well understood by very ordinary folks. — unenlightened

Who have far from a uniformed understanding of them. One person's truth is another's lie, and so on.

The use of ideals is for purposes of manipulation.

Yes. But it is a silly question and thus a misleading answer. If you are so depraved as to think that ideals are something to use, then I cannot imagine any other use for them than to manipulate other people. Hence my question to you as to what else you think an ideal could be used for? which you didn't answer. All clear now?
Why on earth would one entertain something, in this case, hold an ideal, unless it serves a purpose???

This is true. Capitalism or wealth is not a sufficient condition for a good or healthy society. — BitconnectCarlos

But maybe it is as good as society can get.

One person's truth is another's lie, and so on. — baker

If this is your truth, it is a lie to me. And that is the end of the conversation, because this claim of yours denies the function of language. There is nothing more to be said.

All hail moral realism!

There's some kind of obsession with claiming that communism was best exemplified with Stalin or Mao. When in fact, those types made the most amount of economic mistakes as central planners. Ho-hum.

Point those fingers.

When one of seven billion, though a human being, is less important than a snail darter who's only contribution is to act as a canary in a coal mine, market forces should, eventually, move us beyond ourselves and back toward standing for that which we stand on. It's going to seem "cold" to the humanist, but the "dogmatization of human behavior" may not spring from game theory. Maybe, instead, game theory is just another wag's effort to explain human behavior?

The arc is slow and gentle but it bends, two steps forward, one step back, toward our aspirational ideals. When one realizes that something which is (at least ostensibly) further out on the concentric circles of care presents less of a threat to the center than something else which lies closer in, then there is a re-set toward the aspirational ideals, using game or any other theory.

"In Descent of Man, Darwin observes that the history of man's moral development has been a continual extension in the objects of his 'social instincts and sympathies.' Originally each man had regard only for himself and those of a very narrow circle about him; later, he came to regard more and more 'not only the welfare, but the happiness of all his fellow men'; then "his sympathies became more tender and widely diffused, extending to men of all races, to the imbecile, maimed, and other useless members of society, and finally to the lower animals." Christopher Stone.

I would guess that so long as game theory is on the table, we are good. When game theory (and it's ilk, MLK, Adam Smith, etc.) fall away as luxuries no longer affordable, then it will be one step forward, two (or even more) steps back to Darwin's roots (i.e. morals are no longer on the table).

In short, if game theory seems inadequate or cold, it's just because it has not yet calculated the true value that we want it to. It will. Someone will eventually find value in that which is currently free and abundant; and rather than absconding with it, and finding value in the reduction of it's numbers to a point where it can be sold for profit, it will instead be encouraged to flourish in freedom for all; if only so that person can survive.

In other words, Nature (the ultimate gamer) will have man reinsert the "enlightened" back into "enlightened self-interest." Hopefully it won't be too late. But even if it is, by our standards, where the baseline is reset with each generation, I think those who wander a post-apocalyptic wasteland of the future will still think life is worth living. So there's that. Best of luck to them.