While in college, a 120 IQ guy told me that Europe works to live and American's live to work. — Shawn
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
Walk me through the argument you constructed in your head — Benkei
where I point to other possible causes, without ever mentioning communism or socialism, as an argument for communism or socialism? — Benkei
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 do take issue with the fairy tale that capitalism lifted people out of poverty. It's just propaganda, which tot apparently believe. — Benkei
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
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
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. — Benkei
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
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
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
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
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
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
You liked it better when women stayed home and used scrub boards? You are not making rational sense. — fishfry
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
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
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
Gee, I wouldn't know -- who is the authority on what those values mean?Maybe what you mean is that one can falsely claim to hold these values, when in fact one does not. — Bitter Crank
Who have far from a uniformed understanding of them. One person's truth is another's lie, and so on.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
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?The use of ideals is for purposes of manipulation.
But maybe it is as good as society can get.This is true. Capitalism or wealth is not a sufficient condition for a good or healthy society. — BitconnectCarlos
One person's truth is another's lie, and so on. — baker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.