Well, we should find ways to capitalize on positive results
IMO, capitalism is not the problem, bad capitalists are.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Income Inequality.
- Thread starter Kfox
- Start date
Well, we should find ways to capitalize on positive results
IMO, capitalism is not the problem, bad capitalists are.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction while Wall Street is based on real people and real events.
One needn't be "bad" to cause problems.
This is true in any economic system because
even decisions with the best of intentions can
cause great woe if they're bad decisions.
Great Leap Forward - Wikipedia
Of course, bad people also cause problems.
Holodomor - Wikipedia
An economic system benefits the populace most
when it works in concert with a governmental
system that effectively addresses problems.
When does this synergistic relationship work best?
History shows that capitalism & democracy offer
the Goldilocks combination.
Are you claiming that "Wall Street" is a documentary?
BTW "Atlas Shrugged" was based on real events endured in Russia.
Let's not treat fiction as evidence.
Perhaps that’s your problem. You should never enter into these type of debates with the attitude that you know everything, those who disagree with you know nothing, that it is your job to teach them, but they have nothing to teach you. Nobody knows everything, nobody knows nothing; we all have something to teach and learn from others.
No, you are not right. The problem with “self-made” men is they don’t have much patience with the poor who claim the system is rigged, or that you cannot make it on your own due to sexism, xenophobism, institutional racism, or some other type of “ism” that is bad, because the self-made man will use himself as the example that anybody can make it; where as the person born in a rich family will often feel sorry for the poor because never being poor himself, he is more likely to accept what the poor person tells him.
You know how they say the bottom 50% pay no income taxes?
57% of U.S. households paid no federal income tax last year as Covid took a toll, study says
For a long time I was in the 50%. I am no longer there, but when you count the years I did pay taxes, the amount I’ve paid is nowhere near what I have been able to amass in assets.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
What does one thing have to do with the other?
If anything, that is exactly what we would expect when the police is ineffective to prevent homocide.
Heyo
Veteran Member
No. It's a drama (very loosely) based on real people which makes it somewhat believable. It is in no way evidence. It is, however, a point made before summarized in a very quotable meme.
Heyo
Veteran Member
So, not having the advantage of rich parents is good for people? Everybody should have the same chance to become self-made? That's what I was arguing for.
50% of US households have or had no taxable income? That's really, really bad.
:informative:
Nobody claimed otherwise. Why did you think you needed to mention that in this discussion?
Another irrelevant deflection. He wrote, "Hourly workers are paid $12 an hour and have few benefits, no heathcare (due to costs) by the CEO is paid $21 million a year, and stock options if profit targets are hit."
You seem unfamiliar with business. Corporations with at least three layers of hierarchy - labor beneath middle management beneath directors, stockholders, and owners - rarely have any moral component to it. Family-owned businesses may be better to employees (and customers), but not businesses where there is a layer between the workers and those who decide policy. Nobody says, "work harder" They say things like "be a team player" or "a job is more than a paycheck" or "you can be replaced."
There are tons of sites that collect and publish stories like these where the boss doesn't care about the employees any more than they would a business machine, slave, or farm animal. You give just enough to keep the capital asset operational:
50 People Who Compete For The Title Of The Worst Boss Ever
When your boss makes your work a living hell.
www.boredpanda.com
I Hate My Boss! The 15 Worst Bosses + How to Handle Them
Hate is a strong word, but maybe you do feel like you hate your boss. Here's what to do if you are struggling to communicate or be heard by your bad boss.
www.careercontessa.com
Have you seen the term "malicious compliance"? These are stories about employees treated badly at work by bosses with bad attitudes and bad ideas, and the employee complies knowing how much it will hurt the boss BECAUSE of that fact:
"Malicious compliance (also known as malicious obedience) is the behavior of strictly following the orders of a superior despite knowing that compliance with the orders will have an unintended or negative result. It usually implies following an order in such a way that ignores or otherwise undermines the order's intent, but follows it to the letter. A form of passive-aggressive behavior, it is often associated with poor management-labor relationships, micromanagement, a generalized lack of confidence in leadership, and resistance to changes perceived as pointless, duplicative, dangerous, or otherwise undesirable. It is common in organizations with top-down management structures lacking morale, leadership or mutual trust. In U.S. law, this practice has been theorized as a form of uncivil obedience, and it is a technique which is also used in art practice."
Here's a site that collects such stories:
Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
Then you probably agree that no worker is obligated to do more than the minimum necessary to not be fired and has no duty whatsoever to identify areas where the business can save or prosper. You might say that the worker has such a duty because he takes a paycheck, but I would feel no duty to such an employer. You do that for a boss that cares about you and treats you as a human being with dignity and a life away from work.
No, that's not why most people go into business.
No, it's a system based in the profit incentive, but it has to be regulated to minimize the harm many people are willing to do to others for a buck, and there needs to be a socialistic aspect both to providing the infrastructure necessary to the commonwealth, government support of workers (minimum wage, inions, workplace and environmental protections), and a social safety net financed through taxes.
PureX
Veteran Member
"Ownership" has nothing to do with anything. It's control that matters. It's who makes the decisions about when, how, and to what purpose a business enterprise will be established and conducted. "Ownership" is just code word for control being in the hands of those who are investing the capital. (You "buy" it, you "own" it, and you get to do whatever you want with it.) It's a term used to deliberately confuse the masses and give them the impression that it's some sort of God-given right that the capitalists should have total control over the business enterprise the "own" (because they invested their money in it). And that ruse works on a lot of people, including you, apparently. But there is not God-given rule that any business enterprise that effects the well-being of lots of people should be controlled solely by those who paid to set it up, and seek to gain a profitable return. And in fact, it turns out that those people are exactly NOT the ones that should be in control of it, because all they care about is gaining that maximum return on their investment capital. And their greed is a lousy reason to run a business that effects a lot of people's well-being.
That only happens when the markets are free. Which is no longer the case for the vast majority of markets. A free market is a market in which the buyer can refuse to buy, and can thereby force the seller to consider their needs and wants in terms of price and quality. But in todays highly complex, specialized and inter-dependent societies, people have to buy everything they need to live. Which means they cannot refuse to participate when the sellers band together and create a monopoly (which is what they will inevitably do in a captive market). Free market capitalism died out a very long time ago. And yet the lie of it's imagined automatic fairness principal persists thanks to the religion of greed that capitalism inspires and promotes.
Of course we are. Try living in a modern society without purchasing transportation, communication, education, food, clothing, shelter, insurance, health care, energy for heat and light, or clean water and waste disposal. Have you seen those tent cities on the news in cities all across the country? That's what happens when people can no longer participate in our captive market economy. Most places would throw you in jail for it, but now even the jails are full. So they just let you sleep in tents on the sidewalks until you die from drugs or crime or whatever (no one cares). This is where captive market capitalism inevitably leads to. And this is we where we now are.
No, you really aren't. I don't know how they sold you on that fantasy, but the fact that only one in a hundred thousand people could ever even try to do that, let alone succeed, shows that it is very clearly NOT possible.
Unless you have investment capital upon which to both live and create a business, no you aren't. I can claim that you're free to win the lotto, but you and many millions of other people are never going to win the lotto. So my claiming that you're "free to try" doesn't really mean squat.
EconGuy
Active Member
I'm not aiming this response at anyone necessary, but if you think greed is good I offer the following (and wonder if anyone is willing to defend it).
My personal rebuke of the idea that greed is good.
The notion that "greed is good" is a morally bankrupt and intellectually flawed concept that seeks to justify and glorify the worst aspects of human nature. It is a shallow and misguided philosophy that prioritizes the relentless pursuit of personal gain at the expense of others and disregards the fundamental principles of empathy, compassion, and social responsibility while people who embrace this idea convince themselves that when they (or the wealthy) prosper, despite evidence to the contrary, so does everyone else as a way to cleanse their conscience.
To assert that greed is good is to endorse a worldview that is entirely self-serving and devoid of any consideration for the well-being of others. It promotes a toxic culture of cutthroat competition, where individuals are encouraged to trample over their fellow human beings in a relentless quest for wealth and power. This mindset breeds inequity, exploitation, and social unrest, undermining the very fabric of society.
The proponents of this idea often argue that greed fuels economic growth and innovation, suggesting that the pursuit of personal wealth inherently benefits society as a whole. However, this argument conveniently ignores the devastating consequences that unchecked greed has on the vulnerable and marginalized members of society. It perpetuates income inequality, exacerbates poverty, and widens the gap between the rich and the poor (the topic of this thread).
Moreover, the idea that greed is good overlooks the importance of cooperation, collaboration, and collective well-being. It fails to recognize the immense value of social bonds, empathy, and solidarity in creating a harmonious and prosperous society. By placing the pursuit of individual desires above all else, this philosophy promotes a shortsighted and narrow-minded approach to life, which is incompatible with the principles of ethical behavior and social progress.
Furthermore, greed is a deeply unsatisfying and insatiable pursuit. It breeds a perpetual sense of discontent, as the accumulation of wealth and material possessions fails to provide genuine happiness or fulfillment. It traps individuals in a never-ending cycle of acquisition, leaving them spiritually impoverished and disconnected from any true purpose.
I recognize that capitalism is a system like any other. It isn't intrinsically anything but, the way that's been lauded in the US has lead to economically and morally vapid ideas like "trickle-down or supply-side econ" or responses to economic crisis like austerity not to mention twisting the words of people like Adam Smith to rationalize immoral and unethical behavior while ignoring most of what Smith actually said.
Cheers.
EG
My personal rebuke of the idea that greed is good.
The notion that "greed is good" is a morally bankrupt and intellectually flawed concept that seeks to justify and glorify the worst aspects of human nature. It is a shallow and misguided philosophy that prioritizes the relentless pursuit of personal gain at the expense of others and disregards the fundamental principles of empathy, compassion, and social responsibility while people who embrace this idea convince themselves that when they (or the wealthy) prosper, despite evidence to the contrary, so does everyone else as a way to cleanse their conscience.
To assert that greed is good is to endorse a worldview that is entirely self-serving and devoid of any consideration for the well-being of others. It promotes a toxic culture of cutthroat competition, where individuals are encouraged to trample over their fellow human beings in a relentless quest for wealth and power. This mindset breeds inequity, exploitation, and social unrest, undermining the very fabric of society.
The proponents of this idea often argue that greed fuels economic growth and innovation, suggesting that the pursuit of personal wealth inherently benefits society as a whole. However, this argument conveniently ignores the devastating consequences that unchecked greed has on the vulnerable and marginalized members of society. It perpetuates income inequality, exacerbates poverty, and widens the gap between the rich and the poor (the topic of this thread).
Moreover, the idea that greed is good overlooks the importance of cooperation, collaboration, and collective well-being. It fails to recognize the immense value of social bonds, empathy, and solidarity in creating a harmonious and prosperous society. By placing the pursuit of individual desires above all else, this philosophy promotes a shortsighted and narrow-minded approach to life, which is incompatible with the principles of ethical behavior and social progress.
Furthermore, greed is a deeply unsatisfying and insatiable pursuit. It breeds a perpetual sense of discontent, as the accumulation of wealth and material possessions fails to provide genuine happiness or fulfillment. It traps individuals in a never-ending cycle of acquisition, leaving them spiritually impoverished and disconnected from any true purpose.
I recognize that capitalism is a system like any other. It isn't intrinsically anything but, the way that's been lauded in the US has lead to economically and morally vapid ideas like "trickle-down or supply-side econ" or responses to economic crisis like austerity not to mention twisting the words of people like Adam Smith to rationalize immoral and unethical behavior while ignoring most of what Smith actually said.
Cheers.
EG
I suspect the idea of a self made man is more of an American myth than reality.
Perhaps even a counter productive myth.
Know I known a few people did well for themselves having started with nothing but they usually either had some mentor or some unique circumstances, not necessarily wealth, which pushed them towards success.
The problem, IMO, with the idea of equity is that people themselves are not equal. What pushes one person toward success may not push the next person to success.
PureX
Veteran Member
What happens is that there is no longer a business enterprise that is unable to provide positive value for all the people that engaged in it. And that is exactly as it should be. If a business enterprise is not increasing the well-being of everyone engaged in it, people should not be engaged in it. It's very simple.
They don't have that option, now. No one is selling anything "at the cheapest price possible" under capitalism. In fact, everyone is out to get as much money as possible out of every trade regardless of the value being offered in return. So the poor are far more likely to be forced into buying junk since they can only afford the least expensive used cars. And of course that is exactly what happens.
How about we let people sell rat poison covered with sugar as children's cerial, and when the children start getting sick, everyone will know the sellers are liars and criminals and will stop buying their poison. Because nothing should EVER stand in the way of or regulate a business trying to make a profit. Right?
EconGuy
Active Member
Perhaps a better way to say it is; as a society we set as a goal to ensure that every child have a reasonable opportunity to meet their potential.
PureX
Veteran Member
"... the actual purpose of engaging in commercial trade: to serve the well being of all those involved in the trade."
But it IS the legitimate propose of humans engaging in commerce. Not exploitation. And this is why we need to change the way we are thinking ... before we destroy ourselves in this blind obsession with exploitation masquerading as fair trade.
Yes, because it is a fundamentally harmful system. And that's why we need to let go of it, and replace it with a fundamentally beneficial system. Half measures and stop-gaps don't work, at least not for long, because the poison of greed and selfishness remains intact, and continues to be rewarded. And it always finds a way to erase or work around our attempts at mitigation. It's time to face the demon for what it is, and eliminate it.
it's strange how fans of socialism & communism will say those
terms have no clear definition because of the variety of & nuance
in their many wonderful versions.
Yet they describe capitalism in every minute excruciating evil
detail they can imagine, never allowing for any positive
outcomes in the real world.
Socialism requires religious fervor & suspension of reason.
EconGuy
Active Member
I'm curious, because this leads to other unspoken consequences.
For example, if a 3 year old boy is brought to a hospital with a life threatening injury, but the parent/s of that child cannot pay for his care, do you think there is any obligation to help the child or should the parents be turned away?
Do you not make a decision about what to buy?
So you would prefer a freer market?
Fairness is not automatic. No one is going to look after your interest. That is your job. The idea behind capital is that everyone has a right to look after their own self interest but it is not going to force you to. As I said before, greed is self defeating in capitalism.
I think we can promote a better form of capitalism. One were the markets as you wish for are freer.
However or leadership has failed us. Greed is its own problem.
No, I've seen it and I've done it. However I'll agree that it is rarer then it ought to be.
You are free to try but it is also easy to fail. Unfortunately people don't usually get taught how to succeed. Most of the time people are usually taught to follow instructions. The ability to follow instructions is what gets us where we are today.