Heyo
Veteran Member
That's a bit hypocritical. I have considered solutions - which you didn't want to hear because they were hypothetical, and not "from the real world".
-
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!
Capitalism: why eternal growth is self-destructive
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Growth appeals to many companies.
But many others reach an optimum size, & prefer
successful stability over the risk & stress of expansion.
Nothing about capitalism requires an expanding
economy. It's just what happens with population
growth.
There's your problem.
Why not address it?
Says the guy who wants socialism to better mankind,
yet also knows that it fails utterly whenever it's tried.
It's like the pilot whose plane is stalling & falling.
So he pitches his nose up, increasing the stall.
When digging a hole, know when to stop digging.
Europe is socialist.
America is not.
America doesn't have free universal healthcare, paid maternal leave, paid honeymoon, paid holidays, paid sick leave.
Just labeling things ad hoc is bogus.
Just watch.....
Europe is National Socialist fascism.
Americastan is utopian.
The difference is that we didn't cross the Atlantic to try to change your economic system.
You guys have been doing that for decades.
Actually, you guys supported Hitler,
who did indeed try to change both
our political & economic system.
So much for your claim of being
benign.
Did I mention that Italians supported
Hitler? Well, your country supported
Hitler in WW2. Hitler. Really?
Possibly. It's interesting to look at the historical progression. When society was more agrarian and agriculturally based, population density was low and the wealthy and powerful could rule with impunity. Industrialism changed that, as society slowly became more urbanized, and people were concentrated in cities with higher densities. That's when national leaders and governments had to become more savvy, bringing reforms and improvements in living standards to the local populations (or sometimes just the capital city), while sticking it to those further away and less of a chance of resisting.
The Western liberal democracies were most successful at this. France, Britain, and the U.S. started favoring more liberal reforms: Expansion of voting rights, support of labor unions, social security, more help for the aged and disabled, etc. Other European countries also went along a similar path. This is what led to the capitalism we see in the West, of the kind that so many flag-wavers brag about and cite it as clear evidence that the capitalist system is so much more superior to any other systems.
But while all these reforms were taking place, what were these liberal democracies actually doing around the world? How could they manage to be able to afford and provide a better life for the home folks? The French and British had control of large chunks of Africa and Asia. The U.S. held Latin America under hegemony and ruled it with an iron fist, and we also held the Philippines and heavily pushed for the Open Door policy in China (the fallout of which we're still dealing with today). Within America, there was class and racial stratification which also worked well for the capitalists and made many people wealthy. Those of a certain ethnicity or the wrong skin color might have been vulnerable to exploitation.
So, even if they had to play the liberal game with U.S. domestic politics (which was also paralleled in Western Europe), the capitalists still had an entire world they could exploit, so giving away some "free stuff" to the hoi polloi was a small price to pay. In America, it engendered a strong sense of patriotism and loyalty which would certainly come in handy later on.
The thing about capitalists is that they're so greedy and power-hungry that they will invariably end up fighting each other sooner or later. Just like Don Corleone and Don Barzini could never really agree or get along, such has been the case with multiple nations throughout the world. In Europe, France, Germany, and Britain had a falling out and couldn't seem to make any kind of deal to coexist with each other peacefully. Germany was ultimately defeated, while France and Britain were extremely depleted and ended up losing their empires and being beholden to the United States - which they've always chafed against, but they also know, deep down, that it could have been a lot worse.
Since WW2, the great game has shifted away from outright conquest and open colonization to a more subtle approach where the West would keep up the pretense of a "free world" of sovereign, independent nations, while still trying to find ways of exerting our will upon them and making them congruent with Western interests. Kind of like what was done in Latin America, by backing some local strongman and sending in the Marines if and when needed. The Soviet Union and the ideological threat of socialism tended to gum up the works for the West in that regard, but on the other hand, it also provided a perfect pretext for using force to carry out the imperialist agenda.
After the fall of the USSR and the apparent pacification of China (heh), the Western leadership became even more reckless, ostensibly believing "there's no one left who can stop us now!" But along the same lines, we've seen a rise in the number of countries and political factions who are getting increasingly fed up with this crap. They're tired of all the BS, and they're not going to take it anymore.
I don't think it's going to be an ideological battle between socialism and capitalism. There may be some of that at work, but it may take on a different form, particularly when looking at one of the early points made in the article above:
Are they worried about the world and humanity as a whole (which they should be, if they favor a global economy), or are they just worried about "diminished global clout" that comes with having a small population? "Diminished global clout" is more of a nationalistic concern, not strictly a capitalistic concern (although it can be if one's bread and butter depends upon the divisions among nations).
I remember back in the 90s, the big thing after the end of the Cold War was a "world without borders," kind of like a world-wide version of the EU. People wanted a global economy and free trade. No more wars, just one big capitalist planet where people compete fairly in an open marketplace, with no violence or any other scourges of the state to worry about. I remember talking to people who would present it that way, even if it did seem too idealistic at the time (which it was).
But the reality now is that, there's nowhere left to exploit. The global capitalist system has reached a plateau and a kind of "dead end." While we've been trying to avoid general war due to its political inexpedience, we still seem to be wary of unsettling events overseas (and sometimes even at home).
Capitalists are somewhat predictable in that they usually want to keep what they have. This means they'll invest in whatever government or faction seems most likely to be able to make that a reality.
You lack imagination.
New businesses will arise, while some will expand.
(I see many opportunities...they're just for others to pursue.)
Other businesses will shrink or die.
There is no dead end.
Just continuous change.
Well, yes, continuous change. This much is certain. But what kind of change do we want? Should we even have control over how things change?
They were beguiled by his mustache.
Hitler never crossed the Atlantic to bother you guys.
My country supported Germany, which is different. We didn't know who Hitler was.
There were U-Boats which operated very close to the U.S. coastline. Plus, they sent those saboteurs who were captured. They also built a bomber which could fly all the way to bomb NYC and then back again. It was never used, as it was too late in the war to make any difference.
But the general assumption was that, if Hitler had gained control over Europe and the rest of Russia, then he would have been able to build up enough resources to threaten America.
Although it's interesting to consider what might have happened if, instead of Hitler, a Communist leader aligned with Stalin came to power in Germany. With German engineering knowledge, their mechanical genius, along with a military tradition - combined with the vast resources and large population of the USSR, they would have been an unstoppable alliance. It actually turned out well for the West that they ended up fighting and devastating each other's countries.
Exactly: the mafia is a self-destructive quest for power through money.
It's something really disgusting, because these people worship something that will never make them happy, it will ultimately undo their happiness.
I am not justifying Hitler.
In my opinion he was just a ridiculous puppet of those banking élites who used him just to destroy Soviet Union.
The élites are really in trouble.
Because Europe's population has awakened.
They have understood that the élites used to put people against people.
Perfect.
Would you be okay with these percentages?
4 million euros:
- 2.5 million to the employees.
- 1 million for the production (except wages)
- 0.5 million for the entrepreneur.
Depends on the business model.
Workers are part of the capitalist system too. People have to want to buy what they are selling(their labor, skills).
However 20%, sure. I think most entrepreneurs would jump at that. Generally 5% to 15% profit is acceptable.
I may sound too Marxist-like, I understand that.
The Capitalist cannot live a luxurious life, by making his own employees make a life of sacrifices.
I am sorry.
Because those 2.5 million a year will be divided among his 85 employees, and those employees deserve to be paid properly.
Just divide that number by 85
Whereas the rich Capitalism still gets 500,000 euros by just delegating all the work to 80 employees who do it all: production, shipping, taxes, etc..etc...
I've advocated useful regulation.
Haven't you noticed?
Snappy (schneidig) dresser too.
Search the internet.
You'll find otherwise.
5 Attacks on US Soil During World War II | HISTORY
The Germans and Japanese waged small‑scale campaigns of bombing, sabotage and espionage on American soil during World War II.
www.history.com
He was their leader.
And Italians didn't know this?
Strange.