How Banks Are Enslaving Humans

[Curious George]

No wonder companies cannot afford to hire people less than 8 hours and some people taking on more than 1 job.

Couldn't have said it any better.

That does not follow from what he said.

 

[Mycroft]

Despite the bias, I agree with all but the suggestion poverty is built into the system. Excluding that leap in logic, what is the problem?

Think about it this way: for something to have a perceived value, it must remain relatively scarce. We value gold because it's relatively scarce (and we're conditioned to believe it), but if gold rained from the sky as dust for a year, people would quickly go from scooping it up and trying to fill their pockets with it to dumping it in landfill sites.

Therefore money's perceived value is contingent on the fact that the majority if people have very little, or none at all.

 

[Wirey]

If you're dumb enough to borrow so much money that you work solely to pay for the possession you purchased, you're an idiot and deserve to be enslaved. Who works for their possessions? Shallow, short sighted fools who are incapable of living within their means. I make a lot of money now, and I drive a nice car. When I only made a little money, I drove a real piece of crap. Wanna guess why? It was because it was what I could afford without incurring an astronomical debt. And it was tougher than you think. I deserve nice stuff because I'm better than you average people.

 

[Revoltingest]

The more money I make, the lower the value of what I drive.
Both of these trends are the result of learnding.

 

[Curious George]

Think about it this way: for something to have a perceived value, it must remain relatively scarce. We value gold because it's relatively scarce (and we're conditioned to believe it), but if gold rained from the sky as dust for a year, people would quickly go from scooping it up and trying to fill their pockets with it to dumping it in landfill sites.

Therefore money's perceived value is contingent on the fact that the majority if people have very little, or none at all.

But this still doesn't entail poverty. Something can be limited (therefore valued) but available for everyone. The only time there is not enough to go around is when there is not simply not enough or there is not enough as a consequence of others taking too much. I am not suggesting equality is necessary, however we can establish a minimum which allows for necessity but still rewards others with more.

 

[Stevicus]

I advocate political agendas in order to improve economic performance.
But you think I missed this, eh?
Oh, well....if you say so.

I disagree with your contention that capitalism is not an ideology. I would grant that it's not a very specific term, as capitalism can come in many different forms under various political systems. Even if you just use it to describe "a kind of economic system," it's useless to make comparisons and ask for "alternatives to capitalism" without looking at the political system as well.

Believe me, I'm not trying to give you a hard time here. You think that I'm miffed, but I'm really not. I encounter views like yours quite frequently, in that a lot of people seem to view economics and capitalism as one and the same, as if it's some kind of irrefutable "science" which must be viewed differently from mere "politics." I've encountered this a lot with many true believers where they believe so fervently in something that it's no longer just their opinion or philosophy - it becomes absolute, irrefutable scientific fact in their minds.

It's just like how you say "I advocate political agendas in order to improve economic performance." You say it with such authority, as if you believe yourself to be the final word on the matter. But that's just your opinion, which is what everyone else in our free and democratic society is doing. Everyone is advocating a political agenda to improve society as they see it. You're just upset because not everyone views your "science" as being all that it's cracked up to be.

 

[Curious George]

If you're dumb enough to borrow so much money that you work solely to pay for the possession you purchased, you're an idiot and deserve to be enslaved. Who works for their possessions? Shallow, short sighted fools who are incapable of living within their means. I make a lot of money now, and I drive a nice car. When I only made a little money, I drove a real piece of crap. Wanna guess why? It was because it was what I could afford without incurring an astronomical debt. And it was tougher than you think. I deserve nice stuff because I'm better than you average people.

However, I do think we as a people have made some things, which are not excessive, inaccessible to some people without incurring large amounts of debt. For example, education and health care,

 

[Revoltingest]

It's just like how you say "I advocate political agendas in order to improve economic performance." You say it with such authority, as if you believe yourself to be the final word on the matter.

Authority?
Final word?

I do only what most politically involved people do.....
- I have a political philosophy.
- I want economics to benefit us, & I have a preferred system.
- I advocate for it.

I just don't grok your objection to this.
You're making it too much about me....I don't really matter.

 

[Stevicus]

Authority?
Final word?

I do only what most politically involved people do.....
- I have a political philosophy.
- I want economics to benefit us, & I have a preferred system.
- I advocate for it.

I just don't grok your objection to this.
You're making it too much about me....I don't really matter.

I have no objection at all, except from what you're describing here, it sounds very much like an ideology to me. And yet, you deny it?

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no objection at all, except from what you're describing here, it sounds very much like an ideology to me. And yet, you deny it?

Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology.
You disagree.
Let's call it a stalemate.

 

[Wirey]

However, I do think we as a people have made some things, which are not excessive, inaccessible to some people without incurring large amounts of debt. For example, education and health care,

Health care is free everywhere except there. Mine is. Stop voting for people who pass laws allowing others to rob you. And education pays for itself, if done properly. Spend $40,000 getting an engineering or medical degree and it'll help later. Spend $10,000 becoming an expert on 14th century Samoan bedpost carving and again, you earned enslavement.

 

[Mycroft]

Something can be limited (therefore valued) but available for everyone.

It can be. But it (money) isn't.

 

[Stevicus]

Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology.
You disagree.
Let's call it a stalemate.

I never said that there was anything wrong with taking a stance on something or having an ideology. If we disagree, then that's okay, too.

I'll just leave you with a bit of food for thought here: Political economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Political economy was the original term used for studying production and trade, and their relations with law, custom, and government, as well as with the distribution of national incomeand wealth. Political economy originated in moral philosophy. It was developed in the 18th century as the study of the economies of states, or polities, hence the term political economy.

In the late 19th century, the term economics came to replace political economy, coinciding with the publication of an influential textbook by Alfred Marshall in 1890.[1] Earlier, William Stanley Jevons, a proponent of mathematical methods applied to the subject, advocatedeconomics for brevity and with the hope of the term becoming "the recognised name of a science."[2][3]

So, that which you say is not political actually originated with something...political. Fancy that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree that communistic societies can function on a small scale. But when applied to a large society...a whole country, it's never been successful to anywhere near the extent capitalism has.

How do you define success within Capitalism? There are still starving people under capitalism, there is vast exploitation, and too top it off regulated commercial use has not prevented the Tragedy of the Commons, which is supposed to happen under poor unregulated common ownership. Capitalism, with it's ideas that private property is supposed to prevent this Tragedy, has really only sped up the resource depletion. Going back to it's earliest British days, up to the modern time, capitalism has always revolved around exploited workforces to build up a house of glass cards. These systems are very fragile, and have a tendency to crumble about once a decade or so.
Or you could call it a bi-polar economy, with series of manic highs and depressive lows. To treat bi-polar disorder, both ends must be balanced. It takes away the thrill of the highs, but it also does away with the serious lows, which can easily become a danger to others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology.
You disagree.
Let's call it a stalemate.

Every system, every belief, every ism is ideology.
To Freud a cigar is sometimes just a cigar, but with ideology a Coke is never just a Coke.

 

[Curious George]

Health care is free everywhere except there. Mine is. Stop voting for people who pass laws allowing others to rob you. And education pays for itself, if done properly. Spend $40,000 getting an engineering or medical degree and it'll help later. Spend $10,000 becoming an expert on 14th century Samoan bedpost carving and again, you earned enslavement.

The point was not that people are not at fault for the system, or that astronomical debt cannot be repaid- only that in our current system we do have it structured so that some substantial debts are often required for practical undertakings and desires.

 

[Wirey]

The point was not that people are not at fault for the system, or that astronomical debt cannot be repaid- only that in our current system we do have it structured so that some substantial debts are often required for practical undertakings and desires.

I agree. But there are still choices to be made. I used to have a secretary who spent five years studying French Literature, and couldn't pay off her student loans. That particular decision made certain she would be poor for a long time.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never said that there was anything wrong with taking a stance on something or having an ideology. If we disagree, then that's okay, too.

I like ideologies.
I just don't see capitalism as one....Wikipedia notwithstanding.

 

[Revoltingest]

How do you define success within Capitalism? There are still starving people under capitalism, there is vast exploitation, and too top it off regulated commercial use has not prevented the Tragedy of the Commons, which is supposed to happen under poor unregulated common ownership. Capitalism, with it's ideas that private property is supposed to prevent this Tragedy, has really only sped up the resource depletion. Going back to it's earliest British days, up to the modern time, capitalism has always revolved around exploited workforces to build up a house of glass cards. These systems are very fragile, and have a tendency to crumble about once a decade or so.
Or you could call it a bi-polar economy, with series of manic highs and depressive lows. To treat bi-polar disorder, both ends must be balanced. It takes away the thrill of the highs, but it also does away with the serious lows, which can easily become a danger to others.

A proposed definition of success under capitalism (or any economic system):
- It endures where it isn't prohibited
- It doesn't require being forced upon a populace.
- It's efficient relative to alternatives.
- It's compatible with social & political goals.

 

[Revoltingest]

Every system, every belief, every ism is ideology.
To Freud a cigar is sometimes just a cigar, but with ideology a Coke is never just a Coke.

That is one perspective.
But I don't have it.
Examples:
Racism - For some it could be ideological. For others it's just a state of mind.
Anachronism - Many anachronisms aren't even thought.
Embolism - It's a physical condi.....OK....I'm beating a dead horse here....someone stop me!