Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

[Stevicus]

Cut n paste. Terrif.
Didn't answer my q of course.

Let's focus it a little finer.
Do you find the lazy and dishonest
to be fully as deserving of all,good things as
as anyone else?

Who is "lazy and dishonest"? You're making opinionated assumptions about people you don't even know without any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Audie]

What is money?
An instrument or an end?

First clarify if you understand that
"Unbridled capitalism" is nonsense.

As is your question.

 

[Audie]

Who is "lazy and dishonest"? You're making opinionated assumptions about people you don't even know without any evidence whatsoever.

No evidence that anyone is lazy and dishonest.

Like a creationist saying there's no efor evolution
evolution.

It's entertaining to see how far people can stretch
some bit of nonsense.

 

[Stevicus]

No evidence that anyone is lazy and dishonest.

Like a creationist saying there's no efor evolution
evolution.

It's entertaining to see how far people can stretch
some bit of nonsense.

You're equating opinionated assumptions about the character and private lives of people you don't even know (and can't possibly have any evidence about) with a scientific topic which has been studied by many learned individuals for nearly two centuries and for which plenty of evidence has been compiled?

Because you just know that people are "lazy and dishonest." After all, they're poor. What more evidence do you need, right?

 

[Audie]

Landscaping, yard work, farming - this is all honorable work, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's necessary, and someone has to do it.

This discussion could be much more pleasant if you didn't have such a scornful and disdainful attitude towards the lower classes. It's that kind of toxicity which creates a bad atmosphere.

I in no way stated or implied it's not honourable.
Nor that it's "wrong".

My family was devastated by the Japanese in WW2.

I won't do particulars but they were reduced to the
most menial and or humiliating work to survive.

I don't exactly look down on their courage and hard work.

But that has nothing to do with marketplace value
of such as weed pulling which if I understand you,
should reap rewards equal to those of any other work,
and regardless of how well it's done.

Atmospherics would be improved by such as you as making up the attitudes and behaviour that you choose to see.

You aren't slow to go all sparky either.

So if you want to to detoxify to yourc
spes, set an example.

And finally. Address the topic, svp.

 

[Audie]

You're equating opinionated assumptions about the character and private lives of people you don't even know (and can't possibly have any evidence about) with a scientific topic which has been studied by many learned individuals for nearly two centuries and for which plenty of evidence has been compiled?

Because you just know that people are "lazy and dishonest." After all, they're poor. What more evidence do you need, right?

View attachment 78965

Go-ahead and deny that anyone is lazy and dishonest.
Try to turn it back in me by making up more snarky nonsense.
As noted, it's as ridiculous as a creationist insisting
Mt Everesr was submerged in the flood

 

[Nakosis]

It is a human right.
Since the 19th century, where intellectuals have reached that degree of awareness that enables us to understand that we are all equal, on this Earth. Regardless of race, gender, religion, nationality and we all deserve happiness and a dignifying life.

The idea is that everyone is equal under the law. The laws should not discriminate between one individual and the next.
Not that we are all actually equal in skill and ability to generate wealth.

Deserving happiness, does that mean someone else is suppose to give it to them or that they deserve the right to achieve happiness on their own?

 

[PureX]

It would depend on whether it's truly "work of low value." Work only has low value until we find that no one wants to do it anymore (or the workers might form unions and go on strike demanding higher wages). So, the employers have to change their perceptions and consider the work to be of higher value than they actually believed - or find some other solution, such as bringing undocumented workers to work under the table. Or they can outsource their operations to countries where workers have no rights. That will allow them to continue embracing the illusion of "low value" and "high value" work.

The point is the capitalists get to decide the value of everyone else's labor. Not the laborers or the society being served by it. Because that's what defines capitalism: the capitalists get to control commercial enterprise. And that's why essential labor, like teachers, emergency services, health care workers, etc., are being underpaid and over-worked to the point that there are grave shortages. These people don't help the capitalists get richer, so their labor is of little value in the capitalist's economy. Even though they are of significant value to the well being of society as a whole. But capitalism isn't for society as a whole. So it doesn't care.

It's just another example of how socially toxic capitalism is.

 

[Audie]

Do you know what this expression means?

Sealioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Two dodges in a row rather than just admit
to nonsense.

Want to go for three?

 

[Audie]

The point is the capitalists get to decide the value of everyone else's labor. Not the laborers or the society being served by it. Because that's what defines capitalism: the capitalists get to control commercial enterprise. And that's why essential labor, like teachers, emergency services, health care workers, etc., are being underpaid to the point that there are grave shortages. These people don't help the capitalists get richer, so their labor is of little value in the capitalist's economy. Even though they are of significant value to the well being of society as a whole. Capitalism isn't for society as a whole. So it doesn't care.

It's just another example of how socially toxic capitalism is.

The sickness is in your ideology based
Inability to see past end of nose.

 

[Estro Felino]

The idea is that everyone is equal under the law. The laws should not discriminate between one individual and the next.
Not that we are all actually equal in skill and ability to generate wealth.

Deserving happiness, does that mean someone else is suppose to give it to them or that they deserve the right to achieve happiness on their own?

I will quote Article 3 of our Constitution.
All citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, (...).
It is the duty of the Republic to remove those obstacles of an economic or social nature which constrain the freedom and equality of citizens, thereby impeding the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all workers in the political, economic and social organisation of the country



What does that mean?
That the Supreme Entity called State has the obligation to enable every citizen to play a role within society through their work.
How? By removing all those sources of injustice, both economic and social that prevent citizens from having a chance. Each one according to their own inclinations, skills, . But nobody must be kept outside of the economic system.

 

[Stevicus]

I in no way stated or implied it's not honourable.
Nor that it's "wrong".

My family was devastated by the Japanese in WW2.

I won't do particulars but they were reduced to the
most menial and or humiliating work to survive.

I don't exactly look down on their courage and hard work.

Believe me, I do respect that. It's because of what the far-right nationalists in Japan and Germany did that I have such a dim view of nationalism. That's also how the Universal Declaration on Human Rights came about. That, too, is an important document which outlines the formula for a better world for all.

But that has nothing to do with marketplace value
of such as weed pulling which if I understand you,
should reap rewards equal to those of any other work,
and regardless of how well it's done.

The thing is, I never actually argued that "everyone should be paid equally." I'm aware that there is a marketplace value, but we also have to include the concept of human rights, since humans are required to do this work.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

The reasons for doing this are outlined in the preamble, and they have very little to do with any genuine "bleeding heart" sentiment, nor is it some scheme to enable the "lazy and dishonest," nor is it kind of defiance or challenge against the theories of Adam Smith or Thomas Malthus, Friedman or Rand. It's simply a way of saying, "if we want to live with each other in peace, this is what we should do."

If we don't want to do that - or if we find that we can't afford it - then that will have its own consequences.

Atmospherics would be improved by such as you as making up the attitudes and behaviour that you choose to see.

You aren't slow to go all sparky either.

So if you want to to detoxify to yourc
spes, set an example.

And finally. Address the topic, svp.

There have been numerous topics raised in this thread. Which topic do you want me to address?

 

[EconGuy]

In USSR, famine has been a choice

I'd argue that famine in Russia, was closer to faith based on ideology and rejection of newly understood science and a misunderstanding of genetics. Specially the denial of genetics for a period of about 30 years (1930-1960). I think it can best be described as Lysenkoism.

That said, every decision ever was a choice, so your not wrong, but your answer is do vague as not to be very useful.

Respectfully,

EG

 

[PureX]

Landscaping, yard work, farming - this is all honorable work, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's necessary, and someone has to do it.

This discussion could be much more pleasant if you didn't have such a scornful and disdainful attitude towards the lower classes. It's that kind of toxicity which creates a bad atmosphere.

But it's part-n-parcel of the elitist Darwin-esque trope about wealth justifying wealth (might makes right and so on). Having more than everyone else equates to deserving more than everyone else.

 

[Nakosis]

I will quote Article 3 of our Constitution.
All citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, (...).
It is the duty of the Republic to remove those obstacles of an economic or social nature which constrain the freedom and equality of citizens, thereby impeding the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all workers in the political, economic and social organisation of the country



What does that mean?
That the Supreme Entity called State has the obligation to enable every citizen to play a role within society through their work.
How? By removing all those sources of injustice, both economic and social that prevent citizens from having a chance. Each one according to their own inclinations, skills, . But nobody must be kept outside of the economic system.

With regard to the law, that is fine. I don't think the state should allow itself to legally discriminate between individuals.

 

[EconGuy]

And what does the money in the bank do?
Sit there is stacks, "stockpiled"?

I'm curious what you think money (or let's use the word currency) in a bank does

 

[Revoltingest]

Absolutely not. Also because in my mind, healthcare is an exclusive matter of State. And the State, who has limitless resources will pay the surgeon adequately. A salesman will gain according to their talent and according to the marketplace.

Does that you mean not all work
should be valued equally?
You sound like a capitalist!

 

[Revoltingest]

We'd like to see our Hero of Equality pay house painters
at the same rate to a lazy slow sloppy worker as he would
one who worked quickly and well.

Socialists benefit from lack
of experience hiring workers.

 

[Stevicus]

Go-ahead and deny that anyone is lazy and dishonest.
Try to turn it back in me by making up more snarky nonsense.
As noted, it's as ridiculous as a creationist insisting
Mt Everesr was submerged in the flood

Well, I do know that laziness and dishonesty do exist, and that there are humans who have these traits to some degree or another. I acknowledge that as part of the human condition, and I have not denied it in the slightest.

In some cases, outright dishonesty can be proven if someone is caught in a lie, while "laziness" is more a subjective judgment which can sometimes be made in ignorance or without any substantive fact to back it up. It might require a psychological and/or sociological analysis to delve deeper into the matter.

I don't know if that has anything to do with the topic anyway. If we're talking about people who are "lazy and dishonest," then they wouldn't even be fit for farming or "dandelion pulling" (speaking of snarky nonsense).

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd argue that famine in Russia, was closer to faith based on ideology and rejection of newly understood science and a misunderstanding of genetics. Specially the denial of genetics for a period of about 30 years (1930-1960). I think it can best be described as Lysenkoism.

That said, every decision ever was a choice, so your not wrong, but your answer is do vague as not to be very useful.

Those sound like contributing problems.
But fundamentally, collectivism suffers from
crushing individual initiative, & from centralization
making any flaws writ large. I like decentralization,
wherein individuals can be creative, & get rewarded
for success. Darwin sorts losers from successes.
Sure, it's not as "fair" as socialism, but it works better.