Unbridled Capitalism is self-destructive

[Estro Felino]

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

There are shoe salesmen that are richer than physicians, in Italy.
Because they are talented.
Talent makes you deserving.

I don't understand where's the talent in being a legalized usurer. That is, what certain global institutions do.

 

[Estro Felino]

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

The State has the obligation to safeguard its own citizens.

 

[Estro Felino]

Darwin sorts losers from successes.
Sure, it's not as "fair" as socialism, but it works better.

According to this Darwinistic vision, you should be coherent and expect rich people only to make children.
Since the weakest will succumb, being crushed by the fittest. You know...the law of the fittest, the jungle law.
Why more weak people?

Am I right?

 

[EconGuy]

But fundamentally, collectivism suffers from
crushing individual initiative, & from centralization
making any flaws writ large.

If you could somehow provide something that demonstrated that Lyssenko couldn't have accepted genetics and more specifically that there's some intrinsic property of Socialist ideology (rather than the Soviet ideological mindset) that prevented him from accepting genetics. A decision that would have prevented much of what happened.

And remember that the USSR isn't the only example of socialism we have, so whatever you come up with should still apply in socialist nations.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are shoe salesmen that are richer than physicians, in Italy.

Those physicians should've studied harder in medical school.
They did go to one....right?

Because they are talented.
Talent makes you deserving.

I don't understand where's the talent in being a legalized usurer. That is, what certain global institutions do.

Would you argue that government should discern
talent (per the agenda of the politicians de jour),
& ensure that all are paid accordingly?

 

[EconGuy]

Darwin sorts losers from successes.

Um, no, you need to go back and read Darwin. What you're talking about is Social Darwinism, an ideological bastardization of his work.

Respectfully,

EG

 

[Revoltingest]

According to this Darwinistic vision, you should be coherent and expect rich people only to make children.
Since the weakest will succumb, being crushed by the fittest. You know...the law of the fittest, the jungle law.
Why more weak people?

Am I right?

Under capitalism, the poor are free to whelp out
young'ns without limit. Contrast this with
socialism, which has a different record...think
of China's 1 child policy from days of yore.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you could somehow provide something that demonstrated that Lyssenko couldn't have accepted genetics and more specifically that there's some intrinsic property of Socialist ideology (rather than the Soviet ideological mindset) that prevented him from accepting genetics. A decision that would have prevented much of what happened.

I never even met the man, so I don't know
what he could or couldn't have accepted.

And remember that the USSR isn't the only example of socialism we have, so whatever you come up with should still apply in socialist nations.

There are also Cuba, pre-capitalist China,
Khmer Rouge, & N Korea. The same problems
afflict them all to varying extents at times.

 

[Revoltingest]

Um, no, you need to go back and read Darwin.

I never read his book.
But I've a passing familiarity with
with his work, & applications of it.

What you're talking about is Social Darwinism, an ideological bastardization of his work.

Consider that Darwin's theory has application
far beyond biological evolution. Any stochastic
system with generations of elements that are
selected by a fitness function will show evolution.
Genetic algorithms, capitalistic market economies,
evolutionary design by computer programs....all
are based upon the same fundamental idea.

Calling it "bastardization" smacks of seeing
Darwin as some kind of sacred prophet.
No, he did wonderful original work, but the
ideas have been carried much further.
It's a "built on the shoulders of giants" thing,
just as how Newtonian physics was important
to what came later.

 

[Estro Felino]

Under capitalism, the poor are free to whelp out
young'ns without limit. Contrast this with
socialism, which has a different record...think
of China's 1 child policy from days of yore.

Of course...because Capitalists need slaves to exploit.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course...because Capitalists need slaves to exploit.

Under capitalism, we pay our "slaves".
Under socialism, forced labor "workers" starve.

It seems that your labels are all mixed up.

 

[Estro Felino]

Under capitalism, we pay our "slaves".
Under socialism, forced labor "workers" starve.

It seems that your labels are all mixed up.

..because Europe is not socialist, I imagine.

 

[Revoltingest]

..because Europe is not socialist, I imagine.

Good for them.

 

[Estro Felino]

Good for them.

It will become fully socialist soon.
Very soon some mummies who infest the buildings of Brussels will die of old age, and the peoples will elect more and more populists.

 

[Revoltingest]

It will become fully socialist soon.
Very soon some mommies who infest the buildings of Brussels will die of old age, and the peoples will elect more and more populists.

Europe will become a worker paradise
like N Korea & Cuba, eh. I watch with
great interest.

 

[EconGuy]

I never read his book.

Then your response makes sense.

In fairness, I admit I didn't read it either, but I have studied the interpretation of his work by people qualified to opine on it.

If you want to give credit to the idea of Social Darwinism to someone, you need to give credit to Herbert Spencer. The only important point here, is that Spencer created this idea simply to rationalize British colonialism and the "eating" of lesser societies as a naturalistic phenomenon.

Respectfully,

EG

 

[Estro Felino]

Europe will become a worker paradise
like N Korea & Cuba, eh. I watch with
great interest.

When you watch a Prime Minister who works shirtless to show the people how a machine is to be used, you understand that you're speaking with an Italian. An Italian that believes in the value of human dignity that only social justice grants.

 

[Audie]

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

I sure know what it does for me.

 

[Audie]

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).

Half a concession beats digging deeper

 

[Audie]

It's a concept called "human rights." Ever hear of it?

Ever hear of snark?