Talk about living in the past. More and more countries have abolished capital punishment, including just about all the countries in Europe. How do these governments collect taxes and regulate businesses if they can't threaten to murder their citizens for noncompliance?
man, do the people on this comment forum even listen, or do there already pre-concieved notions destory there ability to think freely. Read the fuckin books and understand the meaning of the words used.
@Lysanderfication unfortunately, you're right. Their preconceived notions DO destroy their ability to think freely. Luckily, those who can think freely are not influenced by such stupidity. Hopefully they'll just die out...
The critics here present out rageous discussions. As long as the government restricts itself to its limited role then the tryanny against the individual will be minimized. We trade some freedom to the government in return to protection from others (foreign countries, criminals, etc.). However our elected representatives have become corrupted and oppress us with tryanny against our individual freedoms including the right to life and property.
Yeah, fuck regulation! No more government getting in my face telling me asbestos causes cancer, buildings need fire exits, and medical devices need testing before putting them into hospitals!
So I can pimp your 16 year old daughter out. Ayn Rand believed in legalizing prostitution and since government and economics are independent under your system it would be a crime to forbid me to. I'd pay her more than Walmart would pay their prostitutes. Of course, I would be living in a home I rented from Walmart since there are no monopoly laws, so they'd probably kick me out. No laws regulating financial sector, right.
hey- its through govt regulations that monopolies & cartels like the Federal reserve & fannie mae freddie mac can thrive!
Its govt which creates massive inflation & deflation. its govt which prints money without value & devalues ur money. And this devaluing means that u can not hold contract. It is this devaluing that forces buisinesses to double the price of milk. Its devaluing which WIPES out the middle class. And its devaluing which makes poor people poorer!
Did govt bring about the industrial revolution? Did govt bring about the age of enlightenment/ did govt bring about Da Vinci's Michaelangelo? Did govt bring about the invention of airplanes? NO!
Govt is force- nothing but force! it operates on force alone. it STEALS by force from the productive bit of the economy to fund the unproductive. It regulates, bars & infringes on people's rights to ownership & right to business-
It gives special privilage to some & oppresses the rest.
Individual liberty = the right to work & reap the profit of one's work whether they be good or bad. And this always leads to wealth
"social equality" = no individualism- no freedom & the obligation to be no different than others, no higher than others, & only more poorer than others. Social equality is the strivation to be poor & stay poor
govt does nothin good - it is the individuals who do good. it was individuals who worked their asses off. its the individuals who eat, live, study, play
He keeps citing iPhones, but that is a "physical product" an "innovation". It's marketed with the ability to maximize "existing and future" ability. What was the CDO marketed to do? It was a way to package created "waste product" as a "nutritious financial meal". The problem with his "you" in his belief is that the "you" self-interest is at the sake of the "commonwealth" (as defined in the Declaration of Independence", unless he wants to pit "America" against AMERICA, itself?
@rodeojim1 u obviously never really fully understood what is rational self interest. please go look it up before u comment on it. The self interest of an individual is his own interest-. u have a right to ur own happiness not a guarantee for it- u must pursue it.
Freedom is the ability to choose & suffer the consequences WHETHER THEY BE GOOD OR BAD. u can choose to buy an iphone if u want or not. u do not have to buy an iphone. Only govt or a gun can force u to do one or the other. Thus in a free society, the buying of an iphone means that u value it- u rationally value it for urself & see it as a tool for ur own happiness
@swu880 It is obvious that you think you should "have your cake" and "eat it too". "Commonwealth" put the roads, sewerage, and infrastructure together, so you can "isolate yourself" and "think-tank" your ideas. Oh, then you'll need someone to "finance" your idea, unless you self-financed "think-tank" idea will manufacture itself. Since you insist to "own your ideas", then You should also "disconnect" yourself from the benefits that have been provided. Otherwise you are simply a parasite.
there is NO contradiction here. Instead there is only OPENNESS, contract, accountability & value. meaning- the current govt is corrupt straight down to the core. it is govt which causes every major economic disaster imaginable- its also govt which causes every geopolitical disaster imaginable, govt also which causes every war imaginable & govt which violate & infringes on every human right possible
Govt regulations & interferences directly led to the depressions, the inflations, the bubbles & the recessions. Every major fraud imaginable is initiated, propogated or allowed for by govt. i mean just look @ the social security fraud- its one of the largest ponzi schemes ever
The role of govt aint to exercise power & infringe on rights, it aint to grant any entitlement system; it aint to give u a car, give u a house, give u food to eat- govt has nothing to giv in the first place
Yet social security, as friedman has exposed & argued, is not only economically disastrous but also socially & morally unjust. whatever the so called benefits may be to the "old or poor", it is taken BY force firstly & given unequivocally & in no one's self interest. ie- You may not value the next guy who recieves the social security paycheck but you are still FORCED to pay for him. FORCED- not voluntary. that is govt! moreover, u do not benefit nor are guaranteed any benefit from ss
see friedman's arguments here. socialists altruists & collectivists are unintelligable people driven by their impulses & whims. Selfless servitude, is the key rhetoric spoken by these groups & irrationality is their fortitude. But by being selfless, they deny themselves success they deny themselves happiness. Giving up their liberties, they hold no rights; forfeiting their lives, they have no life; giving up their property, they own nothing- and thus are worthless.
Selflessness is essentially the key to the worst of all evils & is the saddest of all tragedies. It is selfless servitude which is the role of the slave. And sacrificing oneself for the "betterment of others- the collective- the so called whole" is the role of a sacrificial animal. If u so wish to be a slave or a sacrificial animal, do not speak of rights, nor property nor life since u forfeit all & value them not.
There is no such thing as a collective- no 'common good' - no 'betterment of others'. The collective does not live, it does not die, it dont breathe, it dont eat, it holds no rights, it does not even THINK- it is not even real or existant- merely the figment of supernatural mysticism.
It is the INDIVIDUAL who thinks, who holds values who eats who drinks, who plays & works & speaks & it is the individual who holds individual rights. It is the individual who lives or dies
It is WRONG to trade a higher value for a lower one(that is called throwing away aka 'sacrifice'). it is wrong to give up my property, my energy, my time, my virtue, values & life for another- sacrifice is evil!
i suggest u read "the virtue of selfishness", "atlas shrugged" & "the fountainhead"
-u obviously do not even know the first thing about rights, the importance of them & the importance of the individual. If u speak not of individuals & their rights, u speak of no rights at all
It is also obvious u have never really understood what the role of govt ought to be. If u actually read & study ayn rand's work, she addresses all these issues & more very thoroughly & with the utmost of reason
@swu880 Ah, but "bubba"...WE are the government. If you don't hold your officials accountable, you are in agreement by "abdication". I don't know of any "gov't that gave a "car away", a "house" but I did see them give (a bit too late) folks in New Orleans some food after a disaster. Did you? LOL. "Let em eat cake" seems your motto, and it did wonders for Marie Antoinette. LOL
There are "those that do", "those who deal" and "those who criticize" and we know which you are. Meanwhile, I'm happy to "sell my idea" for a "quid pro quo" that suits me and that I feel is a "just" remuneration for my idea. For afterward, I am free to think again! (to misquote Scarlett O'Hara)
@swu880 You've waxed on that chestnut for so long, you probably have convinced yourself of that. So what's the point. It's always the "other" that did it wrong. Madoff, Dubya Bush, BP. You sound like Flip Wilson's character Geraldine:"the devil made me do it". And your solution to the problem is "anarchy"? lol. Anarchists don't "treat swewerage", but they sure do like "indoor plumbing". lol
You benefit from the largess of everyone that came before you, yet sit in some "think tank" functionary, and issue hollow edicts from on high, of how all the things that got you there "are corrupt and wrong". Hell, man, give that high ticket education back! Don't use ANY gov't services (U.S., State, or local) then send out your pronouncements. I'd like to see you "think" a road into existence. lol
This is a strawman fallacy -> Government regulation is not the same as putting gun in corporation or business to comply with the regulations.
Government regulations is to protect the public/society from the abusive power of corporation. so Government regulation is not a gun, it is a policy to limit corporation from using its power to exploit the workers.
The gun is meant as a symbol of "force". Gov't has a monopoly on the use of physical force; as it should
Here's where most people go wrong; gov't does it's job by use of force, business is by trade. fear v. values. Capitalism works by the priniciple of "voluntary trade for mutual benefit". They can dispose of their own property as they wish. Gov't regulation is a force that disrupts this principle and ruins any economic flow or progress, distroys creativity, and drives us closer to statism.
Capitalism does not voluntary trade for mutual benefit, the worker does not voluntary trade their labor, when workers do have a equal power in negotiating their price on the market capitalists run to the government to force the workers to work below their market value. It is not voluntary trade when riot police smash the skulls of workers that demand capitalists pay for the value of their labor.
Under true Capitalism, the "Capitalists" cannot run to the gov't for anything! Gov't cannot intervene!
Again, Business cannot use force, only incentive/rewards. Business trade values and must abide by supply and demand. Gov't cannot produce, and can only act by the use of force. Business must get people to buy what they have to offer by trade. Big business are only "big" because people like their products.
All capitalism means is you have a owning class and working class, it is nothing then a social class arrangement so yes under true capitalism you can have a capitalist state use its police to force workers back to work as what makes a state capitalist is the state defends the capitalists class dominance.
We don't have classes here. My great grandfather was a millionaire, my father was a school teacher, I have a nice job, but work every day. With capitalism, you own what you earn. Poor people have nothing to steal. Rich people lose their money by paying people to care for it. Statist governm ent s tax everyone to take care of the rich. Socialist government steals, until they need to enslave, then tortures, then murders.Eventually run out of someone elses goods to steal.
Capitalism by definition is a class system, if class doesn't exist capitalism doesn't exist. The mode of capitalist production is a owning class buying labor as a commodity from a class that only has their labor to sell on the market in order to create a more valuable commodity to sell on the market for more money that perpetuates class relations.
Capitalism is not a class system. It permits people to rise to the level of their talent, or fall to the extent that they lack character. Freedom to fail.
If capitalism is not a class system the why does class still exist? Why is there an owning class and working class if capitalism does not perpetuate class privileges?
You also don't grasp the fall in the rate of profit, as capitalists get more productive in producing commodities the value of commodities fall (for example a TV now is cheaper then a TV in the 1960's) as less capital is needed for the production meaning their market price falls which means you have a falling rate of profit .
I am white, and live in Maywood, CA. I should, if there is anything to Class be of the owning class, as my grandfather and great grandfather were very wealthy industrialists. I rent, and own no property at all. In Maywood, 96% of the population is hispanic, and most home owners are hispanic.
There you go, a counter example to show that class is not a useful construct. In the US, class does not exist, though there is a distribution in ownership of property.
Owning a home does not make you part of the owning class, owning class means owning means of capital production and since homes don't generate capital they don't count. Also the shrinking owning class has to do with capital accumulation and the falling rate of profit not fairness of the system.
Also Hitler didn't use money to influence, people with money influenced Hitler as capitalists wanted an end to the crisis, so Hitler didn't have to bribe anyone as the capitalists class ran to Hitler.
I really cannot find any of your statements credible. Certainly you don't understand what capitalism means. Individual rights, which cannot be infringed upon by anyone. CAPITALIST STATES CANNOT INTERFERE IN THE ECONOMY! This concept u seem unable to grasp. U gain values through ur own effort. No one can force u to sacrifice, nor can u sacrifice anyone to urself. Police's only job is to retaliate against violators of individual rights, not to enslave its citizens. It's dominant cuz it's FREEDOM!
Individual rights has nothing to do with capitalism, capitalism existed way before such ideas were popular and the capitalist class took power to be the ruling class not to liberate anyone which is why early capitalist traded in slaves and treated their workers worse then slaves.
The idea of capitalism is simply a ruling class that owns production, where they can extract surplus value from workers, that they can force to work for them by collectively controlling access to commodities.
Under Socialism, all the workers become slaves. Marxian practice was an attempt to adjust to the realities of industry with the social system of the southern slave plantation. The Marxists figured that they, as the "intellectuals" would occupy the master's big house, running all as they saw fit with the rest of us as industrial slaves. They sought power to occupy the big house. What happened is industry couldn't stand that model, demanding new ideas to compete, and rewarding those who had ideas
Marxism has nothing to do with slavery, the idea of Marx is to create a classless society, this requires a mature industrial society (which Russia was not) which is why you had debates on transition to communism after the Russian revolution as Russia lacked the industrial means to create a communist society.
As for the idea everyone has property in capitalism this is laughable, not everyone owns a factory, store or other such capital generating business.
You do know Marxism is mostly believed by mathematicians that see contradictions in market forces.
Owning yourself doesn't count as your labor is exhausted when spent while machinery is exhausted only after many production cycles, it is not like a owner of say a factory has to buy a new factory every time they use it to create capital.
Machinery is worn with every unit it produces, and requires the work of humans to bring it back within limits.
Humans are exhausted at the end of the day, but so is machinery after 18 hours, with third shift used for maintenance.
Math guys have their place, but you have to do some work to determine if their mental world has any relationship to the real world. Thats why Marxism failes. They have beautiful theory, but doesn't correspond to earth
I said machinery is exhausted only after many production cycles and there are fixed capital that can last decades. The point is after the production cycle the workers only have wages which they use to pay capitalists for commodities the working class produced, on the other hand the capitalist get commodities that they sell mostly to the working class yet they still own their fixed capital as fixed capital by definition is capital who's life span is longer then a one production cycle.
workers are only exhaused after they are too old and sick to work, and their consumpion of capital is only a very small share of their income, so they accumulate capital over their working life.
I meant after a production cycle the worker only has their wages which they use to buy the commodities they built from the capitalist class. On the other hand the capitalist still has their fixed capital.
Marxism sees capitalism as the one that doesn't relate to the real world. Marx's three volumes of capital doesn't primary deal with what is moral or ethical instead it criticizes capitalism by its internal contradictions point out it is a inherently unstable system as not only is equilibrium is impossible in the market but the rate of profit in the long run is undermined by capitalist competition increasing efficiency that lowers the exchange value of commodities.
But instability is not bad when it leads to an improvement in the human condition. Stability is no virtue when people are locked into poverty, disease, and oppression. Capitalism is the system where labor can be traded for capital, and capital can be traded for labor. You focus on commodities, but a television was not a commodity as Marx understood it, until capitalism permited people to develop television, and then programming for which workers could trade their labor.
The instability Marx was talking about was the market going from crisis to crisis, meaning capitalism can't have perpetual uninterrupted growth as capitalist have imperfect information thus production will always eventually get out of sync with demand to compound this you have the gradual decline in the rate of profit caused by increased efficiency in production devaluing commodities over time.
In the US, our interruptions in growth have been due to occasional socialist experiments by our government. Accordingly we don't see that greater adoption of socialism will lead to an improvement. Increased efficiency in commodities frees workers to develop advanced products that are not commodities, like TV, internet, computers, medicines, and movies. The availability of these advanced products lead to a better life. Communism forbids improvement. Let me know when Russia gets to the moon.
The history of business cycles pre-dates government intervention and the longest uninterrupted period of growth was during the peak of government intervention. The falling rate of profit is not solved by more advanced products as the value of commodities continue to devalue as production costs fall.
You also seem to have forgotten that Russia beat the USA into space, and beat the USA in building a computer for industrial use not just for military use (the UM-1).
I know, and the dog wasn't a member of the vanguard of the proletariat, so doesnt count. Just like the 130 million murdered by the Soviets. What does it matter?
We saw how well Soviet Union competed with lathes vs. US with computerized mills. Guess owners of factories perhaps do get new tooling when old is left behind.
The U.S.S.R did get computers into factories before the USA and most of their factories did have computer systems by the 1980's, you are referring to is industrial robotics that came from the state controlled economy of Japan.
No in the 1960's computers were mostly in corporate offices, universities, and government installations. Electronic magazines of the mid 60's even the USA proclaimed the UM1-NX as remarkable and the first computer of its kind.
That was a different beast then the UM-1, the UM-1 was engineered to be reliable and have little downtime, its test run in the Cherepovetsk Metallurgical Factory ran for 1,500 hours without any error this mostly attributed with the UM-1 using ROM cards rather then magnetic storage devices thus the UM-1 could be covered in dirt and still do what it was programmed to do.
The Eniac was far too bulky to be used in industry, the UM-1 and its successor the UM-2 was used in submarines due to their relative light weight and small size (the UM-2 only weighing in around 260 lb).
Again western scientists were impressed with the UM-1's performance in 1966 when westerns learned of the UM-1 which by then the UM-2 was in production.
Obviously ur confused. google "ayn rand lexicon" you'll learn something.
What ever ur talkin about isn't Cap.; most likely feudalism, with castes one is born into and cannot advance. Capitalism is like a game of snakes and ladders. The founding fathers created the most capitalistic society in history, thus freest. If rich get richer, and poor poorer, then there would not be any rags to riches we see all the time.
In true capitalism, everyone is free to live their life, through their liberty, for the pursuit of their own happiness, with their own property. This is true for every individual, thus individual rights.
capitalism cannot pick and choose who to favor; otherwise it would fail miserably. That is the "mixed economy" we live in today. No bailouts, no franchises, no subsidies, no special privileges. All people r free to interact peacefully, without the use of physical force.
In Soviet Russia the Government has all power, and the government tells people to work. In Capitalism the government doesn't get involved. All the worker would have to do is stay home, or get another job. Only if there is no better job, does the worker have to accept a job, and the worker makes that determination for himself. To what end would a capitalist smash skulls? How can we make money off dead workers? Communism murders by millions. Capitalism enriches by millions.
You are pretty naive, it is in the interests of capitalists for their states to smash the skulls of workers when workers are equals in the job market, they need workers to become demoralized it basically like when the Mafia smashes the stores that refuses to pay protection money, the capitalists class gets the state to smash workers when workers collectively refuse to work for the capitalists terms.
I'm not evil I'm just a realist, I understand that capitalism by nature limits class mobility since that is the whole point of any class society, only a statistically insignificant amount of workers are allowed to advanced in society and capitalists that fall back are due to contradictions within the capitalist system (that causes the rate of profit to over time diminish) not due to any fairness within the market.
You are a marxist fantacist. Just because marxism murdered over 100 mllion in the last century, doesn't mean that the next time we will empower angels, rather than men. There you go with "the rate of profit" malarky again. Rate of profit only decreases if you don't change, and your competition does. If you innovate, you can increase your rate of profit over anyone who innovates less
Workers advance in so far as their work is productive. Ideas are very productive, and can build new industries
Also capitalism has killed far more then communism, not just in fascism which is the capitalists reaction to crisis in capitalist markets and strong worker movements but in the terms of massive starvation encase you didn't notice most of Africa is capitalist and most Africa suffers from crippling starvation and poverty. Then we have the imperialist wars like World War One that is the end result when capitalist powers market interests can only be solved through war.
Wrong, fascism has nothing to do with socialism. Hitler only gave workers lip service and was backed by capitalists which is why all the major capitalists powers dragged their feet getting into WWII and continued to invest in Nazi Germany right into WWII. Capitalists also were backed fascist Pinochet and capitalism flourished in Chile while Pinochet soaked the country in the blood of the proletariat.
And you take Hitler's word for that? That he had the interest of the proletariat even though he was enriching the capitalist class which is why the capitalist powers dragged their feet going to way with Hitler as Hitler was rising the rate of profit for them and making them tons of money in a time when profits were scarce. Hitler was a capitalist, he protected capitalists from the market at the expense of greater exploitation of the proletariat.
I do not take Hitler's word, just as I do not take the work of Stalin, his soul mate that Soviet Union was socialist. Hitler (like Stalin) was a thug, not a capitalist. Hitler accepted bribes, but was not a person who used money to influence, rather he used government to secure a steady source of bribe money.
It's great looking at all these comments and watching the timeline of the statists' non-sequitors and out of context "points" get grinded down leaving them grabbing at straws.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What if me clubbing you over the head to get your money is good for me? Why allow everything *but* physical violence? Why can't the strongest physically be free to dominate the weakest physically just as the strongest economically are free to dominate the weakest economically today?
Because man lives by reason, not force. The use of force in society makes him unable to live, to the extent force is allowed to violate people's rights. Force makes thought irrelevant, and thus it is evil. Man survives by living independently and trading, not harming others.
And you really think economic force is any different from physical force? You think rhethorical force is different from physical force? Well, if they are different it is only in the way that both economic force and rhethorical force are more powerful than physical force in today's world.
The only way to avoid force as long as humanity is imperfect is to regulate the use of ALL kinds of force. The free market is just like the free-for-all melee. Both are unfair, unequal, unworthy of us.
There is no such thing as economic force. Force means physical coercion. A fist. a gun. a jail. a nuke. police. the military.
Economic power is the ability for a man to use his mind to make a great product, so great that people are willing to trade for it. Like ipods. There is no force involved there.
Paraphrasing Atlas Shrugged, you choices are whips, gun, and slaves/masters, or money. Take your pick.
Some of the definitions of force according to Webster's online dictionary:
-strength or energy exerted or brought to bear; -capacity to persuade or convince;
-an individual or group having the power of effective action
By definition of the word, economic, intellectual and rhethorical force exist.
Through economic, intellectual and populist means one person can exert force on another, limiting their options in life. One person can make another's a living hell by application of these forces.
MoonMankkkkkk: When man does not have the right to what he produces, he loses his desire to produce.
Where did you get this ditty? You sound just like a religious fundamentalist spouting passages from the bible. Heh, heh. Dont you realize that these types of self-important talking points make the randroid religion seem so very small? I mean think about it in relation to the universe or even simple evolution. Ridiculous.
I have, but then I realized how absolutely irrelevant it is. The universe no evolution will ever dispel the fact that human only act on motives. You take away those motives, they don't act.
Heh, heh. You sound like one of those politically correct geniuses. The "all cultures are equal," crowd. In your case it's all "motives" are equal---no motive can be wrong. Self-centeredness is equal to compassion. Heh, heh. What's with you people that can't differentiate? Might be genetic or something.
"In your case it's all "motives" are equal---no motive can be wrong."
I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth.
"Self-centeredness is equal to compassion."
Good lord... self-centeredness is infinitely superior to any form of compassion, according to any ethics system that places life as the standard of value.
Also, people don't work because of compassion, they work for self-centeredness, they belief that they must further their own life.
"Good lord... self-centeredness is infinitely superior to any form of compassion, according to any ethics system that places life as the standard of value."
How many times do you deregulating assholes have to fail before you get wise to yer own BS?
Perhaps that "good lord" you mention up there will suggest to you that the ultimate capitalist sanctuary will be found on the next passing comet---and you'll be convinced by a randroid protegee to take a one-way trip.
You poor, ignorant, miserable meat-bag. What do you call the gilded age and robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Makes me wonder if you've ever cracked a book in yer life.
And what about this current mess? One the main architects being Alan Greenspan---a life-long randroid who actually had the misfortune of knowing her personally---being that he was one of the original members of her dipshit clique/religion.
People take this retard seriously? From a gun to regulation? Christ. Pathetic. Capitalism does not encourage or promote competition; its total goal is the elimination of competition.
I Disagree, Capitalism can not be left to run wild...it will defeat itself because of selfish, greedy men. there must be regulation. look at AIG and other capitalistic failings. why do people think that Capitalism is so great.
Actually if you look at the current crisis in capital, while the bourgeois state helped make the crisis it was well within the logical self-interests of the financial capitalists to exploit such massive speculation.
true. people chose standard oil (rockefeller) for their cars because it was the better idea. likewise, suburbs were rationally chosen. thus, they are the best. the current problems with climate change and environmental degradation are merely opportunities for technology.
outstanding!!! I am very frustrated at how mccain is basically a democrat and of course obama is the most socialist of anyone in congress or senate.......yet they act as if socialism is successfuj....its insanely annoying......bravo to a great lecture.....
The logic of an objectivist is fundamentally flawed. It goes something like this:
workers organizing in trade unions and fighting for their rights and living conditions ... is 'authoritarian' and an 'initation of force' on the company.
Allowing corporations on the other hand, (who are people remember?) to exploit their workers in the pursuit of profit is not force, but the 'pursuit of happiness'.
Incorrect. There is nothing wrong with workers forming a union in order to negotiate with their employer. It is only when the GOVERNMENT steps in on behalf of unions that it becomes an initiation of force. As long as government stays out of the picture, negotiations between unions and companies remain free and consensual.
Bourgeois Governments don't step in on behalf of unions, when bourgeois governments side with workers it is only to ensure the stability of the larger capitalist system. Employers can't possibly read the mood of the masses till you have a Paris May 1968 and the working class has immobilized the police forces and the loyalty of troops are in question.
That's not capitalism. Capitalism is accumulating capital by means of mutual consent by all parties trading between each other. In a civilized society, force is only sanctioned when it is in response to force. When the government makes laws to use force against the poor for the interest of the rich, it is violating their rights. That's not capitalism, that's elitism, a form of feudalism.
Then capitalism has yet to exist and probably never will as it is impossible for capitalism to exist without forcing workers to give up surplus labor thus why capitalist (in the sense of societies build around accumulating capital in the money->commodity->delta money cycle) societies all have large armed forces that are used threated workers with violence if they collectively refuse to work (general strikes).
"Then capitalism has yet to exist and probably never will"
Precisely, it never has and realistically never will, but it CAN happen and the benefits from it are almost unimaginable. One must always be a Romantic Realist, that is not to be a Cynic and believe society is doomed by default, or a Utopian who wants the impossible. Every man must work his hardest for the political system that he believes is moral. That system, as it has been proved hundreds of times, is Capitalism.
Wait if capitalism has never existed how can capitalism have been proven hundreds of times to be moral?
Anyway you have a primitivist view of capitalism, were instead of wage workers selling their labor (proletariat) to capitalist that hold the means of production hostage, you have artisans selling the fruit of the labor to consumers.
Because every capitalistic reform leads to a better economy. Every socialistic reform has done to opposite.
I'm sorry, but you have a twisted view of Capitalism. Your view is still a form of elitism where the government uses force to keep the aristocrats rich and the proletariat poor. How about an economic system where every man trades their services in mutual consent and self-interest, where the only force that can be legally done is the government in response to force? That's Capitalism.
Like the current credit crunch were lots of money went into speculation since it was profitable. Now the US goverment is faced with the choice of either nationalizing the fictitious (bad) capital or facing a break down in the money->commodities->delta money circuit.
If you actually watched the lecture, you would see that the originator of the environment that made it so profitable for subprime lending was the federal government.
The federal goverment just amplified the drive for financial capitalist to speculate. Even if the goverment was neutral the financial capitalist would have done the same thing and the bubble would have just popped at a different time.
Why be productive in the market when you can game the market for much more capital?
You don't seem to understand. The economic environment where the interest rates imposed by the Federal Reserve and the inflation regulated by the Federal Reserve made this huge demand for borrowing. What was society stressing at the time? They were stressing real estate. People should not have assumed that interest rates would not have gone up. The Federal deserve created this notion of cheap money. People assumed that housing prices would just go up and up. The Federal Reserve screwed up.
You don't understand the root of the current crisis in capital. The Federal Reserve played a minor role as the crisis had little to do with borrowing and everything to do with speculation. Where the financial institutions lost most of their capital was in betting in the market with the loans as collateral. The crisis would have happened regardless of what the interest rates were as the capitalist only cared about the principle that they could use to advance capital.
The banks would not have been stupid enough to do subprime lending if the Federal Reserve didn't make such irrational and unrealistic interest rates. If the interest rates actually reflected the inflation, it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Besides, the banks have a right to lend out money. Every person part of these banks gave them sanction to do so. They weren't encroaching on anyone's rights. The government creating regulations is a threat to our rights.
You don't understand the incentive that created the crisis. The financial capitalists were making tons of profit through speculation through exploiting loans they owned, while a higher interest rate would have reduced their rate of profit it wouldn't have changed the fact it was basically free money for the finical capitalists and speculation offered the best returns at the time.
But what caused this free money was not the low interest rates but the repealing of the Glass Steagall act so now there was no rules regulating the financial institutions so you had banks just issuing loans not for the interests on the loan but so it could turn that around and sell it to speculators. The end result was the market got flooded with worthless capital as financial institutions gamed the market.
Again, banks have every right to make any financial mistake conceivable, even subprime lending. If people don't want their money issued to others irresponsibly then they should take their business somewhere else.
The point of Glass Steagall was to separate the industry of banking from securities. So the people that entrust their money to banks don't have to worry about banks making risky or stupid investment to the point they collapse and take everyone that did busniess with them down with them. What we are seeing now is how due to the interconnected financial industry causes the whole industry to fail at once.
The people who gave money to the banks gave sanction to those banks to do whatever they thought was financially viable with their money. There was no encroachment of rights. Putting regulations on how banks run their business is by definition a encroachment of the right of liberty.
But the current crash proves the Glass Steagall act performed a useful function. What about the rights of the average depositor which the banks violated? What about the rights of the entire society which the banks endangered with their recluses speculation?
The banks didn't violate any rights of the depositor. The depositor gave sanction to the banks using his money however they felt to. If there's one thing that people should learn from this crisis besides the fact that government regulation is bad for the economy, (they won't learn that I'm sure), is that they shouldn't deposit their money in banks that practice subprime lending. If people want competent banks then the market will provide it-Supply and Demand 101.
The crisis was caused by deregulation, if the Glass Steagall act was still in effect the banks wouldn't have been allowed to gamble people's deposits in securities or they would have ended up in jail.
Also it was the free market the gave incentive to the banks to gamble with other people's money.
You're not listening. People gave banks the permission to gamble with their money. The purpose of the government is to protect our rights. Banks have the right to do whatever they want with our money as long as we contractually give them permission to. That's the case here. The government has no right whatsoever to restrict the pursuit of happiness of the bankers, only when the bankers through fraud misuse our the money of the depositors as decided contractually.
No the depositors didn't. The depositors entrusted the bank to provide low risk and low returns. What the banks did is like you entrusting a company to invest your money in their busniess and them simply betting the money at the horse races with no intentions of giving you any of the winning.
What the banks did was steal money from their depositors to gamble in the idea they would replay their depositors once they won.
That's not true at all. Tell me any contract made between a bank and its depositors that says that the bank cannot participate in subprime lending, or if a financial crisis occurs the bank is legally obligated to ensure the return of the depositors' money.
Subprime lending is just were the crisis started. The financial insinuations got into more trouble because they loaned money out so they could get capital to gamble with in the market since that loan sits on their accounts as a deposit plus they can sell the loan as a security.
One huge problem is the depositor took the risk of losing their deposit while the bank took most of the gains as they'd just have to pay the depositor as if it was low risk and low return.
I'm sure you'd be mad if after carefully investigating a busniess and investing in it your broker decided to invest your money a high risk busniess with your money instead hoping you wouldn't notice and he could keep the extra earnings.
Subprime lending isn't the primary cause of the crisis. Also to the banks it was perfectly rations at the time, they "borrow" money from depositors to gamble in the market, then are encouraged to give out loans so it could have more money to gamble with in the market as they could sell those loans as securities for money to gamble with while having the principle in their bank account as a deposit.
We're just repeating the same things over and over again and no, the banks were not being rational. The banks could not adequately ensure that the credit they were lending could be paid off.
Also, I'm seeing a bit of a paradox.
"Subprime lending isn't the primary cause of the crisis."
"Subprime lending is just were the crisis started."
The cause of a crisis and where it starts (or where you first see the signs) is not the same.
As for the rational of the banks they assumed their gambles would cover their losses in bad debt as they assumed only a small fraction of the debt would go bad and that the speculative bubbled would go on at least long enough to cover the bad debt.
What causes anything is where it starts. All life starts with conception and all life is caused by it. The crisis includes the environment that made it and everything that it entails.
"As for the rational of the banks they assumed their gambles would cover their losses in bad debt as they assumed only a small fraction of the debt would go bad and that the speculative bubbled would go on at least long enough to cover the bad debt."
Also for the banks at the time it was rational just like now it is perfectly rational for them to sit on their liquidity as they try to ride out the crisis yet them sitting on their liquidity amplifies the crisis.
The reason there is elitism in the current system is the drive to accumulate capital. It is more profitable to accumulate means of production and force workers to sell their labor rather then the fruits of the labor.
That is the problem, Adam Smith said the free market would only lead to liberty in a classless society, Adam Smith said that the free market itself wouldn't bring a classless society on the contrary Adam Smith said that a free market in a class system would bring a authoritarian system were workers become nothing but animals of burden.
"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." - Ayn Rand
Socialists does not see work as the purpose of life, that the goal of humanity is to minimize work so humans can be free to pursue greater endeavours. Thus the socialist utopian ideal is one where automation totally replaces human labor and no one has to work a day in their entire lives if they don't want, freeing them to pursue arts, science, philosophy,ect. (again this is the utopian ideal, meaning in the eyes of socialist while unrealistic this would be perfect society)
That would be an impossible society. When man does not have the right to what he produces, he loses his desire to produce. You can think. That's something that can't be said about most of the socialists. Do realize that socialism is an impossibility because humans first motivation is their own happiness and not others'. The perfect society that is possible is one were no government of that society would ever sanction the initiation of force, and where men have the right to their own happiness.
You didn't read what I wrote. "Thus the socialist utopian ideal is one where automation totally replaces human labor..." Meaning we are talking about a goal of computers and machinary would be doing all the labor not humans, human labor would be obsolete, even the work of running a busniess would be automated by computers so humans just collectively live of the fruits of the labor machinary they built with their labor.
That would be a society where the upholding of rights is the prime motive of the government and no man or collective could use force in any form or sense against another man. Essentially, this would be a democracy with rights always upheld, and capitalism as the one economic system that allows people the right to their own happiness as long as they don't encroach on other people's right to happiness. Don't be a romanticist. Be a romantic realist, striving for a perfect world that is possible.
reason, thoughtful-discussions, the pursuance of why ...
vonGleichenT 2 weeks ago in playlist Why Unregulated Capitalism is the Only Moral Social System
Talk about living in the past. More and more countries have abolished capital punishment, including just about all the countries in Europe. How do these governments collect taxes and regulate businesses if they can't threaten to murder their citizens for noncompliance?
MrAdvancedAtheist 4 months ago
man, do the people on this comment forum even listen, or do there already pre-concieved notions destory there ability to think freely. Read the fuckin books and understand the meaning of the words used.
Lysanderfication 4 months ago
@Lysanderfication unfortunately, you're right. Their preconceived notions DO destroy their ability to think freely. Luckily, those who can think freely are not influenced by such stupidity. Hopefully they'll just die out...
godwhatafatty 1 week ago
The critics here present out rageous discussions. As long as the government restricts itself to its limited role then the tryanny against the individual will be minimized. We trade some freedom to the government in return to protection from others (foreign countries, criminals, etc.). However our elected representatives have become corrupted and oppress us with tryanny against our individual freedoms including the right to life and property.
Gendibar 10 months ago
Yeah, fuck regulation! No more government getting in my face telling me asbestos causes cancer, buildings need fire exits, and medical devices need testing before putting them into hospitals!
zeppelinesque 1 year ago
This guy do not bring any proof with his statement. If we can assume he is what the Ayn Rand Institute is, then we must say - what a B.S.
jimnn2009 1 year ago
So I can pimp your 16 year old daughter out. Ayn Rand believed in legalizing prostitution and since government and economics are independent under your system it would be a crime to forbid me to. I'd pay her more than Walmart would pay their prostitutes. Of course, I would be living in a home I rented from Walmart since there are no monopoly laws, so they'd probably kick me out. No laws regulating financial sector, right.
jrmsher33 1 year ago
I'd like to privatize the water supply. We would be better off buying our water from private businesses, not from government.
Jethro494 1 year ago
@Jethro494 hahaha, we do
Lysanderfication 4 months ago
I love how the Ayn Rand Institute is a non-profit organisation...
haha, do they know you're saying all this?
hellothere230 1 year ago
so i dont know why u want to BLINDLY support such a scandalous criminal group like the govt
The less govt- the better-
swu880 1 year ago
hey- its through govt regulations that monopolies & cartels like the Federal reserve & fannie mae freddie mac can thrive!
Its govt which creates massive inflation & deflation. its govt which prints money without value & devalues ur money. And this devaluing means that u can not hold contract. It is this devaluing that forces buisinesses to double the price of milk. Its devaluing which WIPES out the middle class. And its devaluing which makes poor people poorer!
swu880 1 year ago
Did govt bring about the industrial revolution? Did govt bring about the age of enlightenment/ did govt bring about Da Vinci's Michaelangelo? Did govt bring about the invention of airplanes? NO!
Govt is force- nothing but force! it operates on force alone. it STEALS by force from the productive bit of the economy to fund the unproductive. It regulates, bars & infringes on people's rights to ownership & right to business-
It gives special privilage to some & oppresses the rest.
swu880 1 year ago
Individual liberty = the right to work & reap the profit of one's work whether they be good or bad. And this always leads to wealth
"social equality" = no individualism- no freedom & the obligation to be no different than others, no higher than others, & only more poorer than others. Social equality is the strivation to be poor & stay poor
govt does nothin good - it is the individuals who do good. it was individuals who worked their asses off. its the individuals who eat, live, study, play
swu880 1 year ago
in the face of fowz, weason doesn't function.
poonhounds2 1 year ago
He keeps citing iPhones, but that is a "physical product" an "innovation". It's marketed with the ability to maximize "existing and future" ability. What was the CDO marketed to do? It was a way to package created "waste product" as a "nutritious financial meal". The problem with his "you" in his belief is that the "you" self-interest is at the sake of the "commonwealth" (as defined in the Declaration of Independence", unless he wants to pit "America" against AMERICA, itself?
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1 u obviously never really fully understood what is rational self interest. please go look it up before u comment on it. The self interest of an individual is his own interest-. u have a right to ur own happiness not a guarantee for it- u must pursue it.
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
Freedom is the ability to choose & suffer the consequences WHETHER THEY BE GOOD OR BAD. u can choose to buy an iphone if u want or not. u do not have to buy an iphone. Only govt or a gun can force u to do one or the other. Thus in a free society, the buying of an iphone means that u value it- u rationally value it for urself & see it as a tool for ur own happiness
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 It is obvious that you think you should "have your cake" and "eat it too". "Commonwealth" put the roads, sewerage, and infrastructure together, so you can "isolate yourself" and "think-tank" your ideas. Oh, then you'll need someone to "finance" your idea, unless you self-financed "think-tank" idea will manufacture itself. Since you insist to "own your ideas", then You should also "disconnect" yourself from the benefits that have been provided. Otherwise you are simply a parasite.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
there is NO contradiction here. Instead there is only OPENNESS, contract, accountability & value. meaning- the current govt is corrupt straight down to the core. it is govt which causes every major economic disaster imaginable- its also govt which causes every geopolitical disaster imaginable, govt also which causes every war imaginable & govt which violate & infringes on every human right possible
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
Govt regulations & interferences directly led to the depressions, the inflations, the bubbles & the recessions. Every major fraud imaginable is initiated, propogated or allowed for by govt. i mean just look @ the social security fraud- its one of the largest ponzi schemes ever
The role of govt aint to exercise power & infringe on rights, it aint to grant any entitlement system; it aint to give u a car, give u a house, give u food to eat- govt has nothing to giv in the first place
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
Yet social security, as friedman has exposed & argued, is not only economically disastrous but also socially & morally unjust. whatever the so called benefits may be to the "old or poor", it is taken BY force firstly & given unequivocally & in no one's self interest. ie- You may not value the next guy who recieves the social security paycheck but you are still FORCED to pay for him. FORCED- not voluntary. that is govt! moreover, u do not benefit nor are guaranteed any benefit from ss
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
see friedman's arguments here. socialists altruists & collectivists are unintelligable people driven by their impulses & whims. Selfless servitude, is the key rhetoric spoken by these groups & irrationality is their fortitude. But by being selfless, they deny themselves success they deny themselves happiness. Giving up their liberties, they hold no rights; forfeiting their lives, they have no life; giving up their property, they own nothing- and thus are worthless.
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
Selflessness is essentially the key to the worst of all evils & is the saddest of all tragedies. It is selfless servitude which is the role of the slave. And sacrificing oneself for the "betterment of others- the collective- the so called whole" is the role of a sacrificial animal. If u so wish to be a slave or a sacrificial animal, do not speak of rights, nor property nor life since u forfeit all & value them not.
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
There is no such thing as a collective- no 'common good' - no 'betterment of others'. The collective does not live, it does not die, it dont breathe, it dont eat, it holds no rights, it does not even THINK- it is not even real or existant- merely the figment of supernatural mysticism.
It is the INDIVIDUAL who thinks, who holds values who eats who drinks, who plays & works & speaks & it is the individual who holds individual rights. It is the individual who lives or dies
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
It is WRONG to trade a higher value for a lower one(that is called throwing away aka 'sacrifice'). it is wrong to give up my property, my energy, my time, my virtue, values & life for another- sacrifice is evil!
i suggest u read "the virtue of selfishness", "atlas shrugged" & "the fountainhead"
-u obviously do not even know the first thing about rights, the importance of them & the importance of the individual. If u speak not of individuals & their rights, u speak of no rights at all
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
It is also obvious u have never really understood what the role of govt ought to be. If u actually read & study ayn rand's work, she addresses all these issues & more very thoroughly & with the utmost of reason
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Ah, but "bubba"...WE are the government. If you don't hold your officials accountable, you are in agreement by "abdication". I don't know of any "gov't that gave a "car away", a "house" but I did see them give (a bit too late) folks in New Orleans some food after a disaster. Did you? LOL. "Let em eat cake" seems your motto, and it did wonders for Marie Antoinette. LOL
rodeojim1 1 year ago
There are "those that do", "those who deal" and "those who criticize" and we know which you are. Meanwhile, I'm happy to "sell my idea" for a "quid pro quo" that suits me and that I feel is a "just" remuneration for my idea. For afterward, I am free to think again! (to misquote Scarlett O'Hara)
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@swu880 You've waxed on that chestnut for so long, you probably have convinced yourself of that. So what's the point. It's always the "other" that did it wrong. Madoff, Dubya Bush, BP. You sound like Flip Wilson's character Geraldine:"the devil made me do it". And your solution to the problem is "anarchy"? lol. Anarchists don't "treat swewerage", but they sure do like "indoor plumbing". lol
rodeojim1 1 year ago
You benefit from the largess of everyone that came before you, yet sit in some "think tank" functionary, and issue hollow edicts from on high, of how all the things that got you there "are corrupt and wrong". Hell, man, give that high ticket education back! Don't use ANY gov't services (U.S., State, or local) then send out your pronouncements. I'd like to see you "think" a road into existence. lol
rodeojim1 1 year ago
This is a strawman fallacy -> Government regulation is not the same as putting gun in corporation or business to comply with the regulations.
Government regulations is to protect the public/society from the abusive power of corporation. so Government regulation is not a gun, it is a policy to limit corporation from using its power to exploit the workers.
pr0gm3r 2 years ago
The gun is meant as a symbol of "force". Gov't has a monopoly on the use of physical force; as it should
Here's where most people go wrong; gov't does it's job by use of force, business is by trade. fear v. values. Capitalism works by the priniciple of "voluntary trade for mutual benefit". They can dispose of their own property as they wish. Gov't regulation is a force that disrupts this principle and ruins any economic flow or progress, distroys creativity, and drives us closer to statism.
waterstrike08 2 years ago
Capitalism does not voluntary trade for mutual benefit, the worker does not voluntary trade their labor, when workers do have a equal power in negotiating their price on the market capitalists run to the government to force the workers to work below their market value. It is not voluntary trade when riot police smash the skulls of workers that demand capitalists pay for the value of their labor.
Psy500 2 years ago
DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?!?
Under true Capitalism, the "Capitalists" cannot run to the gov't for anything! Gov't cannot intervene!
Again, Business cannot use force, only incentive/rewards. Business trade values and must abide by supply and demand. Gov't cannot produce, and can only act by the use of force. Business must get people to buy what they have to offer by trade. Big business are only "big" because people like their products.
Oh and, workers are not forced into labor FYI
waterstrike08 2 years ago
All capitalism means is you have a owning class and working class, it is nothing then a social class arrangement so yes under true capitalism you can have a capitalist state use its police to force workers back to work as what makes a state capitalist is the state defends the capitalists class dominance.
Psy500 2 years ago
We don't have classes here. My great grandfather was a millionaire, my father was a school teacher, I have a nice job, but work every day. With capitalism, you own what you earn. Poor people have nothing to steal. Rich people lose their money by paying people to care for it. Statist governm ent s tax everyone to take care of the rich. Socialist government steals, until they need to enslave, then tortures, then murders.Eventually run out of someone elses goods to steal.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Capitalism by definition is a class system, if class doesn't exist capitalism doesn't exist. The mode of capitalist production is a owning class buying labor as a commodity from a class that only has their labor to sell on the market in order to create a more valuable commodity to sell on the market for more money that perpetuates class relations.
Psy500 2 years ago
Capitalism is the opposite of a class system.
Once you get that, you will figure out all your other errors.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Capitalism is not a class system. It permits people to rise to the level of their talent, or fall to the extent that they lack character. Freedom to fail.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
If capitalism is not a class system the why does class still exist? Why is there an owning class and working class if capitalism does not perpetuate class privileges?
You also don't grasp the fall in the rate of profit, as capitalists get more productive in producing commodities the value of commodities fall (for example a TV now is cheaper then a TV in the 1960's) as less capital is needed for the production meaning their market price falls which means you have a falling rate of profit .
Psy500 2 years ago
I am white, and live in Maywood, CA. I should, if there is anything to Class be of the owning class, as my grandfather and great grandfather were very wealthy industrialists. I rent, and own no property at all. In Maywood, 96% of the population is hispanic, and most home owners are hispanic.
There you go, a counter example to show that class is not a useful construct. In the US, class does not exist, though there is a distribution in ownership of property.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Owning a home does not make you part of the owning class, owning class means owning means of capital production and since homes don't generate capital they don't count. Also the shrinking owning class has to do with capital accumulation and the falling rate of profit not fairness of the system.
Also Hitler didn't use money to influence, people with money influenced Hitler as capitalists wanted an end to the crisis, so Hitler didn't have to bribe anyone as the capitalists class ran to Hitler.
Psy500 2 years ago
I get a nice wage, so by owning myself, I own the means of capital production.
So when I am reduced to a slave, then I no longer am a member of the owning class?
That about your view?
DonMeaker 2 years ago
I really cannot find any of your statements credible. Certainly you don't understand what capitalism means. Individual rights, which cannot be infringed upon by anyone. CAPITALIST STATES CANNOT INTERFERE IN THE ECONOMY! This concept u seem unable to grasp. U gain values through ur own effort. No one can force u to sacrifice, nor can u sacrifice anyone to urself. Police's only job is to retaliate against violators of individual rights, not to enslave its citizens. It's dominant cuz it's FREEDOM!
waterstrike08 2 years ago
Individual rights has nothing to do with capitalism, capitalism existed way before such ideas were popular and the capitalist class took power to be the ruling class not to liberate anyone which is why early capitalist traded in slaves and treated their workers worse then slaves.
The idea of capitalism is simply a ruling class that owns production, where they can extract surplus value from workers, that they can force to work for them by collectively controlling access to commodities.
Psy500 2 years ago
That is your idea of capitalism, which is sadly flawed. Did you even listen to the video?
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Under Socialism, all the workers become slaves. Marxian practice was an attempt to adjust to the realities of industry with the social system of the southern slave plantation. The Marxists figured that they, as the "intellectuals" would occupy the master's big house, running all as they saw fit with the rest of us as industrial slaves. They sought power to occupy the big house. What happened is industry couldn't stand that model, demanding new ideas to compete, and rewarding those who had ideas
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Marxism has nothing to do with slavery, the idea of Marx is to create a classless society, this requires a mature industrial society (which Russia was not) which is why you had debates on transition to communism after the Russian revolution as Russia lacked the industrial means to create a communist society.
As for the idea everyone has property in capitalism this is laughable, not everyone owns a factory, store or other such capital generating business.
Psy500 2 years ago
Marxism requires madness to believe, and thuggishness to follow.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
You do know Marxism is mostly believed by mathematicians that see contradictions in market forces.
Owning yourself doesn't count as your labor is exhausted when spent while machinery is exhausted only after many production cycles, it is not like a owner of say a factory has to buy a new factory every time they use it to create capital.
Psy500 2 years ago
Don't know much about machinery do you.
Machinery is worn with every unit it produces, and requires the work of humans to bring it back within limits.
Humans are exhausted at the end of the day, but so is machinery after 18 hours, with third shift used for maintenance.
Math guys have their place, but you have to do some work to determine if their mental world has any relationship to the real world. Thats why Marxism failes. They have beautiful theory, but doesn't correspond to earth
DonMeaker 2 years ago
I said machinery is exhausted only after many production cycles and there are fixed capital that can last decades. The point is after the production cycle the workers only have wages which they use to pay capitalists for commodities the working class produced, on the other hand the capitalist get commodities that they sell mostly to the working class yet they still own their fixed capital as fixed capital by definition is capital who's life span is longer then a one production cycle.
Psy500 2 years ago
workers are only exhaused after they are too old and sick to work, and their consumpion of capital is only a very small share of their income, so they accumulate capital over their working life.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
I meant after a production cycle the worker only has their wages which they use to buy the commodities they built from the capitalist class. On the other hand the capitalist still has their fixed capital.
Psy500 2 years ago
Marxism sees capitalism as the one that doesn't relate to the real world. Marx's three volumes of capital doesn't primary deal with what is moral or ethical instead it criticizes capitalism by its internal contradictions point out it is a inherently unstable system as not only is equilibrium is impossible in the market but the rate of profit in the long run is undermined by capitalist competition increasing efficiency that lowers the exchange value of commodities.
Psy500 2 years ago
But instability is not bad when it leads to an improvement in the human condition. Stability is no virtue when people are locked into poverty, disease, and oppression. Capitalism is the system where labor can be traded for capital, and capital can be traded for labor. You focus on commodities, but a television was not a commodity as Marx understood it, until capitalism permited people to develop television, and then programming for which workers could trade their labor.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
The instability Marx was talking about was the market going from crisis to crisis, meaning capitalism can't have perpetual uninterrupted growth as capitalist have imperfect information thus production will always eventually get out of sync with demand to compound this you have the gradual decline in the rate of profit caused by increased efficiency in production devaluing commodities over time.
Psy500 2 years ago
In the US, our interruptions in growth have been due to occasional socialist experiments by our government. Accordingly we don't see that greater adoption of socialism will lead to an improvement. Increased efficiency in commodities frees workers to develop advanced products that are not commodities, like TV, internet, computers, medicines, and movies. The availability of these advanced products lead to a better life. Communism forbids improvement. Let me know when Russia gets to the moon.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
The history of business cycles pre-dates government intervention and the longest uninterrupted period of growth was during the peak of government intervention. The falling rate of profit is not solved by more advanced products as the value of commodities continue to devalue as production costs fall.
You also seem to have forgotten that Russia beat the USA into space, and beat the USA in building a computer for industrial use not just for military use (the UM-1).
Psy500 2 years ago
And when the Soviets put the dog into space, they intentionally left it to die there. That tells you all you need to know about their system.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
So, it was a dog, alot of countries experiment on animals.
Psy500 2 years ago
I know, and the dog wasn't a member of the vanguard of the proletariat, so doesnt count. Just like the 130 million murdered by the Soviets. What does it matter?
DonMeaker 2 years ago
A dog is not part of the proletariat is just an animal, no different then the pigs we kill for food so it doesn't count.
Psy500 2 years ago
The Romans said you were better off being Herod's (the Great) pig, than his son. The Soviets were equal opportunity murderers.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
We saw how well Soviet Union competed with lathes vs. US with computerized mills. Guess owners of factories perhaps do get new tooling when old is left behind.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
The U.S.S.R did get computers into factories before the USA and most of their factories did have computer systems by the 1980's, you are referring to is industrial robotics that came from the state controlled economy of Japan.
Psy500 2 years ago
you don't know much about US factories either. We had computers in factories back in the 1960s.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
1961 General Motors puts the first industrial robot the 4,000 pound Unimate to work in a New Jersey factory.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
No in the 1960's computers were mostly in corporate offices, universities, and government installations. Electronic magazines of the mid 60's even the USA proclaimed the UM1-NX as remarkable and the first computer of its kind.
Psy500 2 years ago
All computers are the first of their kind in some manner.
So tell me about that Soviet Moon landing...
DonMeaker 2 years ago
IBM installed more than one hundred thousand 1401s between 1960 and 1964.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
That was a different beast then the UM-1, the UM-1 was engineered to be reliable and have little downtime, its test run in the Cherepovetsk Metallurgical Factory ran for 1,500 hours without any error this mostly attributed with the UM-1 using ROM cards rather then magnetic storage devices thus the UM-1 could be covered in dirt and still do what it was programmed to do.
Psy500 2 years ago
As opposed to the Eniac which ran continuously for 10 years....in the 1950s.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
The Eniac was far too bulky to be used in industry, the UM-1 and its successor the UM-2 was used in submarines due to their relative light weight and small size (the UM-2 only weighing in around 260 lb).
Psy500 2 years ago
What years was UM-2 in service?
DonMeaker 2 years ago
UM-1 started production in 1962 and the UM-2 started production in 1964 both were produced through the 1970's.
Psy500 2 years ago
Guess the soviets were behind in buildings too.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Again western scientists were impressed with the UM-1's performance in 1966 when westerns learned of the UM-1 which by then the UM-2 was in production.
Psy500 2 years ago
Everyone owns themselves. They own there own time, their own mind.
If you don't have a mind, then you are indeed poor.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Obviously ur confused. google "ayn rand lexicon" you'll learn something.
What ever ur talkin about isn't Cap.; most likely feudalism, with castes one is born into and cannot advance. Capitalism is like a game of snakes and ladders. The founding fathers created the most capitalistic society in history, thus freest. If rich get richer, and poor poorer, then there would not be any rags to riches we see all the time.
waterstrike08 2 years ago
In true capitalism, everyone is free to live their life, through their liberty, for the pursuit of their own happiness, with their own property. This is true for every individual, thus individual rights.
capitalism cannot pick and choose who to favor; otherwise it would fail miserably. That is the "mixed economy" we live in today. No bailouts, no franchises, no subsidies, no special privileges. All people r free to interact peacefully, without the use of physical force.
waterstrike08 2 years ago
In Soviet Russia the Government has all power, and the government tells people to work. In Capitalism the government doesn't get involved. All the worker would have to do is stay home, or get another job. Only if there is no better job, does the worker have to accept a job, and the worker makes that determination for himself. To what end would a capitalist smash skulls? How can we make money off dead workers? Communism murders by millions. Capitalism enriches by millions.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
You are pretty naive, it is in the interests of capitalists for their states to smash the skulls of workers when workers are equals in the job market, they need workers to become demoralized it basically like when the Mafia smashes the stores that refuses to pay protection money, the capitalists class gets the state to smash workers when workers collectively refuse to work for the capitalists terms.
Psy500 2 years ago
you are pretty evil.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
I'm not evil I'm just a realist, I understand that capitalism by nature limits class mobility since that is the whole point of any class society, only a statistically insignificant amount of workers are allowed to advanced in society and capitalists that fall back are due to contradictions within the capitalist system (that causes the rate of profit to over time diminish) not due to any fairness within the market.
Psy500 2 years ago
You are a marxist fantacist. Just because marxism murdered over 100 mllion in the last century, doesn't mean that the next time we will empower angels, rather than men. There you go with "the rate of profit" malarky again. Rate of profit only decreases if you don't change, and your competition does. If you innovate, you can increase your rate of profit over anyone who innovates less
Workers advance in so far as their work is productive. Ideas are very productive, and can build new industries
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Also capitalism has killed far more then communism, not just in fascism which is the capitalists reaction to crisis in capitalist markets and strong worker movements but in the terms of massive starvation encase you didn't notice most of Africa is capitalist and most Africa suffers from crippling starvation and poverty. Then we have the imperialist wars like World War One that is the end result when capitalist powers market interests can only be solved through war.
Psy500 2 years ago
Fascism is another form of socialism. Socialism kills.
Africa capitalist? Like zimbabwe? What are you smoking?
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Wrong, fascism has nothing to do with socialism. Hitler only gave workers lip service and was backed by capitalists which is why all the major capitalists powers dragged their feet getting into WWII and continued to invest in Nazi Germany right into WWII. Capitalists also were backed fascist Pinochet and capitalism flourished in Chile while Pinochet soaked the country in the blood of the proletariat.
Psy500 2 years ago
Hitler called his "brand" National Socialism.
Soviet Union didn't drag their feet, jumping into the war on the side of Nazi Germany against Poland on Sept 17th.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
And you take Hitler's word for that? That he had the interest of the proletariat even though he was enriching the capitalist class which is why the capitalist powers dragged their feet going to way with Hitler as Hitler was rising the rate of profit for them and making them tons of money in a time when profits were scarce. Hitler was a capitalist, he protected capitalists from the market at the expense of greater exploitation of the proletariat.
Psy500 2 years ago
I do not take Hitler's word, just as I do not take the work of Stalin, his soul mate that Soviet Union was socialist. Hitler (like Stalin) was a thug, not a capitalist. Hitler accepted bribes, but was not a person who used money to influence, rather he used government to secure a steady source of bribe money.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
kick ass seabass
mropzoom 2 years ago
ayn rand was some ugly shit, bitch look a shaved ape with wilford brimley's tits
drone81 2 years ago
Very good lecture.
9432bce6 2 years ago
It's great looking at all these comments and watching the timeline of the statists' non-sequitors and out of context "points" get grinded down leaving them grabbing at straws.
rogue7135 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What if me clubbing you over the head to get your money is good for me? Why allow everything *but* physical violence? Why can't the strongest physically be free to dominate the weakest physically just as the strongest economically are free to dominate the weakest economically today?
churchofstfu 3 years ago
Because man lives by reason, not force. The use of force in society makes him unable to live, to the extent force is allowed to violate people's rights. Force makes thought irrelevant, and thus it is evil. Man survives by living independently and trading, not harming others.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
And you really think economic force is any different from physical force? You think rhethorical force is different from physical force? Well, if they are different it is only in the way that both economic force and rhethorical force are more powerful than physical force in today's world.
The only way to avoid force as long as humanity is imperfect is to regulate the use of ALL kinds of force. The free market is just like the free-for-all melee. Both are unfair, unequal, unworthy of us.
churchofstfu 3 years ago
There is no such thing as economic force. Force means physical coercion. A fist. a gun. a jail. a nuke. police. the military.
Economic power is the ability for a man to use his mind to make a great product, so great that people are willing to trade for it. Like ipods. There is no force involved there.
Paraphrasing Atlas Shrugged, you choices are whips, gun, and slaves/masters, or money. Take your pick.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
Some of the definitions of force according to Webster's online dictionary:
-strength or energy exerted or brought to bear; -capacity to persuade or convince;
-an individual or group having the power of effective action
By definition of the word, economic, intellectual and rhethorical force exist.
Through economic, intellectual and populist means one person can exert force on another, limiting their options in life. One person can make another's a living hell by application of these forces.
churchofstfu 3 years ago
You have to come up with actual examples. Right now you are talking nonsense and this is going no where.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
MoonMankkkkkk: When man does not have the right to what he produces, he loses his desire to produce.
Where did you get this ditty? You sound just like a religious fundamentalist spouting passages from the bible. Heh, heh. Dont you realize that these types of self-important talking points make the randroid religion seem so very small? I mean think about it in relation to the universe or even simple evolution. Ridiculous.
kurd55 3 years ago
I have, but then I realized how absolutely irrelevant it is. The universe no evolution will ever dispel the fact that human only act on motives. You take away those motives, they don't act.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
Heh, heh. You sound like one of those politically correct geniuses. The "all cultures are equal," crowd. In your case it's all "motives" are equal---no motive can be wrong. Self-centeredness is equal to compassion. Heh, heh. What's with you people that can't differentiate? Might be genetic or something.
kurd55 3 years ago
"In your case it's all "motives" are equal---no motive can be wrong."
I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth.
"Self-centeredness is equal to compassion."
Good lord... self-centeredness is infinitely superior to any form of compassion, according to any ethics system that places life as the standard of value.
Also, people don't work because of compassion, they work for self-centeredness, they belief that they must further their own life.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
"Good lord... self-centeredness is infinitely superior to any form of compassion, according to any ethics system that places life as the standard of value."
How many times do you deregulating assholes have to fail before you get wise to yer own BS?
Perhaps that "good lord" you mention up there will suggest to you that the ultimate capitalist sanctuary will be found on the next passing comet---and you'll be convinced by a randroid protegee to take a one-way trip.
One can only hope.
kurd55 3 years ago
"How many times do you deregulating assholes have to fail before you get wise to yer own BS?"
Try not to make personal attacks. Also, maybe if we fail once, I'll consider recanting my beliefs.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
Dearest MoonMankkkkkk:
You poor, ignorant, miserable meat-bag. What do you call the gilded age and robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Makes me wonder if you've ever cracked a book in yer life.
And what about this current mess? One the main architects being Alan Greenspan---a life-long randroid who actually had the misfortune of knowing her personally---being that he was one of the original members of her dipshit clique/religion.
Ask yer "lord" to wake you up!
kurd55 3 years ago
People take this retard seriously? From a gun to regulation? Christ. Pathetic. Capitalism does not encourage or promote competition; its total goal is the elimination of competition.
kurd55 3 years ago
I Disagree, Capitalism can not be left to run wild...it will defeat itself because of selfish, greedy men. there must be regulation. look at AIG and other capitalistic failings. why do people think that Capitalism is so great.
tls2156 3 years ago
He clearly explained why those failing were not because of greed but because of regulation.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
Actually if you look at the current crisis in capital, while the bourgeois state helped make the crisis it was well within the logical self-interests of the financial capitalists to exploit such massive speculation.
Psy500 3 years ago
That came at the threat of force by the removal of our rights, à la elitism.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
true. people chose standard oil (rockefeller) for their cars because it was the better idea. likewise, suburbs were rationally chosen. thus, they are the best. the current problems with climate change and environmental degradation are merely opportunities for technology.
otherworldz 3 years ago
outstanding!!! I am very frustrated at how mccain is basically a democrat and of course obama is the most socialist of anyone in congress or senate.......yet they act as if socialism is successfuj....its insanely annoying......bravo to a great lecture.....
bootiack 3 years ago
The logic of an objectivist is fundamentally flawed. It goes something like this:
workers organizing in trade unions and fighting for their rights and living conditions ... is 'authoritarian' and an 'initation of force' on the company.
Allowing corporations on the other hand, (who are people remember?) to exploit their workers in the pursuit of profit is not force, but the 'pursuit of happiness'.
Jimisonjons 3 years ago
Incorrect. There is nothing wrong with workers forming a union in order to negotiate with their employer. It is only when the GOVERNMENT steps in on behalf of unions that it becomes an initiation of force. As long as government stays out of the picture, negotiations between unions and companies remain free and consensual.
Freethinker82 3 years ago 5
Bourgeois Governments don't step in on behalf of unions, when bourgeois governments side with workers it is only to ensure the stability of the larger capitalist system. Employers can't possibly read the mood of the masses till you have a Paris May 1968 and the working class has immobilized the police forces and the loyalty of troops are in question.
Psy500 3 years ago
If that's true, that's not capitalism.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
It is capitalism in the sense of a system based on the accumulation of capital in the money->commodity->delta money cycle of production.
Psy500 3 years ago
No, it's not capitalism because force is used as accumulation for power, not capital.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
Nope it is used for the accumulation of capital and using power as a means to accumulate capital.
Psy500 3 years ago
That's not capitalism. Capitalism is accumulating capital by means of mutual consent by all parties trading between each other. In a civilized society, force is only sanctioned when it is in response to force. When the government makes laws to use force against the poor for the interest of the rich, it is violating their rights. That's not capitalism, that's elitism, a form of feudalism.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
Then capitalism has yet to exist and probably never will as it is impossible for capitalism to exist without forcing workers to give up surplus labor thus why capitalist (in the sense of societies build around accumulating capital in the money->commodity->delta money cycle) societies all have large armed forces that are used threated workers with violence if they collectively refuse to work (general strikes).
Psy500 3 years ago
"Then capitalism has yet to exist and probably never will"
Precisely, it never has and realistically never will, but it CAN happen and the benefits from it are almost unimaginable. One must always be a Romantic Realist, that is not to be a Cynic and believe society is doomed by default, or a Utopian who wants the impossible. Every man must work his hardest for the political system that he believes is moral. That system, as it has been proved hundreds of times, is Capitalism.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
Wait if capitalism has never existed how can capitalism have been proven hundreds of times to be moral?
Anyway you have a primitivist view of capitalism, were instead of wage workers selling their labor (proletariat) to capitalist that hold the means of production hostage, you have artisans selling the fruit of the labor to consumers.
Psy500 3 years ago
Because every capitalistic reform leads to a better economy. Every socialistic reform has done to opposite.
I'm sorry, but you have a twisted view of Capitalism. Your view is still a form of elitism where the government uses force to keep the aristocrats rich and the proletariat poor. How about an economic system where every man trades their services in mutual consent and self-interest, where the only force that can be legally done is the government in response to force? That's Capitalism.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
Like the current credit crunch were lots of money went into speculation since it was profitable. Now the US goverment is faced with the choice of either nationalizing the fictitious (bad) capital or facing a break down in the money->commodities->delta money circuit.
Psy500 3 years ago
If you actually watched the lecture, you would see that the originator of the environment that made it so profitable for subprime lending was the federal government.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
The federal goverment just amplified the drive for financial capitalist to speculate. Even if the goverment was neutral the financial capitalist would have done the same thing and the bubble would have just popped at a different time.
Why be productive in the market when you can game the market for much more capital?
Psy500 3 years ago
You don't seem to understand. The economic environment where the interest rates imposed by the Federal Reserve and the inflation regulated by the Federal Reserve made this huge demand for borrowing. What was society stressing at the time? They were stressing real estate. People should not have assumed that interest rates would not have gone up. The Federal deserve created this notion of cheap money. People assumed that housing prices would just go up and up. The Federal Reserve screwed up.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
You don't understand the root of the current crisis in capital. The Federal Reserve played a minor role as the crisis had little to do with borrowing and everything to do with speculation. Where the financial institutions lost most of their capital was in betting in the market with the loans as collateral. The crisis would have happened regardless of what the interest rates were as the capitalist only cared about the principle that they could use to advance capital.
Psy500 3 years ago
The banks would not have been stupid enough to do subprime lending if the Federal Reserve didn't make such irrational and unrealistic interest rates. If the interest rates actually reflected the inflation, it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Besides, the banks have a right to lend out money. Every person part of these banks gave them sanction to do so. They weren't encroaching on anyone's rights. The government creating regulations is a threat to our rights.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
You don't understand the incentive that created the crisis. The financial capitalists were making tons of profit through speculation through exploiting loans they owned, while a higher interest rate would have reduced their rate of profit it wouldn't have changed the fact it was basically free money for the finical capitalists and speculation offered the best returns at the time.
Psy500 3 years ago
That's exactly what I'm saying.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
But what caused this free money was not the low interest rates but the repealing of the Glass Steagall act so now there was no rules regulating the financial institutions so you had banks just issuing loans not for the interests on the loan but so it could turn that around and sell it to speculators. The end result was the market got flooded with worthless capital as financial institutions gamed the market.
Psy500 3 years ago
Again, banks have every right to make any financial mistake conceivable, even subprime lending. If people don't want their money issued to others irresponsibly then they should take their business somewhere else.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
The point of Glass Steagall was to separate the industry of banking from securities. So the people that entrust their money to banks don't have to worry about banks making risky or stupid investment to the point they collapse and take everyone that did busniess with them down with them. What we are seeing now is how due to the interconnected financial industry causes the whole industry to fail at once.
Psy500 3 years ago
The people who gave money to the banks gave sanction to those banks to do whatever they thought was financially viable with their money. There was no encroachment of rights. Putting regulations on how banks run their business is by definition a encroachment of the right of liberty.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
But the current crash proves the Glass Steagall act performed a useful function. What about the rights of the average depositor which the banks violated? What about the rights of the entire society which the banks endangered with their recluses speculation?
Psy500 3 years ago
The banks didn't violate any rights of the depositor. The depositor gave sanction to the banks using his money however they felt to. If there's one thing that people should learn from this crisis besides the fact that government regulation is bad for the economy, (they won't learn that I'm sure), is that they shouldn't deposit their money in banks that practice subprime lending. If people want competent banks then the market will provide it-Supply and Demand 101.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
The crisis was caused by deregulation, if the Glass Steagall act was still in effect the banks wouldn't have been allowed to gamble people's deposits in securities or they would have ended up in jail.
Also it was the free market the gave incentive to the banks to gamble with other people's money.
Psy500 3 years ago
You're not listening. People gave banks the permission to gamble with their money. The purpose of the government is to protect our rights. Banks have the right to do whatever they want with our money as long as we contractually give them permission to. That's the case here. The government has no right whatsoever to restrict the pursuit of happiness of the bankers, only when the bankers through fraud misuse our the money of the depositors as decided contractually.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
No the depositors didn't. The depositors entrusted the bank to provide low risk and low returns. What the banks did is like you entrusting a company to invest your money in their busniess and them simply betting the money at the horse races with no intentions of giving you any of the winning.
What the banks did was steal money from their depositors to gamble in the idea they would replay their depositors once they won.
Psy500 3 years ago
That's not true at all. Tell me any contract made between a bank and its depositors that says that the bank cannot participate in subprime lending, or if a financial crisis occurs the bank is legally obligated to ensure the return of the depositors' money.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
Subprime lending is just were the crisis started. The financial insinuations got into more trouble because they loaned money out so they could get capital to gamble with in the market since that loan sits on their accounts as a deposit plus they can sell the loan as a security.
One huge problem is the depositor took the risk of losing their deposit while the bank took most of the gains as they'd just have to pay the depositor as if it was low risk and low return.
Psy500 3 years ago
I'm sure you'd be mad if after carefully investigating a busniess and investing in it your broker decided to invest your money a high risk busniess with your money instead hoping you wouldn't notice and he could keep the extra earnings.
Psy500 3 years ago
"Capitalism is the only system that functions in a way which rewards rationality and penalizes all forms of irrationality" - Ayn Rand
It was the irrationality of the banks which led to subprime lending, not their encroachment of other men's rights.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
Subprime lending isn't the primary cause of the crisis. Also to the banks it was perfectly rations at the time, they "borrow" money from depositors to gamble in the market, then are encouraged to give out loans so it could have more money to gamble with in the market as they could sell those loans as securities for money to gamble with while having the principle in their bank account as a deposit.
Psy500 3 years ago
We're just repeating the same things over and over again and no, the banks were not being rational. The banks could not adequately ensure that the credit they were lending could be paid off.
Also, I'm seeing a bit of a paradox.
"Subprime lending isn't the primary cause of the crisis."
"Subprime lending is just were the crisis started."
Which is it?
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
The cause of a crisis and where it starts (or where you first see the signs) is not the same.
As for the rational of the banks they assumed their gambles would cover their losses in bad debt as they assumed only a small fraction of the debt would go bad and that the speculative bubbled would go on at least long enough to cover the bad debt.
Psy500 3 years ago
What causes anything is where it starts. All life starts with conception and all life is caused by it. The crisis includes the environment that made it and everything that it entails.
"As for the rational of the banks they assumed their gambles would cover their losses in bad debt as they assumed only a small fraction of the debt would go bad and that the speculative bubbled would go on at least long enough to cover the bad debt."
That was completely irrational of them to do so.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
No it is just were the problem surfaced.
Also for the banks at the time it was rational just like now it is perfectly rational for them to sit on their liquidity as they try to ride out the crisis yet them sitting on their liquidity amplifies the crisis.
Psy500 3 years ago
The reason there is elitism in the current system is the drive to accumulate capital. It is more profitable to accumulate means of production and force workers to sell their labor rather then the fruits of the labor.
Psy500 3 years ago
Then get rid of any system that uses any group to immolate themselves for anybody else.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
That is the problem, Adam Smith said the free market would only lead to liberty in a classless society, Adam Smith said that the free market itself wouldn't bring a classless society on the contrary Adam Smith said that a free market in a class system would bring a authoritarian system were workers become nothing but animals of burden.
Psy500 3 years ago
"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." - Ayn Rand
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
Socialists does not see work as the purpose of life, that the goal of humanity is to minimize work so humans can be free to pursue greater endeavours. Thus the socialist utopian ideal is one where automation totally replaces human labor and no one has to work a day in their entire lives if they don't want, freeing them to pursue arts, science, philosophy,ect. (again this is the utopian ideal, meaning in the eyes of socialist while unrealistic this would be perfect society)
Psy500 3 years ago
That would be an impossible society. When man does not have the right to what he produces, he loses his desire to produce. You can think. That's something that can't be said about most of the socialists. Do realize that socialism is an impossibility because humans first motivation is their own happiness and not others'. The perfect society that is possible is one were no government of that society would ever sanction the initiation of force, and where men have the right to their own happiness.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago
You didn't read what I wrote. "Thus the socialist utopian ideal is one where automation totally replaces human labor..." Meaning we are talking about a goal of computers and machinary would be doing all the labor not humans, human labor would be obsolete, even the work of running a busniess would be automated by computers so humans just collectively live of the fruits of the labor machinary they built with their labor.
Psy500 3 years ago
That would be a society where the upholding of rights is the prime motive of the government and no man or collective could use force in any form or sense against another man. Essentially, this would be a democracy with rights always upheld, and capitalism as the one economic system that allows people the right to their own happiness as long as they don't encroach on other people's right to happiness. Don't be a romanticist. Be a romantic realist, striving for a perfect world that is possible.
MoonMankkkkkk 3 years ago