American Capitalist Facts


#1

Care to explain to me? And don’t (deleted) me with “They earned it.”

YouTube - Capitalism - A Lesson for American Patriots

Short answers to dumb questions before you start getting mad.

Anyone can get rich if they work hard enough?

Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, “worked hard” and “got rich”. Then he died. His three kids are now worth over 12 billion dollars each!

How hard did they work, climbing out of their mama and birth canal and all?

The Walton family need never lift a finger again…their fortune will grow inevitably.

When her parents die, Bill and Melinda Gates; little girl is going to be one of the richest individuals on the planet…did she work really hard for that money?

There are now hundreds of members of the Rockefeller family…all of whom are wealthier than 99% of all Americans…did they work “really hard” for their inheritances?

Capitalism is a big casino; for every huge winner there are tens of millions of losers…and work (hard, easy, or non-existent) has very little to do with it.

Do you think its fair for a doctor to be paid the same as a janitor?

Why not? If there were no janitors, housekeepers, sanitation workers, what would happen? You either have to do all that clean-up yourself or things would get filthy, germs would breed, you would get sick and die.

As a matter of fact, death rates started to decline in the second half of the 19th century…when medicine was still mostly quackery. Why? Because major European cities started building sewer systems and people stopped living in their own (deleted).

Every person who makes a genuine contribution to society deserves a living wage…an income sufficient to live with dignity.

We should have the freedom to get as rich as we want to.

Where do you think riches come from? Do they fall out of the sky?

You cannot create wealth out of thin air. The wealth that society as a whole produces is finite…a dollar in your pocket means a dollar less in someone elses pocket. Behind every rich person stand hundreds or thousands or even millions of poor people…losers in the capitalist casino.

So you are in the same ethical position as the old Confederate slave-owner…who thought he should have the “freedom” to buy as many slaves as he wanted to.

Are you willing to fight, kill, and even give up your own life for that “freedom”?

Communism is dead

So why are you talking to me? If communism were really dead, you wouldn’t waste a second of your time talking.

What you’re really saying is that you hope that communism will “stay dead”.

We shall see.

If communism and socialism are so great, then why are all socialist countries living in dire poverty?

They were even worse off before they had socialism. Places like Russia and China were (deleted) still living in the middle ages before their revolutions; socialism created their modern economies out of nothing.

There’s really only one semi-socialist country left – Cuba – and if you want to compare it with some place, compare it to Jamaica or the Dominican Republic or even Costa Rica…places where many (most?) people still live like it was 1850.

It’s true that capitalism has been restored in Russia and China – which is where that “communism is dead” stuff comes from. But that didn’t happen because people wanted it to…there were objective material conditions that caused that to happen.

It’s a complicated question; but the short version is that communism can only come into existence after a capitalist economy has developed as far as it can. Thus the people in Russia, China, etc. never had communism even though the ruling parties called themselves “communists”. What they really had in those places was something they called “socialism”…but which was actually a kind of capitalism without capitalists. Eventually, the party bosses donated their red flags and membership cards to a museum and became openly capitalist themselves.

In the real world, things are not always what they seem.

**Communism goes against human nature, while Capitalism encourages the following.

Wrath, Greed, Sloth, Pride, Lust, Envy, and Gluttony**.


#2

You are interesting. But your points are rather dull. If you assume that what we have in America is true capitalism you are ignorant. We have corporatism in America. Capitalism in its purest form is free of regulation from a central authority, like the government. In a purely capitalist economy, people get rich because their product or service is valued more than an inferior good. You must be a good businessman to get rich in a purely capitalist society. In a corporatist society this is not the case. Because the goal of a corporation is to privatize profits and socialize losses. Companies that do poorly get subsidized by the government rather than folding. But i digress.

The main argument that i think you are proposing here is that capitalism is unfair because the rich have more wealth than the poor. But the system that you are pushing for, that is public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning is inherently flawed. The fact is that there will always be poor people. Either the government can make everyone poor or the market can allocate the resources. The best we can hope for is being able to take care of those who are less fortunate than ourselves, which is not possible if we all are less fortunate. Tyranny is the political equivalent of socialism as representative government is the political equivalent of the market economy. That is to say you cannot reconcile socialism with the constitution.

“Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.” - Ludwig von Mises


#3

I am gonna just briefly touch on this.

Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, “worked hard” and “got rich”. Then he died. His three kids are now worth over 12 billion dollars each!

How hard did they work, climbing out of their mama and birth canal and all?

The Walton family need never lift a finger again…their fortune will grow inevitably.

When her parents die, Bill and Melinda Gates; little girl is going to be one of the richest individuals on the planet…did she work really hard for that money?

There are now hundreds of members of the Rockefeller family…all of whom are wealthier than 99% of all Americans…did they work “really hard” for their inheritances?

One can argue that yes they do work hard to keep their respective fortunes high. They are not just sitting on their butts waiting for the money to come to them. They work just like any other American to maintain what wealth they have. The gates are giving away over half of their furouen when they did to their charity so not their child will not be one of the richest in the world. With what wealth she is left she will either work to maintain and grow that wealth or will let it dwindle to nothingness.

Just becasue a few work hard and got luck and made it rich does not mean they should be punished for it or be made to pay more because “they can afford it”. I believe in individual responsibility if a person can work to earn a living then they do not deserve it. No one deserves to be expected to take care of others who are to lazy to make something of themselves.


#4

:rolleyes::asleep:


#5

First:

That, though big industry in its earliest stage created free competition, it has now outgrown free competition;

that, for big industry, competition and generally the individualistic organization of production have become a fetter which it must and will shatter;

that, so long as big industry remains on its present footing, it can be maintained only at the cost of general chaos every seven years, each time threatening the whole of civilization and not only plunging the proletarians into misery but also ruining large sections of the bourgeoisie;

hence, either that big industry must itself be given up, which is an absolute impossibility, or that it makes unavoidably necessary an entirely new organization of society in which production is no longer directed by mutually competing individual industrialists but rather by the whole society operating according to a definite plan and taking account of the needs of all.

Second: That big industry, and the limitless expansion of production which it makes possible, bring within the range of feasibility a social order in which so much is produced that every member of society will be in a position to exercise and develop all his powers and faculties in complete freedom.

It thus appears that the very qualities of big industry which, in our present-day society, produce misery and crises are those which, in a different form of society, will abolish this misery and these catastrophic depressions.

We see with the greatest clarity:

(i) That all these evils are from now on to be ascribed solely to a social order which no longer corresponds to the requirements of the real situation; and

(ii) That it is possible, through a new social order, to do away with these evils altogether.


#6

#7

I only got half way through that screed. What a maroon.
He said, in his intro, that he’s going to look forward to debating with conservatives.
Rots of ruck, is all I have to say…
…for the time being, anyway.
I MAY take him on, but he sounds rather boring, and not worth a great deal of my time. I tired ages ago of attempting to enlighten the ignorant. They don’t WANT to be enlightened.
It’s a waste of time.


#8

Luckily for me I don’t envy people who are rich. It’s a conservative thing.


#9

This is in the “Money Talk” thread, but should be in the “Liberalism On Display” thread.

I see he has the “Hammer & Cycle” in his sig. The fate of the old Soviet Union should give him a clue. :grin:

.


#10

Same here.


#11

But don’t you understand, Bucks, they just didn’t have the right people in control.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/SusannaHarriff/Smilies/sarcasm.gif


#12

It’s a complicated question; but the short version is that communism can only come into existence after a capitalist economy has developed as far as it can. Thus the people in Russia, China, etc. never had communism even though the ruling parties called themselves “communists”. What they really had in those places was something they called “socialism”…but which was actually a kind of capitalism without capitalists. Eventually, the party bosses donated their red flags and membership cards to a museum and became openly capitalist themselves.

In the real world, things are not always what they seem.

Communism goes against human nature, while Capitalism encourages the following.

Wrath, Greed, Sloth, Pride, Lust, Envy, and Gluttony.

No, it’s a rather simple question. Both systems are problematic when human nature gets involved. All the seven deadly sins can rear their ugly heads under both systems. There is always someone better, faster, smarter, more able then you. So which system best takes care of all?

Socialism, Communism, Progressivism call it anything you like always ends up the same way. Those that do are punished for doing more. They lose any extras earned through the course of their work. Those that don’t, are rewarded for doing less. The “doers” eventually get tired of supporting everyone and figures out they get the same as the next guy for doing less. Everyone equal? BS! There is always a group that somehow puts it’s self in position to decide who gets what. Their payment for that “extra” responsibility? Jusssst a bit more then everyone else. As the system begins to fail due to the lack of productivity the job gets worse so the payments naturally go up to make up for it. Protection is needed to just in case the malcontents act up. It just keeps on escalating until everyone is being watched, controlled and working on some kind of quota system. It never ends well.

Capitalism, true Capitalism on the other hand rewards people for their efforts and achievements. You work as much as you decide you want to and as hard as you want to. You either reap the benefits or pay the price, so do your children. Parents, for the most part, want to make the lives their children lead better then theirs was. Some are just better or luckier at it then others. The makers of products or suppliers of services have to set their prices by what the market will allow. Payments for workers are figured into it. Good Capitalists pay their workers a fair wage and have the edge at making it due the loyalty. Greedy ones lose workers and customers. Loyalty, productivity and profits go down. Those that are not capable of earning a living or taking care of them selves are taken care of through Government programs and Charitable organizations. There are just as many stories of Capitalisms giving power as there are of the greed. The stories of the greed though are repeated constantly and embellished on as time moves forward, the good ones seem to fade. What your don’t hear about are the anonymous gifts, the random acts of kindness.

Lets run down the list shall we. Yours will be listed first, mine second.
Pride: One system eventually beats the pride out of you so you don’t overshadow your fellows. The other rewards the pride in your work. To much will have a detramental effect.

Envy: One system keeps you suspicious of what your neighbors have. The other, envy is a detriment to forward progress.

Gluttony: Will kill both systems just as fast. Though the lack of the rewards in your system will make you take as much as you can when the chance comes up.

Lust: Yours is fraught with lust. Everyone thinking everyone else has something just a bit better. Lust in ours can actually make you work harder, albeit for the wrong reasons. In the end it will hurt you. In the end it will kill both systems.

Anger: Pretty much the same as all the above combined. Never good.

Greed: Yup, I admit it. Some Capitalists are greedy. Bet there’s more with a giving nature then there are greedy ones though.

Sloth: Your system actually encourages it. Mine, it will take you out of the game.

So, which side is a better supporter of the sins???


#13

Greed - wealth doesn’t necessarily promote greed. Some of the greediest people are the poor.


#14

True! I wonder just how many of the “poor” in he, she, it’s system would have cars, cell phones and flat screen TVs.


#15

And $200.00 sneakers. :wink:

Good point. One I always try to make when people talk about “American”, so called, poor.

.


#16

Some Interesting points there. I do admit.

A National Bolshevik State works better than anything you can bring up. Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.

It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association.

Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.

In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.

Many of you ask, why couldn’t this be done earlier?

No. Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations.

Private property has not always existed.

When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order.

So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production – so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of societys productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development.

The agrarian Middle Ages give us the baron and the serf; the cities of the later Middle Ages show us the guildmaster and the journeyman and the day laborer; the 17th century has its manufacturing workers; the 19th has big factory owners and proletarians.

It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production.

Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.

Capitalism is a broken system that works only for the NOW period. Capitalism is obsolete. It’s almost saying “Why care about the future generations? What have future generations ever done for us?”


#17

There is no group more greedy and selfish than Communist’s and no group with more Racist’s than American Liberals.

If these losers spent half the time working that they do seething with resentment over others who have earned prosperity they would be fighting to restore true Capitalism instead of trying to kill whats left of it.


#18

:yeahthat:


#19

Fine, you spend time in your own oppressed class for awhile. Enjoy!

There will always be private property. Your own body. The only way to remove that is to remove free will and independent thought. At some point in your rantings you mentioned slavery as an example of how bad the Capitalist system is. Now you say it will be necessary to support yours. Eventually, the oppressed will strike back and revolt. You will have to wipe them out for the good of the State or lose everything. You win, everyone drops a class. You lose, there is chaos and a vacuum is created.

As in everything there are cycles Capitalism. Ebbs and flows. Markets go up and down. Fortunes are made and lost. It clears out the dead wood. Corrects any over or under value. A true Capitalist system is self sustaining, so long as Government stays out of it and doesn’t try to “help”. Check out the history of the “roaring 20’s”. Coolidge got Government the hell out of the way and America flourished, until Government got greedy again.

As in nature, the markets abhor a vacuum. Empty space wants to be filled. Needs want to be met. Who do you want to fill those needs? A small group or individuals who “know best” or the natural flow of human ingenuity? What works on it’s own or what has to be propped up through the unnatural means of falsehoods and on the sweat of others by force. Never mind, I can already hear your standard talking points.


#20

Shucks, I try to copy them. (Although I haven’t been doing such a hot job of that lately. lol)
[Btw, I apologize for my last screed. Uncalled for.]