• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

As Corporate Profits Soar, Workers are Making Less!

sookster said:
Capitalism is intrinsically flawed. It promotes individualism at all costs,
Click to expand...
That's where you are wrong. Capitalism promotes morality in its very foundation, it has been misconstrued to be the promotion of the individual at all cost. Thats the evil maximum made the most esteemed value.


It is time to Wake Up people, and see that we need an alternative. It doesn't have to be Communism, it doesn't have to be Socialism either, as there is an ideal out there that uses "The Scientific Method for social concern." That to me, is what makes the most sense. It is called The Resource Based Economy, and it is being developed by The Venus Project.
Click to expand...

1) Zeitgeist was full of so much misinformation or half truths, and pseudo-intelligentsia that its not even funny. It was worth watching for the small truths in it, but you had to already be informed to know what those were
2) The Venus Project is SOCIALISM albeit much more thoughtout than socialism was in its inception. Perhaps, if the Venus Project can actually be carried out, the type of scientifically planned society that socialist hoped would be achieved. However, the Venus Project can only be carried out in a non-dictatorial way, a way most socialist would be appaled by and you should as well, if its done done were civilization does not exist, Tabula Rasa
 
Last edited:
You obviously don't know what the venus project is. It uses the resource based economy model. It isn't socialism.
Capitalism doesn't promote morality at its foundation. Are you serious? You don't understand, capitalism rewards the person that obtains profit no matter the cost. It doesn't matter what you put in place, people will always abuse it.
 
sookster said:
You obviously don't know what the venus project is. It uses the resource based economy model. It isn't socialism.
Click to expand...

No, you just don't know what socialism is. Socialism = planned society by technocrats to use resources in the most efficient and just way possible.

Capitalism doesn't promote morality at its foundation. Are you serious? You don't understand, capitalism rewards the person that obtains profit no matter the cost. It doesn't matter what you put in place, people will always abuse it.
Click to expand...

And you have never read The Wealth of Nations. I used to think like you, until I bothered actually educating myself by reading the founding principals which include:

The Wealth of Nations
The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Utilitarianism as described by John Stuart Mills
Democracy in America

Just to name a few.

sookster said:
Why do you think Capitalism is the holy grail of ideas?
Click to expand...

Capitalism isn't the holy grail of ideas. Its simply an extension of freedom. I don't like what real operative capitalism has created, because its not capitalism as it was envisioned by its pioneers. For instance, many people who are fervently capitalistic today say all regulation and all government welfare are bad. Hayke and Friedman, two pro-capitalist who many say turned them onto the idea of capitalism, disagree. I do not believe pure capitalism can exist because it will eventually be over turned by those with power to corporatism, if not facism which has been the trend for the last 150years.

Let me ask you something else. Was Bismark an autocrat? What sort of programs did Bismark support?


sookster said:
What are these half-truths that the zeitgeist movement promoted?
Click to expand...

The entire section on Religion, part of its explanation of money, 9/11
 
First, Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism assume that the resources on this planet are unlimited, this model does not. So no, it isn't Socialism by any stretch of the imagination. Also, socialism is where people work for the benefit of the community. All wages are the same, to an effect, there doesn't have to be a currency because everyone is working for everyone else. With that said, I think you definition of socialism is way off.

Just because you can spit out books that you read, doesn't mean you deduced information accurately or understand its concepts. On top of that, the authors themselves could be flawed. You need more information to back up those statements.

Capitalism isn't an extension of freedom. Sure, for some. But for most, it is an extension of slavery. People are out there, murdering people just to survive, and there are people that have to live in those neighborhoods. In essence, they are trapped with no where to go, and it is everything to do with this system.

What is your evidence that these sections are half-truths?
 
sookster said:
First, Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism assume that the resources on this planet are unlimited, this model does not.
Click to expand...

You are completely clueless.

Also, socialism is where people work for the benefit of the community. All wages are the same, to an effect, there doesn't have to be a currency because everyone is working for everyone else. With that said, I think you definition of socialism is way off.
Click to expand...

The Venus Project gets rid of currency, and everyone works for the betterment of society as a whole in the Venus project as well. Sure, people aren't told what jobs to do, but thats the only difference.

Capitalism isn't an extension of freedom. Sure, for some. But for most, it is an extension of slavery. People are out there, murdering people just to survive, and there are people that have to live in those neighborhoods. In essence, they are trapped with no where to go, and it is everything to do with this system.
Click to expand...

And the system we have right now is not capitalism

What is your evidence that these sections are half-truths?
Click to expand...

I would have to list to you over 100 books that you would simply dismiss like the couple that I listed above.

You have been taken in by the high minded ideals and goals of that movie. Its noble and actually possible to do those goal, its still socialism and can only be done, without dictatorship, in a newly created society.
 
Once again, you provide no evidence for your statements. So really, your statements have absolutely no merit. Nice try, but you failed miserably.
 
sookster said:
Once again, you provide no evidence for your statements. So really, your statements have absolutely no merit. Nice try, but you failed miserably.
Click to expand...

The evidence is listed in 100s of books that you won't bother reading. Its not my job to educate you, I gave you a list of books that are the foundation of capitalism, and you dismiss them. Why should I bother doing it again?
 
No moron. You said I was completely clueless, and you refused to say why. Which in essence, does not refute what I said about socialism originally. You don't state why the system we have now isn't capitalism. And um, just saying there are 100 books that dismiss this idea, doesn't really mean anything.
 
sookster said:
No moron. You said I was completely clueless, and you refused to say why. Which in essence, does not refute what I said about socialism originally. You don't state why the system we have now isn't capitalism. And um, just saying there are 100 books that dismiss this idea, doesn't really mean anything.
Click to expand...

Capitalism recognizes scarcity, thus supply (this is all goods) helps determine the prices and that prices, if left alone, will help make a just distribution. Socialism recognizes scarcity and says the government should intervene to make scarcity less pronounced on the whole of society and hoped that one day experts would find a way to make scarcity irrelevant. Communism recognizes the problems that socialism focuses on; however, communism states that only a violent over throw of the system and the replacement of community owned everything will result in a equal distribution of scarce goods. If you don't take my word for it, go read some books.

The system we have now isn't capitalism because capitalism only exist when people are to trade what ever they want for whatever they can. When the government steps in and says, you cannot trade this product, then it ceases to be capitalism.

Capitalism, as stated by Adam Smith (the finder of capitalism) does not mean the government doesn't have a role to play in the market, and on the contrary, has the moral obligation to ensure anarchy does not ensue and people aren't allowed to freely harm others (this includes Fraud). Capitalism and a free market are perfectly capable of existence of social(government) services and some regulations. Its not consistent, and ceases to even exist, when these regulations and social services are used prevent entry into market or used to promote 1 market over another.
 
Okay first, notice how when you defined Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism, they all dealt with scarce goods right? That means what I said was indeed accurate, and what you said was utterly completely wrong on how I was clueless about Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism.

So Capitalism in your view is when businesses trade whatever they want for whatever they can. And you think if businesses followed this model, people as well as the environment would not be exploited? If you think this, then why?
 
sookster said:
Okay first, notice how when you defined Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism, they all dealt with scarce goods right? That means what I said was indeed accurate, and what you said was utterly completely wrong on how I was clueless about Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism.
Click to expand...

Fundamental scarcity only exist if things can run out. This is acknowledge by all those systems.

So Capitalism in your view is when businesses trade whatever they want for whatever they can. And you think if businesses followed this model, people as well as the environment would not be exploited? If you think this, then why?
Click to expand...

Capitalism has the clause "as long as harm is not being done." Environmental harm has harmful affects on non-consenting 3rd parties. Capitalism can exist, and in fact demands, that there be some limits. No serious capitalist promotes Laissez-faire

You also need to understand that Capitalism only exist when parties consent, that Capitalism isn't a zero sum game, and wages, like everything else, is subject to supply and demand of labor. When someone agrees to work for say $5/hr they do so because they see some benefit from it. The only time this is not the case is when capitalism, or free trade, isn't allowed to function. For instance, when a cartel or monopoly exist like when a woman is prevented from braiding hair in her house because she doesn't have a cosmetology license http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/51697320-79/hair-clayton-license-utah.html.csp
 
Last edited:
I highly disagree with you. When attempting to understand these concepts, all along the way it is assumed that some resources are present. I do not see anywhere in those doctrines that spells out when absolutely every single resource runs out. Therefore, resources are limitless.

Well, there are some people out there obviously that do not think dumping some waste in the water supply is doing harm. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it correct? With your statement of Capitalism being when businesses trade whatever they want for whatever they can, doesn't that provide more incentive to break the rules of the game a bit? Because let's say a company were to dump some toxic waste into a river instead of spending money on proper disposal methods, this cuts on the cost, which in turn allows them to produce more. This in turn effects prices, giving them an edge on the competition.
 
I will continue this later, something came up. Keep posting though as much as you wish.
 
sookster said:
Well, there are some people out there obviously that do not think dumping some waste in the water supply is doing harm. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it correct?
Click to expand...

Its indirect 3rd party harm so its hard to see, or ever comprehend, that the harm exist; however, those harmful affects are known by all now and its done strictly to save money and skirt regulations. Its not done to charge less for those products, especially now since global demand and supply largely are how prices are determined.

With your statement of Capitalism being when businesses trade whatever they want for whatever they can, doesn't that provide more incentive to break the rules of the game a bit?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why in every place where there are excessive controls on the trade of goods, a black market is created. America was financed in its early years by smuggling. In fact, many of the founders were smugglers themselves.

Because let's say a company were to dump some toxic waste into a river instead of spending money on proper disposal methods, this cuts on the cost, which in turn allows them to produce more. This in turn effects prices, giving them an edge on the competition.
Click to expand...

And doing this should, and rightfully is illegal as well as being immoral. I think we should have tougher stances on these issues, the consequence should be prison sentences not fines (go Ron Paul go); however, such regulations and consequences are perfectly in-line with capitalism and free trade.
 
Last edited:
xpiher said:
For instance, many people who are fervently capitalistic today say all regulation and all government welfare are bad. Hayke and Friedman, two pro-capitalist who many say turned them onto the idea of capitalism, disagree.
Click to expand...
Not all government regulation. But all government regulations that are not in the Constitution. Today that includes a great deal of what government does. If the departments and the regulations fulfill a role that is approved for government by the US Constitution then there is a limited place for them.
And government welfare is bad. Hayek and Friedman notwithstanding. They are not allowed powers to the Federal government. Therefore they are extra-constitutional.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Companies are reducing staff, hiring temp workers that have lower pay and streamlining inefficient production.
Click to expand...

Temporary workers typically cost a business more than permanent hires. But the temps can be move back out of a company when the work is no longer there for them to do. It is much harder to fire a permanent employee. Not legally perhaps. But "morally".
 
I wasn't talking to you.

Its indirect 3rd party harm so its hard to see, or ever comprehend, that the harm exist; however, those harmful affects are known by all now and its done strictly to save money and skirt regulations. Its not done to charge less for those products, especially now since global demand and supply largely are how prices are determined.
Click to expand...

It still effects competition. If the company decides to lower prices with their added supply, they can. They can also decide to not lower prices, and in essence have a surplus on product. They then can start cutting on the costs of production. Either way, it is beneficial for the company.

Yes, that's why in every place where there are excessive controls on the trade of goods, a black market is created. America was financed in its early years by smuggling. In fact, many of the founders were smugglers themselves.
Click to expand...

So...why is this a good thing again? We do not put any controls on the market, greed takes over. If we put excessive controls, a black market is created, which has the same consequences with the added bit that you aren't paying any taxes on the product. So then you would argue, it is in the balance of regulation. Which in turn, doesn't address the fact that people who are addicted to money and power will break the rules one way or another.

And doing this should, and rightfully is illegal as well as being immoral. I think we should have tougher stances on these issues, the consequence should be prison sentences not fines (go Ron Paul go); however, such regulations and consequences are perfectly in-line with capitalism and free trade.
Click to expand...

First, there will never be tougher stances on this issue because of lobbying. "However, such regulations and consequences (I am assuming fines, correct?) are perfectly in-line with capitalism and free trade." Once again, you do not state how this is a good thing. So fining someone instead of locking them up is somehow good? Or maybe you mean that locking someone up for dumping waste would be in line with capitalism and free trade? Either way, this doesn't address the fact that there is a financial incentive to break the rules, there always will be, therefore there will always be someone taking advantage of people and the environment.
 
ItsAProcess said:
We don't, we hate companies who make a profit and then refuse to share that profit with the workers who make sure the company keeps making profits!
Click to expand...

Would you be overjoyed if profits were down? And they do share the profit in the form of salary, benefits etc., These profits are a good thing but I do agree that it needs to start paying off in terms of unemployment soon. Maybe not immediately, but we should see steady growth in the next couple of quarters. It would be irrresponsible for any company to distribute all their profits to their employees. Companies have to build up their reserves and give reason for banks to loan them money to start new projects. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. It is a process. Long term growth is what we want.
 
Misterveritis said:
Not all government regulation. But all government regulations that are not in the Constitution. Today that includes a great deal of what government does. If the departments and the regulations fulfill a role that is approved for government by the US Constitution then there is a limited place for them.
Click to expand...

The EPA meets that requirement FYI.

And government welfare is bad. Hayek and Friedman notwithstanding. They are not allowed powers to the Federal government. Therefore they are extra-constitutional.
Click to expand...

Hayek said that capitalism can be maintained with extensive systems of social welfare, Freidman said that they were counter productive expect for some limited cases (public works projects for example). But I've never been one to give any validity to strict consitutionalist argument because the founders weren't strict constitutionalist themselves.

sookster;1059582299 So...why is this a good thing again? We do not put any controls on the market said:
The reason its a good thing to decentralize the economy, trade, and all walks of life is because the abuses of a few do not have a determental impact to the whole. Usually, as soon as a company is found out to be doing wrong, they are boycotted in a Capitalistic society, which froces them to change their ways. The vast majority of people aren't only motived by economic factors.

But your contention with capitalism isn't actually with capitalism, its with Human nature. Since its human nature to put yourself and those you know before everyone else, the system needs to be set up to provide a bulkwalk against those types of abuses. In a Socialist and autocratic governments (this includes the Venus Project), the worst people typically make it to the top and impose their will on the masses.



First, there will never be tougher stances on this issue because of lobbying.
Click to expand...

Which is why the government should stay out of the system as much as possible to prevent the grants of privilege

"However, such regulations and consequences (I am assuming fines, correct?) are perfectly in-line with capitalism and free trade." Once again, you do not state how this is a good thing. So fining someone instead of locking them up is somehow good?
Click to expand...

I said that we should have tougher penalties. If you knowingly poison a water supply, or it happened because you didn't follow the rules, you should go to jail and the company should be fined.

Either way, this doesn't address the fact that there is a financial incentive to break the rules, there always will be, therefore there will always be someone taking advantage of people and the environment.
Click to expand...

There's always incentive to break the rules regardless what type of society you have set up. It human nature to lie, cheat, and steal one's way to the top. The Venus Project is no different, in fact, there is even more motive to do so. Imagine the amount of power a person would wield if everyone's lively-hood depended on them (the state)!

jambalaya said:
Would you be overjoyed if profits were down? And they do share the profit in the form of salary, benefits etc.,
Click to expand...

No, those are part of the operating cost. Profit is determined after that. The only people being given a large single share in profits are CEOs, which is counter productive. For the most part they already make a crap load of money and they aren't likely to reinvest that money into the company. But lets look at it from a macro-economic scale. What is better for society as a whole, the top 20% getting more money, or the bottom 80% getting more money?

Now lets look at it on a micro-economic scale. Lets say a company makes high end cars and gets enough profit they feel the CEO should get 150million. He gets that money, but instead of keeping it all, he gives half it away, evenly, to 1000 employees. Those employees can now afford the car the company makes and some of them buy it, making the company more profitable.
 
Oh my god...ANOTHER one of these threads?

Here...

COMPRNFB_Max_630_378.png


and here...

COMPRMS_Max_630_378.png



CAN WE ALL GO HOME NOW?
 
Do you know if the charts showing real compensation levels include employer covered health care costs, retirement funding and other non direct (ie wages and salary) compensation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom