- Joined
- Mar 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,974
- Reaction score
- 1,047
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yea, pretty much - ignorance is bliss for the slow-witted and the closed-minded.
Childish fail.
:failpail:
Yea, pretty much - ignorance is bliss for the slow-witted and the closed-minded.
No, I think it is appropriate to have that discussion in another thread because it is rather involved, and not only that, this one is a rather involved topic itself.
Having said that however, what I think needs to be done in addition to having a markets in which government interference is kept to a minimum, would be to put more of an emphasis on education. That would entail creating a superb class of teachers in society. This could be done by training teachers the way we currently train doctors, in that it would require an additional four to five years of training before one could teach. It would mean setting high admission standards into the profession of teachers, currently like those of medical doctors. It would mean that persons wanting to teach would have to demonstrate that they have the quality of compassion and are genuinely concerned about the well being of society. It would mean that candidates would have to demonstrate that they can teach all types of students before they would be allowed to teach. It would mean that candidates would have to demonstrate that they are able and willing to instill a sense of compassion, sharing, and social responsibility in students and that they set that example themselves before they would be allowed to teach. It would mean increasing the level of financial compensation of teachers to be on the level of what doctors currently receive. It would also mean that such a class of educators should have greater impact on the political system. That would mean that in addition to the two party system putting forward candidates for President of the United States, that this class of teachers would be able to put forward a third option and that campaign would be given the same visibility and funding that the current two major political parties have.
It would also mean more funding for schools, and not having teachers burdened with more students than they can properly educate.
That is where I would start.
That sentiment is not confined to libertarians.
Relative to systems that are based on the notion of sharing and social responsibility.
Thats great but nothing that you have presented here has confirmed that Capitalism causes humans to be greedy and/or increase hatred. You presented some half truths and want me to ignore that they are only half truths.
The reality is that in American society today theres a lot of selfless sharing going on. We dont sound like a greedy hateful country at all. Capitalism hasnt at all harmed our ability to help our neighbors. So quit this propaganda parrot campaign.
Which country is most charitable? The USA -- and Myanmar
"•The United States is the only country to be ranked in the top 10 for all three areas of giving behavior.
•The U.S. score has increased from 61% to 64% this year."
Netherlands is #12 and Denmark #18
https://www.cafonline.org/pdf/CAF_WGI2014_Report_1555AWEBFinal.pdf
Gee, another poll spammed by leftists with nothing better to do than skew the results of an online poll. :roll:
Here are the real results, if anyone is interested. Looks like the "nos" have it, not a big surprise.
View attachment 67181230
Democracy.Hitler to Stalin: The most murderous regimes in the world | Daily Mail Online
What is the one thing these regimes do NOT have in common?
Democracy.
:2razz:
While I would admit that it's an involved discussion, I suspect that all you want here in this thread is a reaffirmation of your basic premise which is that capitalism causes an increase in hatred in humans, and frankly, I think that's not the case. The people will bring to capitalism what's in their hearts and minds. Capitalism doesn't cause humans to hate, nor to love, nor to empathize, or not. How do you justify the attributing an emotional response to an economic system?
“Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions.”
The thing is, capitalism runs on profits. And profits are optimized when they’re monopolized. A good capitalist will try to monopolize the means of production therefore maximizing profits. And when profits are monopolized then you are very likely to get inequality because only a handful of people own the means of production. So capitalism has a natural tendency towards monopolization because capitalists naturally want to maximize profits.
Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC-Berkeley, has been doing just that for years. And according to his research, U.S. income inequality has been increasing steadily since the 1970s, and now has reached levels not seen since 1928.
Fed by antagonism toward President Obama, resentment toward changing racial demographics and the economic rift between rich and poor, the number of so-called hate groups and antigovernment organizations in the nation has continued to grow, according to a report released Wednesday by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The center, which has kept track of such groups for 30 years, recorded 1,018 hate groups operating last year.
The number of groups whose ideology is organized against specific racial, religious, sexual or other characteristics has risen steadily since 2000, when 602 were identified, the center said. Antigay groups, for example, have risen to 27 from 17 in 2010.
Inequality also raises political challenges because it breed social resentment and generates politcal instability.
Capitalism leverages the greed in humans to fuel productivity. However, greed is based on selfishness, which produces hatred of others.
As such, has the advance in capitalism resulted in an increase in hatred in the human race?
Capitalism creates huge imbalances with some people having no wealth at all. That is a problem.
Capitalism creates huge imbalances with some people having no wealth at all. That is a problem.
Capitalism creates huge imbalances with some people having no wealth at all. That is a problem.
yeah and communist countries have no poor
:lamo
The short answer is yes. Competition for resources which are controlled by a small fraction of the world's population and artificial scarcity created by this same group causes hatred.
Since you don't believe me, here's what Adam Smith had to say
Many experts have observed that capitalism creates vast income inequality
Is Wealth and Income Inequality Inevitable in a Capitalist System? | Pragmatic Capitalism
Marx also noted that because capitalists want to maximize profit, they are motivated to keep wages as low as possible. The result is income inequality.
So, there is indeed support to the notion that capitalism produces vast income inequality.
There is also support to the notion that income inequality is on the rise. Here is something from Pew Research
U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928 | Pew Research Center
At the same time there is a rise in the number of hate groups
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/number-of-us-hate-groups-on-the-rise-report-says.html
So at the very least there is a correlation in the rise in hate groups and the rise in income inequality.
The OECD report explicitly links income inequality to resentment
https://books.google.com/books?id=c...hy inequality keeps rising resentment&f=false
So there you go. There is indeed support to the notion that capitalism has increased hatred.
Class in America: Mobility, measured | The Economist
So what if rich people have more money than poor people in 2014 | Fox NewsThis is how the left sees the market: a zero-sum game.
If someone makes money, he took it from everyone else. The more the rich have, the less others have. It's as if the economy is a pie that's already on the table, waiting to be carved. The bigger the piece the rich take, the less that's left for everyone else.
The economy is just a fight over who gets how much. But this is absurd.
Bill Gates took a huge slice of pie, but he didn't take it from me. By starting Microsoft, he baked millions of new pies. He made the rest of the world richer, too.
So what are you purporting?