The club has 53 members. 5/3 of girls, 3/5 of boys are from

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an interesting topic for a separate discussion. IMO, capitalism is the best system possible. It allows people to do for themselves what _they_ think is good for them and not what some bureaucrat in a state or federal department considers good for "the people".
And "I will never think that is wrong!" ;)
Another point: the US has the best private universities in the world, but some of the worst public schools in the developed world. Could it be the case of markets being more efficient than bureaucrats ?:)
 
This is an interesting topic for a separate discussion. IMO, capitalism is the best system possible. It allows people to do for themselves what _they_ think is good for them and not what some bureaucrat in a state or federal department considers good for "the people".
And "I will never think that is wrong!" ;)
Lev,
Capitalism only works for a selected few-the rich.
Capitalism creates poverty, racism, poor schools- especially for the poor-and so many other bad things. As a country/world we never do anything that is in the interest of the people. How can that be a good system?
 
IMO, capitalism...allows people to do for themselves what _they_ think is good for them and not what some bureaucrat in a state or federal department considers good for "the people".
I think that you're talking about democracy and/or personal freedoms. Capitalism is an economic system based on capital. Once a party gains entry to that system, said party tends to seek monopoly power (in both the commercial and labor markets), which tends toward less personal freedom, not more.
 
Capitalism creates poverty, racism, poor schools- especially for the poor-and so many other bad things.
So mercantilistic economies were a paradise (of monopolies, slavery, and zero-sum thinking)? (Note: I'm not denying that these things have also existed in less-than-entirely-free capitalistic economies.)

As a country/world we never do anything that is in the interest of the people.
"Never"? Really? Things have gotten immeasurably worse in all aspects of existence in the last two or three hundred years? You'd rather go back to the Middle Ages, when (apparently) things were good and rulers cared most about the least of their citizens? And the Inquisition only sought to help subjects live their best lives?

I'm not saying that the current system is without flaws, or that we don't need government to intervene in various areas and various ways. But I'm reminded of the old saying: "Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the rest."
 
Don't you see how much more we could have moved forward if not for capitalism? Sure we moved forward, but the question is why?? We moved forwarded because it was in the best interest of the capitalist to do so. One example why capitalism slowed down progress is the fact that workers fought against machines being brought into the workplace to do their jobs more efficiently because they knew that it would eventually cost them their jobs.

In my option, capitalism is the root of all evil (for all but the rich).
There is a saying that rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This not complete. The rich get richer BECAUSE the poor get power.
 
In my option, capitalism is the root of all evil (for all but the rich).
There is a saying that rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This not complete. The rich get richer BECAUSE the poor get power.
Altruism and collectivism are the roots of all evil.

Ok, let's take some quantitative measures and look at a few graphs. E.g. one country before and during capitalism. Or during and after. Or countries that opted for different systems at the same point in time (North and South Korea). Or sort countries by those measures and see which ones are on top and bottom. I am sure you'll change your mind after this exercise.
If you want to get out of poverty - choose capitalism.
If you want equal misery - go for your favorite form of collectivism.

If someone can split this into a new thread, it would be great. But not as great as capitalism.
 
One example why capitalism slowed down progress is the fact that workers fought against machines being brought into the workplace to do their jobs more efficiently because they knew that it would eventually cost them their jobs.
So capitalism is evil because, when some inventors created new ways of doing things (freeing people to do other things), some workers tried to stop the use of the inventions, slowing down their adoption...? Capitalists forced people to resist the changes that the capitalists wanted...? Or are you saying that progress itself is evil, and we should all go back to being subsistence farmers, or hunter-gatherer tribes?

In my option, capitalism is the root of all evil (for all but the rich).
There is a saying that rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This not complete. The rich get richer BECAUSE the poor get power.
This assumes that all economic activity is a zero-sum game. This thus assumes that the total wealth available, say, three thousand (or ten thousand, or 200,000) years ago has been gathered in the hands of only the "rich" (a definition that has changed over time), so the rest of us now have only a few billionths of the wealth from back then, with a concomitant standard of living where at least 7.5 billion of us are naked, diseased, and starving to death.

This does not comport with the world that I can see. And, as a minority, I would hate to be forced to go back to those "wonderful" times.
 
"Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western spiral arm of the galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this, at a distance of roughly ninety million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, whose ape descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea. This planet has, or had, a problem, which was this. Most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time.

"Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small, green pieces of paper, which is odd, because on the whole, it wasn't the small, green pieces of paper which were unhappy.

"And so the problem remained, and lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches. Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans.

"And then one day, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl, sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realised what it was that had been going wrong all this time and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no-one would have to get nalied to anything.

"Sadly, however, before she could get to a phone to tell anyone, the Earth was unexpectedly demolished to make way for a new hyperspace bypass and so the idea was lost forever."

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

?
 
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded--here and there, now and then--are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.”
-- Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long (from Time Enough For Love)
 
Geez! I'm sorry I posted the damn solution now! ?‍♂️

No good deed ever goes unpunished, I suppose. ?

But at least there's one good thing that's come out of it...

Finally! There's something Steven & I can completely agree on: Political Philosophy!

Keep the red flag flying, Mate.  ?
(⚒️ Workers of the world unite! ⚒️)

I note there has appeared a predeliction to include quotations in the 'discussion'; from Science Fiction no less (a worth genre no doubt, in its own right, of course) so I thought I might just take the opportunity to add a few quotes of my own preference...


"Capitalism is the creed of the dying present; socialism throbs with the life of the days that are to be."

"Socialism does not propose to abolish land or capital. Only a genius could have thought of this as an objection to Socialism. Socialism proposes to abolish capitalism and landlordism."

"Socialism makes war upon a system, not upon a class."

"The landlord, qua landlord, performs no function in the economy of industry or of food production. He is a rent receiver; that, and nothing more. Were the landlord to be abolished, the soil and the people who till it would still remain, and the disappearance of the landowner would pass almost unnoticed. So too with the capitalist."

"By capitalist, I mean the investor who puts his money into a concern and draws profits there from without participating in the organisation or management of the business. Were all these to disappear in the night, leaving no trace behind, nothing would be changed."

"If it could be shown that the great Trust magnate or the great Aristocratic landowner, apart from the advantages of his inherited wealth, was a more highly developed species of humanity than the poor struggling seamstress or the unemployed docker, then there might be some justification for allowing the docker and the seamstress as the representatives of a weaker class to die out in order to enable the more highly developed creature to survive; but one moment's reflection will show that the alleged superiority of the landowner or the Trust magnate rests on one fact alone, namely, that he owns certain material possessions, usually inherited, which enable him to dictate the terms upon which his less fortunate fellow creatures shall be permitted to live.“

"History is one long record of like illustrations. Must our modern civilization with all its teeming wonders come to a like end? We are reproducing in faithful detail every cause which led to the downfall of the civilizations of other days—Imperialism, taking tribute from conquered races, the accumulation of great fortunes, the development of a population which owns no property, and is always in poverty. Land has gone out of cultivation and physical deterioration is an alarming fact. And so we Socialists say the system which is producing these results must not be allowed to continue. A system which has robbed religion of its saviour, destroyed handicraft, which awards the palm of success to the unscrupulous, corrupts the press, turns pure women on the streets and upright men into mean-spirited time-servers, cannot continue. In the end it is bound to work its own overthrow. Socialism with its promise of freedom, its larger hope for humanity, its triumph of peace over war, its binding of the races of the earth into one all-embracing brotherhood, must prevail. Capitalism is the creed of the dying present; socialism throbs with the life of the days that are to be. It has claimed its martyrs in the past, is claiming them now, will claim them still; but what then? Better to "rebel and die in the twenty worlds sooner than bear the yoke of thwarted life."

"Almost without exception, the early Christian Fathers whose teachings have come down to us spoke out fearlessly against usury, which includes interest also, and on the side of Communism. They proclaimed that, inasmuch as nature had provided all things in common, it was sinful robbery for one man to own more than another, especially if that other was in want. The man who gathered much whilst others had not enough, was a murderer."

"By inherited instinct we are all Communists at heart; and if the isolated Ego of self gets the upper hand for a time he produces results so terrifying that the mistake of allowing him to rule is speedily made apparent, and we begin to seek a way whereby we may return to the kindly sway of the spirit of Altruism.“

James Keir Hardie (1856-1915)

A Scotsman much venerated to this day
and founder of the British Labour party
(which, regrettably, has lost its way
a mere century after he did so!)​
and...

A Man’s A Man For A’ That (Excerpts)

A prince can mak a belted knight,         
A marquis, duke, an’ a’ that;         
    But an honest man’s abon his might,    (above)
                          Gude faith, he maunna fa’ that!      (must not aspire to that)    

For a’ that, an’ a’ that,                   
Their dignities an’ a’ that;           
The pith o’ sense, an’ pride o’ worth,       
Are higher rank than a’ that.        

For a’ that, an’ a’ that.                    
Our toils obscure an’ a’ that,        
The rank is but the guinea’s stamp,         
    The Man’s the gowd for a’ that.     (gold)

What though on hamely fare we dine,       
                                      Wear hoddin grey, an’ a that;         (Coarse, homespun, undyed woollen cloth)
Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine;   
A Man’s a Man for a’ that.          

Then let us pray that come it may,           
As come it will for a’ that,            
That Sense and Worth, o’er a’ the earth       
       Shall bear the gree an’ a’ that.        (triumph)

For a’ that, an’ a’ that,                       
It’s comin yet for a’ that,              
That Man to Man the warld o’er               
Shall brithers be for a’ that.            ​
Robert Burns (1759 –1796)
( Scotland’s National Bard. )​

Now there's a couple of men who had some really useful things to say! ?
(From the land that gave so much to the world!)

?????????☎️???????

?


JKH.jpg       RB.jpg
 
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
The great man was almost right, except the miseries under socialism aren't shared equally either.
 
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
The great man was almost right, except the miseries under socialism aren't shared equally either.
That's absolutely correct!
In a fair and equitable society, the most miserable become less miserable while the least miserable become more so, such that everyone shares the same level of blessings/misery that rises up the blessings-miseries spectrum to a point where an equilibrium is reached that equates to happiness & contentment for all.
 
One example why capitalism slowed down progress is the fact that workers fought against machines being brought into the workplace to do their jobs more efficiently because they knew that it would eventually cost them their jobs.
So capitalism is evil because, when some inventors created new ways of doing things (freeing people to do other things), some workers tried to stop the use of the inventions, slowing down their adoption...? Capitalists forced people to resist the changes that the capitalists wanted...? Or are you saying that progress itself is evil, and we should all go back to being subsistence farmers, or hunter-gatherer tribes?
No, the working class slowed down the changes that the capitalist wanted to make. These improvement would have freed up people to do other things like work less, go on vacations, spend time with their families, etc, however people need to work in order to earn a living. If by freed up people to do other things you mean get other jobs that is crazy. There are no jobs out there that pay a living wage for the majority of people. This is why people (the working class) fight some progress as it would cost them their job. What is so hard to understand.

You folks come here and volunteer your free time to help students. My question to you is why do you think that so many students need help in math (and other areas)? The reason is that for capitalism to work you need to keep down a segment of the population. Not educating certain students will certainly do just that.
 
You folks come here and volunteer your free time to help students. My question to you is why do you think that so many students need help in math (and other areas)? The reason is that for capitalism to work you need to keep down a segment of the population. Not educating certain students will certainly do just that.
Completely disagree.
1. Capitalism is simply people left alone to do their thing. It's not an organization whose members can conspire to "keep down" people. What evidence do you have for your claim?
2. The evidence we do have points in the opposite direction. Who is in charge of K-12? Teachers unions = democrats. Where are 95% of the college professors politically? The left. Why blame capitalism for the poor education of our kids when the left is doing the educating?
 
While I disagree with some of the positions taken here, I will defend each poster's rights to present those positions.

However, this years' old thread has gone wildly off-topic. Shall we move this discussion (if people wish to continue it) to "Finance", or maybe "Odds & Ends"? I don't want to squelch the conversation (which has been very civil, for which I thank all parties), but I also don't want to skeeve out students, either.

Thank you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top