Beliveve what you are told

[sgreger1]

Maybe... The problem I have with it, is unbridled capitalism rapes the people, rapes the planet, and really doesn't do much for society as a whole. The best of the industrial age gave us brown fields, excessive work hours, and poor working conditions. It relies on people to do the right thing, but when does a company do that? We have an issue in the Gulf due to people only considering the bottom line. Imagine what the world would look like if we had today's technology, but 1920s business sensibility/lack of controls. So... We need socialism, ie government control, but how much? I dunno... I think we've gone too far left, but how far is too far? What really needs to happen, is people need to evolve faster and improve the human. That way any system would work. You could then have a seamless blend of capitalism and communism, because the obvious answer is what's good for everyone is good for the individual. More, more, more for me is shortsighted, and doesn't take the big picture into account.

Did you ever read Atlas Shrugged? I haven't, but I've been meaning to. I read the game Bioshock, borrows very heavily from it for it's story line. In the game, Rapture is an underwater utopia for people to pursue development of the self without any economic, or moral controls from governmental or religious organizations. It works well for awhile, but starts to break apart; really because of the nature of people. It's like communism/capitalism. It looks great, and can work great with a cherry picked selection of people, but with the general population, it all just devolves.

I'm just running my mouth. I don't have any answers, only questions. I guess the real point of all this, is capitalism isn't the holy grail. It gets romanticized by people, but pure capitalism is just as bad as any Soviet style communism for society.

This is kind of how I look at it too. I think capitalism has been more productive and brought greater wealth and prosperity to the most people in the shortest amount of time than any other system. Look at us in this country, we've come pretty far in less than 300 years. But at the same time while capitalism works good ins small markets, once you have 350 million people playing the game, it starts to break down. This HAS to break down because out of every 10 people, 2 are go-getters that are really good with money, 4 of those are okay with money, and 4 of them are lazy bastards. We seperate ourselves into classes because there are 3 kinds of people, the ambitious, the middle "just tryin to get by" types, and the flat out lazy. Therefore the 2 go-getters out of the 10 will end up controlling most of the wealth, the 4 in the middle will have enough wealth to get by, and the last 4 will live in consistent poverty for generations.

We get to a point where a few people own most of the money, and they then use that money to lobby government so that they can make more money, because why not? This becomes corporatism and brings rise to oligarchs. It is at this point that pure capitalism fails and controls must be put, not just to stop go-getters from making money (nothing can stop them) but to try and make it so that companies (like BP) don't cut every corner just to grow their bottom line. We have controls so that we don't have 80 hourwork weeks were we have 14 year old kids working factories for .15 cents an hour with no benefits or healthcare.

We gotta have a blend here in America for it to work, but finding the balance is difficult and something we struggle with daily. I also think it has gone too far left, to the point where it is overly burdensome for the little guy, meanwhile all the big tycoons are exempted or otherwise able to get around the law. Case in point, look at PACT. The cig companies are making out like bandits with this new tobaco regulation while the little snus manufacturers (Who have the superior product) are shut out. That is anti-capitalism because the better product that is offered at a low price now finds itself in a position where the free market does it no good since regulation makes it over-burdernsom to turna profit.


We just need to find our balance again.

[sgreger1]

I like a more State Socialism, National Socialism, original Fascism type socio-economic system.

Lol, Tom I never wanna hear you bitch about Obama again if that's the kind of systems you are in favor of. None of those include any real rights or free-anything, and have failed wherever tried, I would much rather have OBama than someone advocating national socialism (what's the word for the national socialist party in germany again?)

[tom502]

The liberal-welfare leftwing "socialism" that Obama and his fans support, is a welfare state, which leads to a 3rd world, impoverished, Chavez type "society". A state socialism, or orginal fascism, is more a collective, in which everyone puts into the system, and thus shares it's national benefits, not laying around on welfare and engaging in crime unemployed in public housing. It's a totally different view and method of implementing socialism. Of course this will just hover in armchair philosophy world.

[truthwolf1]

I am not the biggest Micheal Moore fan because of his I am a democrat til I die stance but I really liked how he put together the steady decline for the average American worker since the 1950's in the film.

If it continues on this path then in 10-20 years having a good job will allow you to have a efficiency apartment and used car. Kinda like CHina.

[tom502]

I'm not a big Moore fan either, though he has recently been very vocal against Obama, even calling him a war president.

[truthwolf1]

This was a good review of the film.
http://cornellreviewonline.com/?p=62

Moore invoked nostalgia for the glory and tranquility of the 1950s and 1960s by explaining how this was a glamorous time, when the rich paid a 90% tax rate on their incomes (the author was ready to leave at this point).

Oddly, however, after the bit about tax rates, Moore’s analysis of how times have changed was quite strong. He took the form of neo-conservative and explained how great things were with a single income family and a stay-at-home mom. He mentioned how his father’s income from working on a GM assembly line was enough to pay for his family’s house, their car, and enough to help him save so that he could provide post-secondary educational opportunities for his children. This was a norm, Moore explicated. But best of all, household debt for most families was a small fraction of their annual income. The fact that the two income family is partially a result of female integration into mainstream society is not lost on the author. However, the main impetus for women in the workplace was the stagflation period in the late 1970s, as many needed the extra income. It has been that way ever since (the federal government has messaged income and inflation data since then to mask the deficiencies of the US economy).