Attempted firebomb of times squareFollow

Yes (well, depending on how you mean "money"). But that's also not what wealth really is. Which is the real reason why so many people don't become wealthy.



Ok. But that's a concept that's broader than capitalism, socialism, or communism. Unless you are advocating a return to simple agrarian lifestyle, then I'm not sure how relevant what you're saying is going to be.



Yes. However, it can be more properly said that capitalism focuses consumerism into productive and efficient results. All other forms of economics in an industrial world still feed consumerism, but do so in less efficient, more environmentally harmful, and less long term productive ways.



Sure. Now explain to me why that's bad? What it does is provide a naturally balanced means by which the relative values of things can be established. And yeah, it uses "short term greed" to make those determinations. But it does so more efficiently than other systems, which attempt to use some sort of planning mechanism to decide how much things should be worth, and how many of a given thing should be built, and otherwise do the same thing, just not as well.




Those who produce goods do so at the expense of the environment whether they are using capitalism or any other system of economics. Capitalism does have the virtue that over time it massively increases the rate of R&D, thus allowing for a small amount of regulation to result in significantly more efficient production of goods, with ever diminishing environmental impact. If the entire world had adopted socialism or communism in the late 19th century, do you honestly think that environmentalism would *ever* have gotten off the ground as a movement?

I'm not joking. Really stop and think about it. The apparent social and environmental consciousness which is commonly attributed today to socialist thinking really didn't originate there at all. It was the people living in free markets who used the government to reign in private industry. Had those industries been run by the government in the first place, it's quite likely we'd never have seen environmentalism take off. One need only compare the relative pollution levels related to industrial production between economies indexed based on the degree to which they are "free" or "command" to see a pretty obvious patterns. Countries with free markets usually have more strict environmental rules than those with more government controlled ones.


But that's another area where the facts don't match the fiction.



Same can be said of them defending socialism. The difference being that the consumers have a chance to become more than just consumers under capitalism. They're pretty much stuck being eternal consumers in the other systems. Work for what you can produce, consume what the people and/or the government allow you to consume. The fact that other systems limit consumption is not a positive thing. They're still subject to market forces. Theirs are just manifested in the people pressuring the government to give them stuff.



Again, consumers exist in any economic system. Let's not pretend that's unique to capitalism. Capitalism is just vastly more efficient at providing consumers with what they want than any other system. I'm not sure how that's a bad thing.

Right. I would too in your position. Sounds better and lets you save a tiny bit of face.

Unless you are advocating a return to simple agrarian lifestyle

No. What i'm saying is that consumption for its own sake is destructive.

Quote:
Consumerism, on the scale that is encouraged by government and corporate levels today, is unsustainable for those participating presently, and inconcievable for the planet as a whole.

Consumerism is the driving force, the raw material, that sustains Capitalism.

Yes. However, it can be more properly said that capitalism focuses consumerism into productive and efficient results. All other forms of economics in an industrial world still feed consumerism, but do so in less efficient, more environmentally harmful, and less long term productive ways.

No. What I said is what I meant.


Quote:
Capitalism is an unsustainable system that relies on the short term greed of all parties.

Sure. Now explain to me why that's bad?

If you can't figure that out for yourself, then nothing I can say is going to make it easier for you to understand.


As for the rest......


I'm not defending socialism, or attacking conservatism or giving communists a ********.


Capitalism is just vastly more efficient at providing consumers with what they want than any other system.

Is that what consumers want?? Or is that what they are continuosly told that they need?

For Capitalism to be succesful for those benefitting from it, consumers need to be continually co-erced into participating. to continuosly be bombarded with the message that 'you must own this or that to not be seen as having failed at life'.

Consumers only want it because they have been brainwashed into believing that possesing 'stuff' is the whole point of living.



Wealth = Possesions = Happiness = myth.





Edited, May 4th 2010 9:03pm by paulsol

That's what Thomas Jefferson, the FOUNDING FATHER wanted so if you actually loved liberty, you'd be all over this.

Jophed,



Jefferson also proposed;

But what you said is only half the story. Do you think that when the people vote to pressure their government to provide them with free bus passes and health care and education and housing and clothing, that they are not just as much "consumers"? The methods by which we determine who gets what is different is all.



Well, first off let me clarify that my "Sure" response was not to be taken as an agreement with the assumption that this is "unsustainable". Just in case you're hinging your response on that. I don't accept that premise and you haven't made a sound argument to support it.

As to the relevant part: Why is a system that relies on short term greed of all parties bad? I can show you why it's good, and it's quite easy. You spend 10 hours working. Your labor is worth something to you and you want to get the most out of your labor. That is "greed" on your part. You use that greed to choose to use the fruits of your labor (substituted with "money") to the maximum degree possible. You therefore go to a store to buy something, but you're not going to spend more for that thing than it's worth to you in relative labor. Similarly, the guy selling that good isn't going to sell it for less than he's willing to sell whatever labor he expended obtaining it. When both parties are acting on "short term greed", it ensures that both of them get what they want.

If they don't, then how do you decide how much relative value X number of hours of your labor is? The counter to the greed effect in a free market requires that some authority set prices. I can't imagine how anyone could think that would work better...




I didn't say you were. I said you were attacking capitalism. But you can't just attack one system in a vacuum. You have to compare it to the alternatives, otherwise your statement are irrelevant. We don't have a choice between capitalism or "nothing". If we don't use the principles of capitalism, then we have to use the principles of some other economic system. If we are to sanely assess capitalism we must do so in relation to other systems we might choose.



Again, show me how this is different than socialism or communism? If it's not, then it's pointless to attack capitalism on this ground. The primary difference between the systems is the degree to which it's the government telling the people what they want and need instead of other private citizens. The reason capitalism is "better" is that since it's not the government, it can't actually coerce you into buying something you don't want.

The recent health care bill shows that government can and will. You're arguing that capitalism is bad because those who want to sell goods will try to convince you to buy them, but you always have a choice not to, but you ignore that alternatives (like socialism) do the same thing, but take that choice away. They don't have to advertise to convince you to buy their product, they just take the money out of your pocket and give you what they think you should have in return.


In what way is that better?

I fail to see why you're implying this is a bad idea, considering your general opinion of those people.

People eat because if they don't they die from hunger.

People live in houses because they are more comfortable than living in a cave. or under a hedge.

Consumers, on the other hand,buy a new phone/shoes/television every year because they have been repeatedly bombarded with the message that says 'Buy this new phone! because if you dont you will be seen to be a failure in the eyes of your peers'.

People work hard because if they dont they cant afford to buy the things they are told they need to buy. You know, the ones that when you have them, your life will be perfect...If they stop working so hard to buy **** they dont need, they can stay home with their family more. I would have thought that would have been right up your street. Conservative family values and all that....

Just because I see a commercial and decide they have a good product I might like to purchase does not mean they have brainwashed me. It's sad you can't see the difference.


'I'm not brainwashed! I'm not being suckered! I just NEEEED that new phone! Look its got interchangeable faceplates and I can communicate with my 500 'friends' on Facebook with it!!!!!111!!!I must do some more overtime at the weekends so I can afford to buy eeettt!!!11'. 'Sorry kids, as soon as I've got this new phone, I'll be happy, and then we can go and play together again....'

Fu'cking sukka.
Like I said before. Consumers will defend their consumption until their dying breath.

But what you said is only half the story. Do you think that when the people vote to pressure their government to provide them with free bus passes and health care and education and housing and clothing, that they are not just as much "consumers"? The methods by which we determine who gets what is different is all.

Old and disabled people need bus passes to get around and health care to make their lives better.

People buying a new pair of shoes every year because this years heel is a different shape than last years is not the same. Can you see why?

You spend 10 hours working. Your labor is worth something to you and you want to get the most out of your labor. That is "greed" on your part. You use that greed to choose to use the fruits of your labor (substituted with "money") to the maximum degree possible. You therefore go to a store to buy something,

If you are happy and comfortable in last years shoes, why spend 10 hours working for a new pair when you could be hanging with the kids? Kids need our time more than we need new shoes every year. Except that we are continually bombarded with the message that says 'Dont be a loser! Buy new shoes! Last years are so.....last year'.

But you can't just attack one system in a vacuum. You have to compare it to the alternatives,

My alternative is to not buy into the 'consume or die religeon' that you are defending. (Till your final breath). Politics is irrelevant to my argument.

If you really believe that modern advertising and the consumption it supports is innocent displaying of goods availiable, then you are more naive than I thought possible. Modrn advertising budgets are gigantic, and is expertly designed to make the consumer feel that they are failures UNLESS they participate in Consumption.

Look around you. Everything from shampoo to cars to wristwatches to music. Its all projected in a way to so as to make your 'possesion' of it appear to make you better than your peers. Its insidious, cynical and all pervasive.

And as I have said, and will continue to say, it is at the very root of almost ALL that is going wrong in the world today.

Considering that this seems to be the primary role of any government, I believe this constitutes a formal endorsement of anarchy.

talking to you and varus is like trying to explain chess to the thicky twins.

Look. I'm saying that the world as it is now is destined for a disastrous shortage of resources (and the conflict that that will bring) due to our relentless CONSUMPTION. We in the lucky 1st world have turned CONSUMPTION into a RELIGION. This has happened because we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that HAPPINESS = CONSUMPTION. This myth was purposely taken up in the post WWII period so as to maintain the Wests (particularly the USA) pre-eminent postion in the world.

To maintain that position, ever increasing CONSUMPTION needed to be sold to the masses (thats you and me) as a new 'spiritual path'. That is the way that those in power stay in power, wether it be Govt power or corporate power.

The problem is, ever increasing CONSUMPTION in a finite world is impossible to maintain for very long. So here we are 50 years later and half the world is obese and snowed under with ever increasing amounts of stuff they dont need, made by slaves in the 3rd world who are begining to realise that they are slaves.

That process is leading to an inevitable environmental and social catastrophe.

You talk about wanting to make your own choices? Let me ask you this...How many hours do you spend at work in an average week?? I'm betting its more than the average worker spent at work 30 or 40 years ago.

If that is the case. Why do you spend so long at work? Is it because you like working? Or because you are struggling to maintain a lifestyle that your peers can look at and say 'Wow! Look at Gbajis new car/phone/HD TV/Timex!'

If you really want to 'make your own choices', why are you spending so much time at work? So that you can display outward signs of superficial wealth to others?

If thats the case, its a crap 'choice' you've made.

But don't feel too bad. Its the same crap 'choice' that billions have others have made and given the chance, will make.

Like I said. CONSUMPTION is the new RELIGEON.

Keep on sacrificing your time at its altar.

Its your choice after all.

Bingo! Man, I'm good. Lucky for all of us no one pays me to do this sort of thing anymore.