Current economic system & Housing

spadoosh

GreatApe wrote: »

It is done properly

In the UK you can own your own home, your own business, your own car, your own machines, your own chickens and cows, your own tools, your own land, your own farm. There is private ownership of capital and an individual can own and accumulate capital in the UK (and almost every other country in the world)

There were some non capitalist countries but most fell about 30 years ago
The debate is pretty much over 99% agree with capatilism

The actual debate seems to be more accurately framed as how much tax should nations impose and on who and should wealth taxes exist and how much

99% agree with socialism if they come across an abandoned child. I think theres some mileage in concluding that just yet.

The debate about tax is also why the debate about capitalism is ongoing. Tax and capitalism are mutually exclusive, as mentioned we use a !!!!!!!ised system that doesnt seem as effective as any of the system if allowed to bore out. That is communism would work well without the human element, socialism works pretty well without the human element. Capitalism also works well without us messing it up.

This goes back to my whole point in that its always chasing some utopian dream of what a sysytem can and should be, reality is they dont work because were all just a little bit too different.

When i consider me and you probably have similar beliefs and values (try not to be too upset) certainly on an economical point of view yet here we are disagreeing its not difficult to see why it dont work perfectly.

Moby

Capitalism leads to a significant loss of political, democratic and economic power for the vast majority of the global human population. The reason for this is that capitalism creates very large concentrations of money and property in the hands of a relatively small minority of the global human population (the "power elite"), leading to very large and increasing, wealth and income inequalities between the elite and the majority of the population. "Corporate capitalism" and "inverted totalitarianism" describe our capitalist marketplace—and society— which is now characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic large corporations legally required to pursue profit without concern for social welfare. Corporate capitalism has undue power and influence over government policy, including the policies of regulatory agencies and influencing political campaigns. They fail to act in the interests of the people and the existence of large corporations circumvents the principles of democracy. The rise of giant multinationals especially is a modern phenomenon and should be of great concern because their influence leads to deep, structural erosion of such basic human rights and civil rights as equitable wealth and income distribution, equitable democratic political and socio-economic power representation and many other human rights and needs. Such corporations create false needs in consumers and they have had a long history of interference in and distortion of the policies of sovereign nation states through high-priced legal lobbying and invasive advertising etc; billboards, television ads, adware, spam, telemarketing, child-targeted advertising and massive open or secret corporate political campaign 'contributions' in so-called "democratic" elections.
In short large corporations answer only to large shareholders, giving human rights issues, social justice issues, environmental issues and other issues of high significance to 99% of the global human population virtually no consideration whatsoever! Yep capitalism is really working isn't it!


Che Guavara wrote:

'The laws of capitalism, which are blind and are invisible to ordinary people, act upon the individual without he or she being aware of it. One sees only the vastness of a seemingly infinite horizon ahead. That is how it is painted by capitalist propagandists who purport to draw a lesson from the example of Rockefeller—whether or not it is true—about the possibilities of individual success. The amount of poverty and suffering required for a Rockefeller to emerge, and the amount of depravity entailed in the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible for the popular forces to expose this clearly.... It is a contest among wolves. One can win only at the cost of the failure of others.'

PasturesNew

Some luxury yacht was launched the other week ... massive, luxury, glorious facilities .... quoted costs range from US$800 million to $1.1 billion.

At today's rates that's about £600-£750 million.

It houses 6000 passengers (plus all the crew of course). There's everything in there too, not just housing, food, kitchens, shops, entertainment, pools ... all taking up space.

If we divide the 6000 people it can house by the £600 million it cost to build it, brand new, full on luxury, a feat of modern engineering and excellence, that's £100k/person at "top prices/luxury cost"

Why can't we simply refurbish old ships, float them on big rivers ... and shove people in there? Instant new homes, cheap as chips.

GreatApe

Moby wrote: »

Capitalism leads to a significant loss of political, democratic and economic power for the vast majority of the global human population

You really believe this?
My neighbor is from Romania he lived under a different system guess which one he likes better? He left extreme poverty, he left a state where people would dispensary never to be seen again thanks to the government and powers that be

Humans have never been more free than they are now in the west.
A hooker can make fun of the presidents !!!! on TV and she gets to sell books and go on TV telling everyone about it and you have the balls to stand there and say the current system in the west gives us little freedom and no power?

The reason for this is that capitalism creates very large concentrations of money and property in the hands of a relatively small minority of the global human population (the "power elite"),

This is mostly a fabrication and false.
Take the top 5 richest people, for a start almost all their wealth are in shares in companies they created and their consumption of goods and services are relatively small compared to their wealth. Most of them have or will give most of their wealth to charity or solving world problems just like the amazing Mr Gates and his foundation

Also the way wealth is calculated is a distortion by the left to try and paint a false picture.
How much wealth has a single mother in England? Nothing you cry. Yet she will have spend on her in her lifetime in excess of £1m on goods and services. The single mother with nothing doesn't have nothing she has a social annuity worth in excess of £1m

Likewise what does a poor pensioner have? Just £1k a month in state benefits? Well what is £1k a month worth in financial terms? The best part of quarter of a million pounds

This also ignores the fact that the middle own the bulk of wealth. In the UK alone the middle own in excess of $6 trillion in just housing. Worldwide come 2050 the worlds middle classes will own >$1,000 trillion in just housing and that is in todays money and then roughly the same again in other assets like pensions

leading to very large and increasing, wealth and income inequalities between the elite and the majority of the population. "Corporate capitalism" and "inverted totalitarianism" describe our capitalist marketplace—and society— which is now characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic large corporations legally required to pursue profit without concern for social welfare. Corporate capitalism has undue power and influence over government policy, including the policies of regulatory agencies and influencing political campaigns. They fail to act in the interests of the people and the existence of large corporations circumvents the principles of democracy. The rise of giant multinationals especially is a modern phenomenon and should be of great concern because their influence leads to deep, structural erosion of such basic human rights and civil rights as equitable wealth and income distribution, equitable democratic political and socio-economic power representation and many other human rights and needs. Such corporations create false needs in consumers and they have had a long history of interference in and distortion of the policies of sovereign nation states through high-priced legal lobbying and invasive advertising etc; billboards, television ads, adware, spam, telemarketing, child-targeted advertising and massive open or secret corporate political campaign 'contributions' in so-called "democratic" elections.

yet the overriding news story of the last 50 years is the poor are gotten richer and richer and their conditions are much better. The story of the next 20 years will be that this economic system builds them a billion homes :beer:

In short large corporations answer only to large shareholders, giving human rights issues, social justice issues, environmental issues and other issues of high significance to 99% of the global human population virtually no consideration whatsoever!

Just empty buzz words

Yep capitalism is really working isn't it!

So 1 billion homes over 20 years for the middle is failing?

Che Guavara wrote:

'The laws of capitalism, which are blind and are invisible to ordinary people, act upon the individual without he or she being aware of it. One sees only the vastness of a seemingly infinite horizon ahead. That is how it is painted by capitalist propagandists who purport to draw a lesson from the example of Rockefeller—whether or not it is true—about the possibilities of individual success. The amount of poverty and suffering required for a Rockefeller to emerge, and the amount of depravity entailed in the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible for the popular forces to expose this clearly.... It is a contest among wolves. One can win only at the cost of the failure of others.'

[/QUOTE]


What would Che have made of the fact that capitalism will build a billion homes for the poor & middle over the next two decades? How many did his system build?

What about all the other measures of progress under mostly capitalism? What has happened to health, literacy, access to electricity, water, healthcare, food, information, education of the poor & middle over the last 50 years since Mr Che death? Have they not improved almost beyond the wildest hopes of humanity? All that counts for nowt because there are some rich folks? Envy before progress?

Moby

You really believe this?
My neighbor is from Romania he lived under a different system guess which one he likes better? He left extreme poverty, he left a state where people would dispensary never to be seen again thanks to the government and powers that be

Does your neighbour represent the progress of humanity or the thinking of Stephen Pinker?

Humans have never been more free than they are now in the west.
A hooker can make fun of the presidents !!!! on TV and she gets to sell books and go on TV telling everyone about it and you have the balls to stand there and say the current system in the west gives us little freedom and no power?

Don't be so naive. People live in fear of repercussions from the powers that be every day of the week. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The establishment hates Trump that's why we can make fun of him!

This is mostly a fabrication and false.
Take the top 5 richest people, for a start almost all their wealth are in shares in companies they created and their consumption of goods and services are relatively small compared to their wealth. Most of them have or will give most of their wealth to charity or solving world problems just like the amazing Mr Gates and his foundation

Also the way wealth is calculated is a distortion by the left to try and paint a false picture.
How much wealth has a single mother in England? Nothing you cry. Yet she will have spend on her in her lifetime in excess of £1m on goods and services. The single mother with nothing doesn't have nothing she has a social annuity worth in excess of £1m

Likewise what does a poor pensioner have? Just £1k a month in state benefits? Well what is £1k a month worth in financial terms? The best part of quarter of a million pounds

This also ignores the fact that the middle own the bulk of wealth. In the UK alone the middle own in excess of $6 trillion in just housing. Worldwide come 2050 the worlds middle classes will own >$1,000 trillion in just housing and that is in todays money and then roughly the same again in other assets like pensions



yet the overriding news story of the last 50 years is the poor are gotten richer and richer and their conditions are much better. The story of the next 20 years will be that this economic system builds them a billion homes :beer:

Capitalism is inherently exploitative. In an economic sense, exploitation is often related to the expropriation of labor for profit and based on Karl Marx's version of the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value was supported by classical economists like David Ricardo and Adam Smith who believed that "the value of a commodity depends on the relative quantity of labor which is necessary for its production".




So 1 billion homes over 20 years for the middle is failing?

Che Guavara wrote:

'The laws of capitalism, which are blind and are invisible to ordinary people, act upon the individual without he or she being aware of it. One sees only the vastness of a seemingly infinite horizon ahead. That is how it is painted by capitalist propagandists who purport to draw a lesson from the example of Rockefeller—whether or not it is true—about the possibilities of individual success. The amount of poverty and suffering required for a Rockefeller to emerge, and the amount of depravity entailed in the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible for the popular forces to expose this clearly.... It is a contest among wolves. One can win only at the cost of the failure of others.'

[/QUOTE]

What would Che have made of the fact that capitalism will build a billion homes for the poor & middle over the next two decades? How many did his system build?

None because he was murdered by capitalists backed by the Americans.

What about all the other measures of progress under mostly capitalism? What has happened to health, literacy, access to electricity, water, healthcare, food, information, education of the poor & middle over the last 50 years since Mr Che death? Have they not improved almost beyond the wildest hopes of humanity? All that counts for nowt because there are some rich folks? Envy before progress?

Again you are very naive....capitalism has created a profit driven system based on selling as many products as possible. Capitalism has created a "ready-made" trend to a growing garbage problem in which 4.5 pounds of trash are generated per person each day (compared to 2.7 pounds in 1960).

Planned obsolescence is part of this wasteful practice under capitalism. By designing products to wear out faster than need be, new consumption is generated. This would benefit corporations by increasing sales while at the same time generating excessive waste. A well-known example is that Apple designed its iPod to fail after 18 months. Planned obsolescence is wasteful and an inefficient use of resources. Naomi Klein has criticised brand-based marketing for putting more emphasis on the company's name-brand than on manufacturing products.

Some economists, most notably Marxian economists, argue that the system of perpetual capital accumulation leads to irrational outcomes and a mis-allocation of resources as industries and jobs are created for the sake of making money as opposed to satisfying actual demands and needs.

The capitalist system has inherent biases favoring those who already possess greater resources. The inequality may be propagated through inheritance and economic policy. Rich people are in a position to give their children a better education and inherited wealth and that this can create or increase large differences in wealth between people who do not differ in ability or effort. One study shows that in the United States 43.35% of the people in the Forbes magazine "400 richest individuals" list were already rich enough at birth to qualify. Another study indicated that in the United States wealth, race and schooling are important to the inheritance of economic status, but that IQ is not a major contributor and the genetic transmission of IQ is even less important. It's all about protecting wealth and finding ways through the law of funneling it through the bloodline!

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

....

None because he was murdered by capitalists backed by the Americans....

He was killed by the Bolivian army, Guevara himself was a murderer many times over. What else would you call someone lurking in the Bolivian jungle randomly ambushing army patrols in the hope of fermenting revolution?

Moby wrote: »

...

Some economists, most notably Marxian economists, argue that the system of perpetual capital accumulation leads to irrational outcomes and a mis-allocation of resources as industries and jobs are created for the sake of making money as opposed to satisfying actual demands and needs.

On the other hand, most economists recognise that under capitalism, it is the market that decides what demands and needs are fulfilled. As opposed to what demands and needs 'Marxian economists' think is 'rational'.

History shows us that decades of Marxian economics simply results in a lot of dead people, whilst capitalist economics results in dragging millions of people out of poverty. See China; compare the Great Leap Forward with Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.

antrobus

There was a documentary about Guevara on PBS America only a few says ago, (Freeview channel 94.)

He was a rubbish revolutionary. Chose one of the poorest areas of Bolivia to start his revolution where most of the peasants didn't even speak Spanish. Not a single one signed up for his 'revolution', and were happy to pass on info to the authorities regarding his whereabouts. The Bolivians executed him, The Americans wanted him alive.

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

There was a documentary about Guevara on PBS America only a few says ago, (Freeview channel 94.)

He was a rubbish revolutionary. Chose one of the poorest areas of Bolivia to start his revolution where most of the peasants didn't even speak Spanish. Not a single one signed up for his 'revolution', and were happy to pass on info to the authorities regarding his whereabouts. The Bolivians executed him, The Americans wanted him alive.

The hidden hand of American imperialism is all over the world but of course they've had no influence in Central America......yeah right! You'll be telling me the Bay of Pigs never happened next.

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

On the other hand, most economists recognise that under capitalism, it is the market that decides what demands and needs are fulfilled. As opposed to what demands and needs 'Marxian economists' think is 'rational'.

History shows us that decades of Marxian economics simply results in a lot of dead people, whilst capitalist economics results in dragging millions of people out of poverty. See China; compare the Great Leap Forward with Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.

The market deciding what demands and needs are fulfilled led to the crash. It also leads to all the criticisms I made above. The market also tends to favour those who already have wealth. Look how property law works.
History also shows us that capitalism and imperialism work hand in hand; besides Marxian economics has never been applied.. the Soviet and Chinese examples were corruptions advanced by dictators. Stalin and Mao were as Marxist as Putin is a democratic capitalist!
Also why do people always defend capitalism by saying Marxism would be worse. The criticisms of capitalism stand anyway. How capitalism is implemented in different western countries is worthy of consideration.
What about how capitalist values are destroying our environment?
Capitalism focuses on short term profits and fails to look after the long term needs of people and the environment which is being subjected to unsustainable exploitation. Global warming and accelerated species extinctions and also societal factors such as rising economic inequality, unemployment, sluggish economic growth, rising debt levels and governments are clearly unable to deal with these problems. We need a new economic model, one which focuses on sustainability and efficiency and not profit and growth; the age of robust economic growth driven by abundant resources and cheap energy is rapidly coming to a close. Just slapping down the alternatives to capitalism is complacent imo.

GreatApe

Moby wrote: »

Capitalism is inherently exploitative. In an economic sense, exploitation is often related to the expropriation of labor for profit and based on Karl Marx's version of the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value was supported by classical economists like David Ricardo and Adam Smith who believed that "the value of a commodity depends on the relative quantity of labor which is necessary for its production".

In capitalism you can go self employed
You can set up a small business
Or a big one
The idea that there are a handful of bosses and the rest of us are workers is false.
At least a third of the population are self employed and many work for tiny companies often just 1-5 workers mostly family. Who are they exploiting? In a non capitalistic system what would happen to half the workforce that are self employed or work/run tiny companies?

Also the notion or idea that companies are somehow eternal stands in your assertions but this is clearly not true companies many many companies go bust all the time from small to big.

Again you are very naive....capitalism has created a profit driven system based on selling as many products as possible.

Yes capitalism aims to maximize production of goods and services and that is what 99% want more goods and services they dont want to be poorer

Capitalism has created a "ready-made" trend to a growing garbage problem in which 4.5 pounds of trash are generated per person each day (compared to 2.7 pounds in 1960).

Try anything to paint success as failure?

Planned obsolescence is part of this wasteful practice under capitalism.

This is nonsense. Goods have gotten much cheaper and better quality that a few idiots think otherwise does not prove otherwise. The thing you miss is that goods are so much cheaper people are happy to just buy a new one. When a kettle costs just a tenner you can afford to buy a new one just because you like the color or design more.

By designing products to wear out faster than need be, new consumption is generated.

You have literally a choice of thousands of products. Thousands possibly tens of thousands of kettle designs. You can choose cheap ones or expensive ones. And the beauty of capitalism? If you aren't happy with the kettles on offer go start a kettle company rather than spending your days telling us how great non capitalism will be where you will only likely have 1 !!!! kettle to choose from. The idea that we have less choice or lower quality products under capitalism is extremely absurd

This would benefit corporations by increasing sales while at the same time generating excessive waste. A well-known example is that Apple designed its iPod to fail after 18 months. Planned obsolescence is wasteful and an inefficient use of resources. Naomi Klein has criticised brand-based marketing for putting more emphasis on the company's name-brand than on manufacturing products.

I dont believe that about apple nor electronics in general. I am typing this on a 8 year old laptop and I am sure it would go another 8 years but I will likely throw it away and buy a new one this year not because I have to but thanks to capitalism I can afford to do that.

Some economists, most notably Marxian economists, argue that the system of perpetual capital accumulation leads to irrational outcomes and a mis-allocation of resources as industries and jobs are created for the sake of making money as opposed to satisfying actual demands and needs.

Well they are clearly idiots because the world still needs a lot of capital. That train of thought is simply them admitting failure. Well capitalism is bad because it produces too much....
I keep going back to housing because it is the biggest infrastructure project on earth. The world still needs at least another 2 billion homes so still a need for lots more capital

The capitalist system has inherent biases favoring those who already possess greater resources.

Sure but this is a good thing. The reason you can sit on your !!!! complaining all day is because of the capital this country has already built out. The biggest factor in a rich healthy nation vs a poor nation is the stock of capital it has. So we in the UK have much easier and better lives than those in India thanks to the 'inherent bias favoring' those who already have built out capital

The inequality may be propagated through inheritance and economic policy

Inherited wealth is a great thing there are only two options no inherited wealth or some inherited wealth in which case why curse everyone to no inherited capital?

Also this inherited wealth in a capitalistic nation that has built up its capital, like the UK, is very widely spread. Again going back to housing. Most UK born brits with UK parents will inherit a house or the capital for a house. In fact with women having <2 kids now that means most UK kids will inherit >1 house

This is one of the big reasons why we are so much more comfortable and rich than say india or turkey who have not built out their capital and typically (until recently) has many more than 2 kids per woman

Rich people are in a position to give their children a better education and inherited wealth and that this can create or increase large differences in wealth between people who do not differ in ability or effort.

So what? I would rather some 80% of the population get an inheritance like in the UK than some 20% like in India or Turkey. Do not let perfection be the enemy of the good

One study shows that in the United States 43.35% of the people in the Forbes magazine "400 richest individuals" list were already rich enough at birth to qualify. Another study indicated that in the United States wealth, race and schooling are important to the inheritance of economic status, but that IQ is not a major contributor and the genetic transmission of IQ is even less important. It's all about protecting wealth and finding ways through the law of funneling it through the bloodline!

This is nonsense
Wealth gets dissipated its a simple mathematical rule

A person has 2 kids, who has 2 kids who has 2 kids and so on.
Even if a bloodline can preserve wealth this means in 10 generations a $10 million fortune is reduced to 1,000 x $10,000 dollar fortunes not even enough to buy a car

But as we know wealth is spread by other factors too like divorce and marriage and sometimes multiple marriages and divorces and not forgetting people who just waste it or give it away

The idea you put forward that IQ is not important in wealth does not fit with studies I have seen which seem to suggest it is well correlated. This should be obvious because a wealthy person with an IQ of 80 is going to get swindled out of it pretty quickly


Also why are you so blind and bitter.
Do you really have a !!!! life in the UK?
You spend hours on forums complaining about how difficult we have it
You have a nice easy safe free life what more do you want?
Even the poorest, a single mother, has a nice easy safe free life and at no other point in history have we had it so good