Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

Haha! Someone's brought in The Friedman himself.

Watching the "arguments" against this should be funny. Hell, it's always funny to see the economically uninformed try to argue against people who aren't just cuz they're 'evul capitulists'.

 

Every chance I get. It is funny so many of the old arguments he was beating are being replayed again.

 

This is a shorter one from Friedman that goes directly to the point and shows a little more of his humor:

[video=youtube;rQLBitV69Cc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc[/video]

 

There is no such a place where is an AnCap society, and the people are morally not ready yet. We are seing a rise of Libertarians and AnarchoCapitlists in the US, Europe, Canada, AUS but the numbers are not there yet. The State didn't killed enough people yet to turn people for an alternative, obviously the 260 million wasn't enough. People still didn't recognize the fact that is not an alternative State is the solution but the Modern State it self is the problem. US was closest to an AnCap system between Andrew Jackson and 1913. During the great industrial revolution. We had no Centra bank and we still had roads and a strong military. Post office was the only bushiness with the Federal Government. Then in 1913 the FED was installed soon after follow European style economic turbulence caused by the mismanaging of the money supply. The Great Depression created by deflation then the 100 years of inflation and the century of total war where the $ lost 100% its value since 1913 and build up of the 16 trillion Debt.

Not even Somalia is an AnCap they had local Sharia enforced. But for Somalia the sort of semi-Anarchy worked better then any other government they had before, less violence free trade served a better welfare of the people. The government of Somalia were very brutal prior both the left and right. Actually after their Central banks collapsed the Somalian shilling kept it's steady value even with a Dollar being the competing currency in the country where before it was declining. Anytime the UN tried to intervene violence erupted by the War lords fighting for political power, the UN had to pull out to stop violence. Don't get me wrong I don't think just because the peoples welfare was better under Stateless Somalia is a prove that Anarchy can work. I think 20 years is a very short time to prove a system. But its a good experiment to study..
With the current moral state of humanity I believe there is still a need for a Government in sectors like justice, military and prisons. However I do question its capabilities to run a complex system like the Justice if they cannot even run a simple system like the Post Office. But unfortunately I don't have answers for a better alternative for those sectors. Also making profite out of prisoners rases a red flag for abuse even for me.
If people find a solution in the private sector for protecting people against violante crimes and against local tribalism then there is possibility for an AnCap society. But until we just to have keep beating back the State to it's original purpose to protect people natural rights against violent criminals.

Also with the new 3D printers, secure encrypted digital currencies, privatisation of space and other innovations will tip the relationship between the state and people over to the Libertarians side. Under Socialism it's just a matter of time when will it collapses. Actually more Socialism just plays in to the hand of the Libertarians as it's speeds up the decline. We hope that the number of Libertarians will be enough when a collapse happens to move the Country toward freedom and not toward tyranny or a war state.

 

Friedman is awesome... South Americas best economy is Chile. Chile based his economy on Freidman ideas.

 

Thomas Sowell: (Blacks and the welfare system)The Poverty Empire
[video=youtube_share;IwauhPzdnlc]http://youtu.be/IwauhPzdnlc[/video]

 

If I hog all the resources in the world, and I own everything, then I go to some poor, sheet community, and offer them 3 cents a month to work for me, I'm helping them. That what you mean? No matter how reckless or greedy my behavior, so long as the poor peasant can eat my crumbs, I'm "helping" the community. That about right?

 

"Greed is good". There you have it folks. Could the division be any deeper between the fat cats and the working man?

- - - Updated - - -

Crapitalism is a failure. It serves the few and screws the many.

 

What do you expect from Low IQs? Business Administration is a major for dummies. Those in denial prove they are lying to themselves because they'd never say to a National Merit winner, "What are you going to major in when you get to college? Business Administration?"

The Aym Randies, C-student Bizz Skule grads, passed around ungrammatical memoranda to one another telling how they are the motor that makes their company run. They are more like hood ornaments.

 

The Czechoff is too lazy to learn structured and accurate English. What does that say about the kind of people he wants us to admire?

 

C-mon, try and answer my simple question for once. Again, I'm asking you to represent or advise these non-working poor and or poor working stiffs by giving me an economic plan that would get these people to rise out of their current economic squalor. Remember, you must do it without referring to those greedy capitalist pigs, for I want you to concentrate on helping those people you seem to care about so much without placing blame for their failures on someone else.

 

I have responded in the fashion that I wanted to. "You must do it"....really? You represent that greed is good and as a consequence of your greed, you're helping people. I disagree. I think you methodology is rotting away (HAS rotted away) the core of morality and that it is on the verge of destroying this country. I don't have to dance your dance. You can do that yourself.

 

There is an interesting etymology related to this. Not in greedy, which originally meant "hungry," but in the fact that evil means "over, excessive," just like hubris comes from "hyper." So it is not profit that is evil, but excessive profit. Right Wingers never quantify.

 

I have a really simple way of getting this thread onto a coherent track, or possibly ending it (it's gone on for so many pages the discussion flow has just gotten ridiculous):

Watch that video of Milton Friedman on the previous page.

Now try to refute anything he said.

Go.

Edit: actually, scratch that. The lack of responses to that video being posted the first time says all that needs to be said. Lol.

 

Agreed.

 

"Excessive" profit? What? You really think there's such a thing as "too much" money?

 

I also love his debate with Francis Scott piven. Also on YouTube if you haven't checked it out. "Like you, I have never met a pollster"

 

Wouldn't you rather tax the dead than the living? Or do you believe in Greedhead ghosts coming back to haunt you?

 

I feel like you can save a lot of time and just write "no plan, only hate"

 

I knew it was a waste of my time to try and get you to create an economic policy for those people you so admire. Perhaps economics isn't your strong suit, for helping the poor climb the ladder to success may not be in the cards for people like you who seem to be more comfortable with having them sponge off of the producers and off of Uncle Sam's teat.

 

I'm new to this board but I would like to contradict a few aspects of the original post. First Capitalism is not destroying American values. Free trade does not destroy values it reinforces them. As a businessman I can personally tell you that honor, loyalty, honesty, and things of that nature are KEY to the survival of any institution. You will find an emphasis on those values at most successful companies big and small across the world. However where you will NOT find them is in government.

Second the havard author brings up the financial crisis of 2008 as if it was in any way caused by de-regulation. The truth is that yes.... had we over regulated the banks things MIGHT not have happened the way they did. What most Keynesians will fail to tell you is that regulation is what caused the collapse to begin with. People act as if the banks "RAn WILD" with sub-prime mortgages for their own benefit "just because they could." The truth is the regulations and policies put in place by Clinton and continued by Bush were INTENDED for the banks to do EXACTLY what they did. Don't marginalize your own intelligence here. Think about it. Clinton wanted to get more minorities into homes. He authorized Jim Johnson who at the time headed Fannie to find ways to do so. It was part of a two prong approach that eventually led to the collapse of Leeman Brothers lol.

First they doctored the procedures for determining loans. They limited what information could be collected ect. Second Fannie and Freddie started buying these mortgages like hot cakes. By 2008 they owned a market share of over 30%. When Microsoft was being called a monopoly they owned just over 30% of the market share. That's a huge stake. The proof is very clear that 500 of the 800 billion dollar tarp program bailed out who? Fannie and Freddie (both quasi govt agencies.) By buying such a huge market share they sent a very clear message to every mortgage and investment group in the WORLD that these loans were backed by the United States govt. Maybe that wasn't official but it's easy to put two and two together. If you ran a investment firm in China and was looking for lucrative opportunities in the U.S. economy.... look no further than one in bed with the govt. there is now way the federal govt would allow Fannie and Freddie to collapse therefore these mortgages had a much HIGHER value than they would have ever truly had.

That my friend is what we call socialism. The coordination/domination of government and business. The banks didn't really do anything outside of what they were intended to do. A lot of people wound up in homes under these policies and it made a lot of politicians look good. That is also part of the problem placing the market in the hands of government. Their goals and direction are not cut and dry. Personal ambitions FAR exceed what is good or bad for the company. We've already seen the devastating effects of this marriage in many other countries and for some reason completely FAIL to recognize it here. Socialism caused the 2008 collapse and it was blamed on the free market. Without a dinner meeting between Bill Clinton and Jim Johnson there would have never been a collapse. They... for their own personal motives.... created a ticking timebomb. Bush in his infinite wisdom continued and expanded the program. Again for his own political motives.

Finally I would choose a moral decay caused by capitalism over tyranny any day of the week. There is no such thing as societal morality. We are not one big culture in America. I would argue that the "moral decay" has nothing to do with capitalism at all but simply having a free and open society. That's the argument that should be made. But they can't win that argument so they target "capitalism" lol. In truth morality is an individual thing and I'm insulted by various group think mentalities who want to tell me what is right and wrong for "society." That's a load of crap. The real "moral decay" in America is caused by a lot of things the market being the least of them. You can point to the intermixing of various cultures for one example. Each group has their own moral identities and we have allowed them to mix. IMO that's not a bad thing. I'm happy to live in a country with that much freedom. What you may see as a decay I see as a step forward. America is an ever changing mix of people and with every new wave of culture and technology we find something new. For better or worse we are all in this together. I just caution people toward giving up their freedoms so easily. Economic freedom is the first to come in any tyranny ie China over the last 100 years. they are certainly MORe FREE today because of the interaction with American business than they were during the days of Mao. And it is the first thing to go such is the case of so many nations like Cuba. Castro started a revolution and the central platform was communism.... and free elections..... lol.... didn't quite work out so well for the people of cuba. For almost 50 years they did not have the economic freedom to choose where they worked.... how much they were willing to pay for a home.... or anything else. The government decided those things. If communism is so great why were those people swimming through shark infested waters in homemade rafts built from tires ect to get to the United States. DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR FREEDOM. You will never get it back.

 

This shows how closed minded and self deprecating liberals really are. Greed has nothing to do with the free market system for the most part. "Greed" will literally cause you to crash and burn and in most cases end up one hell of a lot worse off than where you started. Most companies that are driven by "greedy" people do not last very long. Greed has nothing to do with it.

I am a businessmen and "greed" is the least of my motivations. Instead the truth is the drive for prosperity is caused by a need for improvement. So what you coin as "greed" showing your very limited understanding of business and economics is in fact a desire to improve. You literally hate people for their desire to improve their lives and the lives of people around them. In my own personal experience one of my biggest motivations for success is not personal improvement but the improvement of my employees and the community I live in. I work hard to accomplish that goal. I want to bring my services to the people of my area. I want to improve the lives of my customers. I want to make a better name for my business so I can also improve the lives of the people who work for me. Greed..... is a coin term libs use to make the market sound bad. You really have no idea what you are talking about. Greed is a natural human element and it exists more so in politics than it does in business. Most of you liberals throw me for a loop claiming that "greed is what drives capitalism and so we should hand that over to the government instead lol." Yeah politicians aren't the WORST people on the face of the Earth. they aren't the most egocentric conniving lowlife individuals you have ever met. Sure those are the people who you can trust lol.

The "decaying culture" in this country.... is mostly a myth. In truth what we have are decaying voting blocks. There are more and more ignorant people everyday and it has nothing to do with intelligence. Most liberals I know are very intelligent they are simply ignorant of facts. I guess part of being a lib is choosing to have facts fit your overall world view which is self hating in nearly every way instead of allowing information to help shape your world view. I will never understand why people choose to be ignorant. I mean if you spend your time watching PMSNBC you MUST have made a conscious decision that you were going to be ignorant.

Media is in a sad state. But for the most part there is a general rule which can be followed. If you want information..... go to the media source which opposes whatever regime is in power. As of now Fox is probably the best source of information on current political events. During the Bush years Fox was a total waste of time and CNN or MSNBC were better choices. Every media source is slanted in their coverage. 80% of journalists poll liberal anyways so it's very difficult to find a non bias source of information. However if you go to the opposition at the very least you are getting some relevant information as opposed to a glossed over version of the truth.

 

I am a small business owner, and I am an investor ... So I get taxed both ways.
There is nothing wrong with creating wealth ... and you are probably just jealous because you fail at it, or don't have the guts to risk the money*.

*I started with a $50 Savings Bond ... So don't go on about not having enough money.

 

There is nobody more greedy than the government.

 

I like you. I think we'll get along juuuust fine.