capitalism

[mysecondstar]

capitalism promoted rapid growth in all aspects of life. the premise of having the best product in the market to recieve the most profits seems to have died.

entreprenuers stuggle to make ends meet due to superstores and mega-conglomerates simply buying them and taking their innovations for their own. and to maximize their own profits they delay the release of new products that can help contribute to society.

probably the best example of this is the pharmaceutical firms delaying the release of more effective drugs to have the consumer buy a cocktail of medication. another example is with the aero-space program namely NASA. there is technology to advance space travel beyond just orbitting the Earth. if the pace of aero-space were to continue as fast as it did in the middle of the 20th century we'd have what we'd consider a sci-fi lifestyle today. but because companies like Boeing and Lockheed/Martin want higher profit NASA keeps around the archaeic space shuttles.

i blieve we've come to then end of the effectiveness of capitalism. but, unfortunately, capitalism is still the most effective means of life and living in existance no matter how chaotic. a chaotic system for a chaotic world. once the world comes into order, a more effective means can be used. perhaps communism, the perfect institution for the perfect world.

[Shangui]

I think capitalism is transitory state that stayed too long : At first, it help build societies and create technologies that are now vital. Over the years however, capitalism created a mountain of problems : It destroyed most of the environnement by encouraging waste and giving means of exploiting ressources at a phenomenal rate, it created a lot of social problems that are now incrusted in mankind like greed, it also contributed in a lot of wars simply to get more ressources.

Capitalism is bound to crumble on itself because it will meet physical restrains : the planet will not be able to support wasteful capitalism anymore. Communism is, in my opinion, the best alternative : Capitalism built the infrastructures and now we can instigate a stable communism and try to save the little that is left of our planet.

Unfortunatly, the switch to communism will be hard, because capitalism (yet again) made people greedy and plagued mankind. Everybody wantss to be superior and have everything for himself. Scientists agree, the planet can sustain mankind, but we'll have to make some drastic changes in our way of life. We should all do our part right now : walk a little for a change instead of using your planet-busting SUV to go to work, recycle, quit buying one-use items ... etc

I think most of the people on newgrounds are from occidental nations that are quite rich, but have you ever stop to think what is the cost of your way of life ? you should all think about it.

[Kenney333]

I like what youve put together here, the truth is, that capitalism is no longer useful these days. the problem is people argue that capitalism goes hand in hand with freedom, which is a very strong point for most people. but if we keep up capitalism, weel eventually all either die off, or end up in those crummy free market futures we see in movies.

To help think about it, heres my example of what capitalism leads to:

Two lumber companies, company A and company B are after the same market, both know that whoever can sell at the lower price will make the most profit for their shareholders and drive the other company out of buisness. company A chooses to use vehicles that only create half as much CO2 as a regular machine, and they replant 1 tree for every 2 they cut down. company B chooses to use the regular machines, at half the cost of the non poluting ones, and decides to save billions by not replanting any trees. Now obviosly company B will have a lower price and take over the market, bankrupting company A. too bad the shareholders didnt think of the future and how we all ran out of lumber and the ozone layer is gone and were all dead.

Capitalism will only slow us down as a society now, when we have so much potential. Like marx said, everything is eventual, someday, capitalism will die. Good Ridance.

[FUNKbrs]

*kicks a tree*

Ok, first of all, we don't live under a true capitalism anymore. Copyrights put an end to all of that. You see, only one company can own a copyright, everyone else has to use a license to use the copyright. You don't want anyone coming out with a product? Buy the copyright, never issue any licences. If Lockheed, Pfizer etc didnt own copyrights to the items they hold back, then those products WOULD be available to everyone.

Now, as far as the ozone goes, THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER, IT IS CAUSED BY THE MAGNETICS OF THE SOUTH POLE. Why do you think there is only a hole in antartica? shouldnt the layer just thin out world wide, until it ceases to exist? 03 is a POLLUTANT on the troposphere. Take a college course on meteorology, and theyll tell you the biggest pollution sources are 1 Cattle flatulance 2 Volcanoes.

Lastly, enforced communism is a stupid idea. People should have the choice of govermental styles. Communism is the organization of the populace in communes, and the belief in a tribal system. How is this progressive? We should strive for Technocratic Autarchy, where everyone has access to all the equipment necessary to sustain their own life, and are entirely independent of a governing body. THAT is the system we should strive for. Is our technology there yet? Shit no. But that is the goal we should strive for; individual independence for every human being through technology and science.

Communism makes the government too strong, and ultimately oppresses it's people. Capitalism makes everyone greedy, and the people oppress each other. Anarchy? C'mon, we'll all kill each other. Rule by perfectly logical machines incapable of discrimination, and designed purely to serve the populace and maintain the status quo with redundant infrastructure? Now that sounds like the wave of the future, ladies and gentlemen, that sounds like heaven.

[BWS]

These ideas are based more on economics; they arent really tied to forms of government very much. Because of the supply/demand graphs of certain industries the cheaper company always wins, unless the government places a tax on the externalities of the product. When the market becomes over regulated by government it leads to greater inefficiency and missalocation of resources.

[mysecondstar]

At 7/9/03 02:17 PM, BWS wrote: These ideas are based more on economics; they arent really tied to forms of government very much. Because of the supply/demand graphs of certain industries the cheaper company always wins, unless the government places a tax on the externalities of the product. When the market becomes over regulated by government it leads to greater inefficiency and missalocation of resources.

and those companies with the resources and money give "soft money" to politicians who run our government. this binds government and economics to one another. and if you decided to go Rambo against big business you can kiss your future political aspirations down the drain.

[JMHX]

At 7/9/03 07:14 PM, mysecondstar wrote:

At 7/9/03 02:17 PM, BWS wrote:

and those companies with the resources and money give "soft money" to politicians who run our government. this binds government and economics to one another. and if you decided to go Rambo against big business you can kiss your future political aspirations down the drain.

So this is just one huge way of saying that corporations push their say by paying off politicians and being generally corrupt. Yay capitalism.

[mysecondstar]

At 7/9/03 07:17 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: So this is just one huge way of saying that corporations push their say by paying off politicians and being generally corrupt. Yay capitalism.

it's sad because free trade and a democratic government were meant to be different. yet slowly but surely they've become intertwined with one another. you will almost never see a poor or a middle class politician anymore. and these are the people that can relate to the masses.

[JMHX]

At 7/9/03 07:27 PM, mysecondstar wrote:

At 7/9/03 07:17 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: So this is just one huge way of saying that corporations push their say by paying off politicians and being generally corrupt. Yay capitalism.

it's sad because free trade and a democratic government were meant to be different. yet slowly but surely they've become intertwined with one another. you will almost never see a poor or a middle class politician anymore. and these are the people that can relate to the masses.

Actually, there has been a decrease in senators who were born millionaires since the beginning of the 20th century. People like Strom Thurmond, Paul Wellstone, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, Trent Lott...they didn't come from millionaire backgrounds. It's odd for the President, even, to have been born with a silver spoon. Reagan was a poor radio sports announcer in Iowa before entering movies, Clinton was the "little boy from Hope", Carter was just a farmer. A lot of people believe politicians are all tycoons of some field, but it's not always the fact.

[BWS]

At 7/9/03 07:27 PM, mysecondstar wrote:

At 7/9/03 07:17 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: So this is just one huge way of saying that corporations push their say by paying off politicians and being generally corrupt. Yay capitalism.

it's sad because free trade and a democratic government were meant to be different. yet slowly but surely they've become intertwined with one another. you will almost never see a poor or a middle class politician anymore. and these are the people that can relate to the masses.

And so these are the people that dont need "soft" or "hard" money for relection. These people that decide upon taxes (to help the poor) are Reps, and therefore report much more directly to their constituents thus they are in fact responsive both in representation and legislativly.

And by the way, economicly speaking, the feds who do open market operations cant help the whole and screw the rest at the same time.

[BWS]

I meant that the Feds cant help the rich and screw the poor; Monetary policy doesnt work that way.

[DarkCyrstal]

At 7/9/03 11:27 PM, BWS wrote: I meant that the Feds cant help the rich and screw the poor; Monetary policy doesnt work that way.

I am srry but it is Pronounced. Federalies.

[BWS]

At 7/9/03 11:30 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

At 7/9/03 11:27 PM, BWS wrote: I meant that the Feds cant help the rich and screw the poor; Monetary policy doesnt work that way.

I am srry but it is Pronounced. Federalies.

USA; I hope youre being sarcastic!

[JMHX]

At 7/9/03 11:27 PM, BWS wrote: I meant that the Feds cant help the rich and screw the poor; Monetary policy doesnt work that way.

Well, most of the time that's what happens. Not many homeless people are getting kickbacks from the government.

[BWS]

At 7/10/03 01:17 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 7/9/03 11:27 PM, BWS wrote: I meant that the Feds cant help the rich and screw the poor; Monetary policy doesnt work that way.

Well, most of the time that's what happens. Not many homeless people are getting kickbacks from the government.

Thats because the Feds Im talking about dont have anything to do with taxes and policies like that; they give advice though. The Feds control the M1 Money Supply with open market operations with bonds... They buy/sell bonds... Banks can lend more/less... [some technical shit]... Money supplyu and interets rates are manipulated... Affects economy because it increases/decreases spending/investing.

[mysecondstar]

At 7/9/03 09:27 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Actually, there has been a decrease in senators who were born millionaires since the beginning of the 20th century. People like Strom Thurmond, Paul Wellstone, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, Trent Lott...they didn't come from millionaire backgrounds. It's odd for the President, even, to have been born with a silver spoon. Reagan was a poor radio sports announcer in Iowa before entering movies, Clinton was the "little boy from Hope", Carter was just a farmer. A lot of people believe politicians are all tycoons of some field, but it's not always the fact.

i understand that not all politicians are born tycoons or even well off. however it is their financial status when they get elected that matters most. because with money come influence and with influence comes votes.

[JMHX]

Well, in the state-level Senate here in Indiana, most of the senators need to hold down second jobs during the summer when the senate isn't in session. Even on the national level, Senators don't make that much considering they're usually holding down two or three residences. The real money comes from the jobs they hold on the side. A friend of mine, the representative ot the Indiana House of Reps from Lake County, Indiana, is a Corporate Lawyer. There's my future career. Mmm...money.

[mysecondstar]

At 7/10/03 10:34 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Well, in the state-level Senate here in Indiana, most of the senators need to hold down second jobs during the summer when the senate isn't in session. Even on the national level, Senators don't make that much considering they're usually holding down two or three residences. The real money comes from the jobs they hold on the side. A friend of mine, the representative ot the Indiana House of Reps from Lake County, Indiana, is a Corporate Lawyer. There's my future career. Mmm...money.

if only it were that way in Illinois. we're filled with corporate lawyers, sucessful businessmen, and Jesse White Jr. Amen.