i just thought about something fundamentally wrong with business in capitalistic sys

[pico]

under capitalistic system, small firms compete fiercly. if you charge 10 cents more than the next door liquor store, you'll lose customers. so you got to cut cost to compete, but good business people know how to manage risk.

managing risk cost money...that can be insurance premium or more upfront cost in stocking extra inventory for the next busy season.

so firms that are equally competitive and store to expose more risk will have a cost advantage over the short term, as nothing happens, their confidence will rise, and these firms will be fine, while the safer firms cannot keep up. so during the long peaceful economic periods, safer firms will hemorrage to death, while firms overall will start taking more risks and that is how a bubble is created.

remember how you're in business school, they teach you "just in time inventory" as some wonderful smart idea they invented recently. it is just simple common sense as don't buy a shitload of toilet paper if you're only going to use one roll per week. that is taking more risk if you think about it. if you do just-in-time-inventory with your bathroom and you just buy 1 roll per week, you might end up using your uncle samuel's towel to wipe your ass when you're stuck on the shitter after eating that free taco from taco bell.

[EBSB52]

under capitalistic system, small firms compete fiercly. if you charge 10 cents more than the next door liquor store, you'll lose customers. so you got to cut cost to compete, but good business people know how to manage risk.

managing risk cost money...that can be insurance premium or more upfront cost in stocking extra inventory for the next busy season.

so firms that are equally competitive and store to expose more risk will have a cost advantage over the short term, as nothing happens, their confidence will rise, and these firms will be fine, while the safer firms cannot keep up. so during the long peaceful economic periods, safer firms will hemorrage to death, while firms overall will start taking more risks and that is how a bubble is created.

remember how you're in business school, they teach you "just in time inventory" as some wonderful smart idea they invented recently. it is just simple common sense as don't buy a shitload of toilet paper if you're only going to use one roll per week. that is taking more risk if you think about it. if you do just-in-time-inventory with your bathroom and you just buy 1 roll per week, you might end up using your uncle samuel's towel to wipe your ass when you're stuck on the shitter after eating that free taco from taco bell.

Sure, short-term, inside-the-box thinking is a recipe for failure. This can be seen at all levels, from the individual to the largest of corporations. I work aircraft, some places are afraid to stock an inventory of hardware and want to order each time we have a job, which slows the shit out of production. These places do not last as long as repair stations that stock lots of inventory.

On a personal level, my GF now used to do this when I met her: She would buy 3 gallons of gas at a time, buy trial sized shampoos, etc. She's a freak anyway, but I don't know what possessed her to be an idiot lile that, but when I read your post I immediately thought off that. I think there is a balance to everything and few people find it. I'm probably bad the other way, I will overstock when I see a good deal and don't keep enough liquid cash on hand. I'm constantly hunting deals and find good ones, but have duplicates of tools and things I rarely use.

America is base on a greed today model, it's all about here and today, screw tomorrow, a sure-fire failure model. We operate as individuals, opposite of WWII-type mentalities where there was a joint effort mentality. Employers and employees and at each other, the rich want to disinfranchise the poor, and CEO's are on the take. Shit, AIG is partying their money away and no one seems to think it's unusual.

Bottom line: Capitalism has run its course; it's finished and we're just waiting for the powers to realize that. The gov will be the owners of GM, perhaps the big 3, the gov will be the direct financers of the mortgage industry and probably the medical industry. Capitalism's failure will be and is less dramatic than the falling of the wall, it will be more like a gradual transition to quasi-Socialism where the government quietly takes over several industries with public approaval, considering the failed state of private industry. Then we can become a nation united..... This is the start of it kids...

[DeluxeLiner]

There is a fundamental problem with American Capitalism, because it focuses solely on immediate results and immediate profits. Japanese Capitalism seems to be a far superior method of instituting the ideals of the free market, that is why they have surpassed the US in efficiency as well as consumer technologies. I think that CEOs and other high level executives need to be more accountable and should face harsh punishments for cheating the system and cheating the public.

[pico]

good replies. i think to summarize it up, here are the key points

the selfish-capitalism (USA system) is doomed for failure because the only reason our species have survived this long is cooperation. Japanese-capitalism the workers feel as part of the team. that lower the turn over, raise the moral, lower theft and increase quality. in america, it is all about how much much i can bring in. sales people don't give a flying **** that the production cannot keep up as long as their sales numbers are up. production doesn't give a flyiung **** about marketing or sales because all their concerned about is their 8 hours shift. as you can see, without a good COO, any company can turn into a mess very quickly. in the cooperation-capitalism, workers will work with each other to prevent problems from happening. that is the fundamental difference. the hidden cost is the risk...USA capitalism has a lot more risk than japanese-capitalism.

the other points is that maybe it is social progress to go towards partial socialism where the gov controls the key industries where market manipulation can cause harm to people's living standards and the stability of the economy.

[EBSB52]

There is a fundamental problem with American Capitalism, because it focuses solely on immediate results and immediate profits. Japanese Capitalism seems to be a far superior method of instituting the ideals of the free market, that is why they have surpassed the US in efficiency as well as consumer technologies. I think that CEOs and other high level executives need to be more accountable and should face harsh punishments for cheating the system and cheating the public.

Right, not only imediacy, but individual success, which is why quasi- Socialism will force people to care about the greater cause for all, even if they don't. It is long overdue and we will now enter the stage of quasi-Socialism, but we will not callit that for 10-20 years, as Americans have been brainwashed that it's a bad thing.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think that CEOs and other high level executives need to be more accountable and should face harsh punishments for cheating the system and cheating the public


And this is where American Capitalsim went awry, it became fascism. The market is supposed to control the means of production, but the elite do and have in this American Capitalistsic model, which immunizes CEO's from wrongdoings in many cases. The problem is systemic, even though it is easier to blame the Republican ideology. This is evident with Reagan pardoning Steinbrenner for a tax evasion conviction. As well, Clinton pardoned Symington for a loan fraud conviction. I do think the right are worse, far worse, but the ultimate problem is the game over the players.

[EBSB52]

good replies. i think to summarize it up, here are the key points

the selfish-capitalism (USA system) is doomed for failure because the only reason our species have survived this long is cooperation. Japanese-capitalism the workers feel as part of the team. that lower the turn over, raise the moral, lower theft and increase quality. in america, it is all about how much much i can bring in. sales people don't give a flying **** that the production cannot keep up as long as their sales numbers are up. production doesn't give a flyiung **** about marketing or sales because all their concerned about is their 8 hours shift. as you can see, without a good COO, any company can turn into a mess very quickly. in the cooperation-capitalism, workers will work with each other to prevent problems from happening. that is the fundamental difference. the hidden cost is the risk...USA capitalism has a lot more risk than japanese-capitalism.

the other points is that maybe it is social progress to go towards partial socialism where the gov controls the key industries where market manipulation can cause harm to people's living standards and the stability of the economy.

Totally. The crazy part is that some neo-cons, even after watching this 28-year anhilation of the US system, still think pure Capitalism is a workable system. Bizzare to say the least, of course those people are from 2 groups:

1) Ceo's and other rich who benefit from the system

2) Morons who are so uneducated that they don't understand what's going on around them


We have worked apart for so long that we don't understand what it would be like to work as a nation, racial biases, age bias, gender bias; with a black president I think this division will stop and all will be cared for. It will be a bipartisan movement that the Dems will have to spearhead, as the R's have clearly shown they are not willing to. After its success, it will be fun to watch the R's take credit for it tho

As for social reform, the people resisting the most will probably be the people embracing the most.

[pico]

biases are not the cause of the problem rather the results. biased are there because of profit. banks don't like black people because overall they're less credit-worthy than white counterpart. loaning to black people increase the default risk, which might be true or just a social stigma...doesn't matter, because when you do business you have to do risk analysis on the fly. biases are just short cuts people use to save time.

as we move towards more socialistic gov, these biases will go away like you said because there will be less profit motive. the gov owned bank doesn't give a flying **** if you're balck or white as long as you fill out all the forms and got the right stamps.

imo, racism is the results of capitalism. the system is build on exploiting the weak.

[Iamtheman]

under capitalistic system, small firms compete fiercly. if you charge 10 cents more than the next door liquor store, you'll lose customers. so you got to cut cost to compete, but good business people know how to manage risk.

managing risk cost money...that can be insurance premium or more upfront cost in stocking extra inventory for the next busy season.

so firms that are equally competitive and store to expose more risk will have a cost advantage over the short term, as nothing happens, their confidence will rise, and these firms will be fine, while the safer firms cannot keep up. so during the long peaceful economic periods, safer firms will hemorrage to death, while firms overall will start taking more risks and that is how a bubble is created.

remember how you're in business school, they teach you "just in time inventory" as some wonderful smart idea they invented recently. it is just simple common sense as don't buy a shitload of toilet paper if you're only going to use one roll per week. that is taking more risk if you think about it. if you do just-in-time-inventory with your bathroom and you just buy 1 roll per week, you might end up using your uncle samuel's towel to wipe your ass when you're stuck on the shitter after eating that free taco from taco bell.

I find your posts very interesting Pico, I have to say that I'm not a big fan of the just in time philosophy, however, if applied with a service level of at least 95% it is quite functional and it avoids waste and reduces costs. A lower cost leads to a better price for the final consumer, a satisfied consumer leads to stablity for the companies or industries that work on reducing their costs while they offer better products and services (and their employees of course), all of which combined create wealth...so, what is wrong with that?

[pico]

I find your posts very interesting Pico, I have to say that I'm not a big fan of the just in time philosophy, however, if applied with a service level of at least 95% it is quite functional and it avoids waste and reduces costs. A lower cost leads to a better price for the final consumer, a satisfied consumer leads to stablity for the companies or industries that work on reducing their costs while they offer better products and services (and their employees of course), all of which combined create wealth...so, what is wrong with that?

my point is just-in-time is the same as taking up more risk. i used just-in-time as an example to illustrate how modern comapnies use new MBA buzzwords to make you think they're innovating, but in fact they're just taking on more risk. nothing wrong with just-in-time, but if you don't do it right...even at the service level where you only hired two customer reps to take all the wagers for the NCAA FB at noon....you're gonna lose customers. Just-in-time reduce waste but increase the risk of unexpected spike in business.

there is always a trade off. rarely you'll see a win-win scenario where there is no downside risk.

[Iamtheman]

good replies. i think to summarize it up, here are the key points

the selfish-capitalism (USA system) is doomed for failure because the only reason our species have survived this long is cooperation. Japanese-capitalism the workers feel as part of the team. that lower the turn over, raise the moral, lower theft and increase quality. in america, it is all about how much much i can bring in. sales people don't give a flying **** that the production cannot keep up as long as their sales numbers are up. production doesn't give a flyiung **** about marketing or sales because all their concerned about is their 8 hours shift. as you can see, without a good COO, any company can turn into a mess very quickly. in the cooperation-capitalism, workers will work with each other to prevent problems from happening. that is the fundamental difference. the hidden cost is the risk...USA capitalism has a lot more risk than japanese-capitalism.

the other points is that maybe it is social progress to go towards partial socialism where the gov controls the key industries where market manipulation can cause harm to people's living standards and the stability of the economy.

It's the six sigma philosophy being applied to the letter, something American companies and their workers are far from accomplishing yet, not because they are lazy or incapable, it's more of a cultural issue if you will, Japanese people are fed that philosophy from the moment they are born.

[wtf]

what is wrong with you? there is nothing wrong with the system that only requires some tinkering.

market is still up 400% since the '87 crash. not bad.

america is still the engine of the world.

you all panic over a bump in the road? throw the baby out with the bath water!

give me a break.

the often quoted winston churchill, capitalism is the worst system on earth, bar all the others.

[Iamtheman]

my point is just-in-time is the same as taking up more risk. i used just-in-time as an example to illustrate how modern comapnies use new MBA buzzwords to make you think they're innovating, but in fact they're just taking on more risk. nothing wrong with just-in-time, but if you don't do it right...even at the service level where you only hired two customer reps to take all the wagers for the NCAA FB at noon....you're gonna lose customers. Just-in-time reduce waste but increase the risk of unexpected spike in business.

there is always a trade off. rarely you'll see a win-win scenario where there is no downside risk.

Good point, which is the reason why a forecast model that takes into consideration variables such as trends and seasonality before adopting any production (service) philosophy should be applied. Doing other wise would be just stupid.

[reno cool]

Right, not only imediacy, but individual success, which is why quasi- Socialism will force people to care about the greater cause for all, even if they don't. It is long overdue and we will now enter the stage of quasi-Socialism, but we will not callit that for 10-20 years, as Americans have been brainwashed that it's a bad thing.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think that CEOs and other high level executives need to be more accountable and should face harsh punishments for cheating the system and cheating the public


And this is where American Capitalsim went awry, it became fascism. The market is supposed to control the means of production, but the elite do and have in this American Capitalistsic model, which immunizes CEO's from wrongdoings in many cases. The problem is systemic, even though it is easier to blame the Republican ideology. This is evident with Reagan pardoning Steinbrenner for a tax evasion conviction. As well, Clinton pardoned Symington for a loan fraud conviction. I do think the right are worse, far worse, but the ultimate problem is the game over the players.

important point.

[Hoja Verdes]

Bottom line: Capitalism has run its course; it's finished and we're just waiting for the powers to realize that. The gov will be the owners of GM, perhaps the big 3, the gov will be the direct financers of the mortgage industry and probably the medical industry. Capitalism's failure will be and is less dramatic than the falling of the wall, it will be more like a gradual transition to quasi-Socialism where the government quietly takes over several industries with public approaval, considering the failed state of private industry. Then we can become a nation united..... This is the start of it kids...

You nailed it. Only some of us truly see what's coming though, most people can't (or don't want to) think or see past the next weekend.

And my thoughts on 'just-in-time inventory,' which I'm glad you guys brought up:

I ran my family's small business as the C.O.O. for 4 years until 2007, and J-I-T inventory ALWAYS leaves you short and relying on big-sale customers to come back later to pick up their product, which takes more time and slows the pace at which you can close other transactions; and J-I-T ALWAYS results in much higher shipping costs, which almost completely negates the benefits of buying less product over time. Essentially, you're just paying higher juice on smaller, safer bets. It's a wash or a loss, but rarely a gain.

[mathdotcom]

I found something fundamentally wrong with your English. Pick up a dictionary and then we'll talk capitalism.

[Hoja Verdes]

I found something fundamentally wrong with your English. Pick up a dictionary and then we'll talk capitalism.

Whatever, he's obviously an intellectual, unlike most of the mouthbreathers on this board. Responding in a 'heady' thread like this with a short 'grammar nazi' post is about as gay as it gets. Turn in your man card with your drivers license after hitting the cop.

[mathdotcom]

a little mistake here and there is not the issue

it's almost impossible to de-code wtf he's saying

[mathdotcom]

Funny how some of you blame capitalism for the fact that the typical American spends beyond his means. Sorry, but you might want to attack stupidity there rather than capitalism.

[andywend]

Socialism vs. Capitalism

Over the past few decades Western European countries have have passed laws and taken other steps towards socialism (or Marxism). This, combined with globalization, has lead to increased pressure on the United States to become more socialistic. Although the ideas of socialism seem appealing, it a fundamentally flawed system and it begins a slippery slope that falls into communism.

Wikipedia defines socialism as "a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. Many socialist ideas come from Marxism (more commonly, "communism"), which essentially calls for a reversal of what we know as the structure of society. In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx predicts that the proletariats will overthrow the bourgeoisie (which seems to be happening to some degree). The bourgeoisie are upper management and upper class, the white collar workers, while the proletariats are the working class, the blue collar workers. Since the proletariats "do all the work", Marx and other socialists suggest that they should get an equal share of the wealth. A Marxist society would have no private property rights and goods produced in it would be distributed among the citizens--"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The idea of a Marxist society is very alluring. In today's world of freedom and fairness, the notion of everyone being completely equal, even if this means taking from the rich and giving to the poor, seems just; however, the defect in Marxism is obvious. It is dependent on a type of human nature that is hard to come by. For Marxism to work, very little greed and jealosy can exist and people must have a general feeling of charity and a willingness to work their hardest for the good of everyone. These are obviously not common traits. Marxism could also work if those who have the greatest abilities and those who work the hardest are satisfied with rewards equivalent to those with lesser abilities and those who don't work hard at all. This is also very unlikely. Marxism undoubtedly leads to free riding and slacking.

On the other hand, capitalism utilizes the willpower of individuals, especially entrepreneurs, to foment economic activity. Capitalism is based on the assumption that individuals operate based on self interest; however, by doing so they not only help themselves, but also propel others towards economic success. As Adam Smith put it, "by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

I was given an assignment by a teacher in high school to write a paper on whether capitalism or communism would be better in "a perfect world." On first glance, communism seems to be the obvious choice, but if it were a perfect world, then not only would people work hard to support their families and progress individually, but even capitalists would be willing to donate to charities, etc. I believe that in a perfect world, a very similar outcome would occur in either communism or capitalism.

The communist societies that have been or are being attempted are really not communist societies at all, although they try to be. The USSR, for example, attempted communism but ended up being way to totaliarianistic--in stead of everyone working for the benefit of the society, there was a group of individuals with total power (Joseph Stalin took this role for a quarter century). Today's China is the same way--there is a centralized bureaucracy that calls all the shots. In both of these cases many people are forced to take part in the society against their own will. The Soviet Union obviously didn't work and China is becoming more prosperous only as they allow their economy to be more capitalistic. Taiwan, China's capitalistic counterpart, is years ahead of China on almost any measure of prosperity.

The fact is that people can't be forced to take part in communism. It simply won't work unless everyone is willing, and even then greed can easily lead to its demise. On the other hand, capitalism can work even if there are some who don't want to pull their weight--the difference is that those that don't pull their weight will suffer the consequences. Just like in communism, capitalism will work better if everyone works hard to produce valuable products. Also just like in communism, a capitalist society where there exists charity and good will will eliminate preventable suffering of all individuals.

So why has France passed a socialistic labor law which makes it very hard to lay off workers? Why does Canada have government sponsered, free health care? Why do some American workers pay over a third of their income in taxes? Why do so many nations tax and then dole out excessive welfare checks?

It seems as though we are doing the very thing that history has proven doesn't work: forcing socialism. How can France expect its workers to work hard if it's nearly impossible to fire them? How can we expect welfare recipients to find jobs if it's easy for them to sit at home and get welfare? I know that there is a real need for welfare among some people, but there are others who smoke and drink and do nothing to better themselves. Socialism is forced on the rest of Americans when they are taxed and their money goes to such people. If this continues, Americans will become more and more lazy and our nation will degenerate to a quasi-socialist, nonproductive society.

The US is taking baby steps towards socialism. We may not be as far as France, and we're definitely not as far as China, but unless we reverse the current trend we will suffer the consequences.

http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/blogs/socialism-vs-capitalism.php

[wtf]

i live in china, and the reason why china is growing so rapidly is adopting capitalism, with communist traits. it is capitalism, except with a centrally run government.

they are only 50 years behind (but are now maybe ten years behind) because of communism. this gap is closing by the day.

so many lives have improved because of adopting capitalism. roads are paved, almost everyone has electricity and a cell phone. amazing.

there is no other way for human beings.

[Iamtheman]

Funny how some of you blame capitalism for the fact that the typical American spends beyond his means. Sorry, but you might want to attack stupidity there rather than capitalism.

Very well said

[EBSB52]

I found something fundamentally wrong with your English. Pick up a dictionary and then we'll talk capitalism.

If you had a point to make, you'd make it rather than dodge all of the issues and attempt to grandstand and misdirect. I've been posting on these boards for a long time and I've noticed that people will engage until they've either become tired of an issue or run out of ideas to counter with. At this point they will walk away if it's the former, look for a misdirection, usually some kind of ad hominem if it's the latter. You've saved us the time and gone right to the latter, thank you. Apparently you're done before you start or you'd enlighten us with your alleged brilliance. Or perhaps this is the T. Boone Pickens approach where you try to get us salivating for what you are going to come out with.

No one is impressed, other than other neo-cons, so why not let us in on this great discovery of my alleged fundamental flaw.

[EBSB52]

Whatever, he's obviously an intellectual, unlike most of the mouthbreathers on this board. Responding in a 'heady' thread like this with a short 'grammar nazi' post is about as gay as it gets. Turn in your man card with your drivers license after hitting the cop.

Nice ............couldn't have said it better myself.

[EBSB52]

a little mistake here and there is not the issue

it's almost impossible to de-code wtf he's saying

Wait, first you say you understand what I'm saying to the extent that you can pick out a fundamental flaw, now you say it's unintelligible; you've just committed an obvious contradiction. The egg, my friend, is on your face.

[EBSB52]

i live in china, and the reason why china is growing so rapidly is adopting capitalism, with communist traits. it is capitalism, except with a centrally run government.

they are only 50 years behind (but are now maybe ten years behind) because of communism. this gap is closing by the day.

so many lives have improved because of adopting capitalism. roads are paved, almost everyone has electricity and a cell phone. amazing.

there is no other way for human beings.

So you've totally circumvented Socialism or described the inequities of capitalism. You've simply illustrated how capitalism is better than communism; hard to find an argument here. So in that you are right saying capitalism is better than communism, you have yet to attempt to impeach my assertion that socialism is better than capitalism, esp in the quasi sense, as with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and parts of Western Europe.

[mathdotcom]

Wait, first you say you understand what I'm saying to the extent that you can pick out a fundamental flaw, now you say it's unintelligible; you've just committed an obvious contradiction. The egg, my friend, is on your face.

I'm not even talking about you. I'm talking about pico.

Looks like something else is on your face

[EBSB52]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Over the past few decades Western European countries have have passed laws and taken other steps towards socialism (or Marxism).


Oh, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Exploitation: Marx refers to the exploitation of an entire segment or class of society by another. He sees it as being an inherent feature and key element of capitalism and free markets. The profit gained by the capitalist is the difference between the value of the product made by the worker and the actual wage that the worker receives; in other words, capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value of their labour, in order to enable the capitalist class to turn a profit. This profit is not however moderated in terms of risk vs. return.
Alienation: Marx refers to the alienation of people from aspects of their "human nature" ("Gattungswesen", usually translated as 'species-essence' or 'species-being'). He believes that alienation is a systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism, the fruits of production belong to the employers, who expropriate the surplus created by others and in so doing generate alienated labour.[5] Alienation describes objective features of a person's situation in capitalism - it isn't necessary for them to believe or feel that they are alienated.





Yea, that would be horrible to live in a society where the worker is no longer exploited. Can you disagree that alienation definitely exists here in the US? What part of Marxism sucks? I’m not saying I agree with all of Marxism or disagree with part of capitalism, just wondering what parts of Marxism you like and which you dislike. And how have Western European countries just adopted steps toward socialism? NEWSFLASH: they have been socialist forever, most of them. They have socialized universal medical care and federal laws requiring 30 days to 9 weeks vacation per year, etc…


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This, combined with globalization, has lead to increased pressure on the United States to become more socialistic.


No, the 20-year failure of virtually strict capitalism is the failure that‘s driving us to socialism; it’s a defunct system.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Although the ideas of socialism seem appealing, it a fundamentally flawed system and it begins a slippery slope that falls into communism.



Oh, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most of Western Europe? These countries have been socialist forever and they haven’t slipped into communism. More fear-mongering from the right? It’s not coy, we’re so onto that.

[mathdotcom]

There is more immigration from those countries [Canada, Aus, NZ] to the U.S. than vice-versa. Maybe there's a reason.

[EBSB52]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wikipedia defines socialism as "a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people.


Yes, is that bad? As opposed to capitalism’s controlled by the market à market controlled by the elite.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>Many socialist ideas come from Marxism (more commonly, "communism"), which essentially calls for a reversal of what we know as the structure of society.


As we in the US you mean? Ok, let’s reverse record debt, massive homelessness, greed, liars getting immunized, corruption and all those American ideals. It used to be against the law to have communist propaganda, in fact, a case: Mapp v Ohio illustrates this. Mapp was circa late 1950’s BTW. We’ve come a long way since then and I think many actually embrace moving toward socialism and away from capitalism, as the latter has left so may disenfranchised w/o medical care at all or adequately, poor, homeless, w/o savings, etc. So to reverse what we now have: BRING IT ON.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx predicts that the proletariats will overthrow the bourgeoisie (which seems to be happening to some degree).


Are you fvcking kidding? How is the worker overthrowing the rich? Class disparity in the US is growing by the hour?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>The bourgeoisie are upper management and upper class, the white collar workers, while the proletariats are the working class, the blue collar workers. Since the proletariats "do all the work", Marx and other socialists suggest that they should get an equal share of the wealth. A Marxist society would have no private property rights and goods produced in it would be distributed among the citizens--"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


Let me repost this tidbit: A Marxist society would have no private property rights ….. Yea, a strict Marxist society. Hell, even the hardest Communist nations have some, esp China. Former USSR had private property rights. More fear-mongering from the right. We’re not going to go from full-on capitalism to full-on Marxist Communism, the people would resist a leader that wanted that, I know I would. don’t you guys work in degrees of change? Or is it all or nothing?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The idea of a Marxist society is very alluring. In today's world of freedom and fairness, …


You must not live in America, the fairness part is still eluding me.


>>>>>>>>>>>>…the notion of everyone being completely equal, even if this means taking from the rich and giving to the poor, seems just; however, the defect in Marxism is obvious. It is dependent on a type of human nature that is hard to come by.


The flaw here is that we won’t enter that kind of contract, there will be no taking from the rich as in requiring they turn over a percent of their wealth. Simply the taxes will increase for the rich, if they don’t like it they can take their ill-gotten wealth and leave to another country. Hell, buy a fvcking island so they can keep all the so-called greedy bastards out of their pockets. They’ll discover that taxes elsewhere are higher, even after whatever little tax increase Obama enacts.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>For Marxism to work, very little greed and jealosy can exist and people must have a general feeling of charity and a willingness to work their hardest for the good of everyone.


Isn’t that bad, the nation to come together by choice or by force? So anti-American to care about your fellow man.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>These are obviously not common traits.


In the US you mean.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Marxism could also work if those who have the greatest abilities and those who work the hardest are satisfied with rewards equivalent to those with lesser abilities and those who don't work hard at all. This is also very unlikely. Marxism undoubtedly leads to free riding and slacking.


This is the downside of communism, which is why I like a quasi-capitalist / quasi-socialist system. Pure, full-on communism sucks.

[EBSB52]

I'm not even talking about you. I'm talking about pico.

Looks like something else is on your face

Looks like you once again contradicted yourself, saying you can't make intelligible what someone is saying, yet you ambiguously didn't post the author twice and still have yet to enlightened us what you learned in 3rd grade today.

[EBSB52]

There is more immigration from those countries [Canada, Aus, NZ] to the U.S. than vice-versa. Maybe there's a reason.

Oh, are you now talking to me..... I guess we have to be mind readers. Funny how such a guy claims to be brilliant in English grammar can’t find simple terms like, "immigration" for people entering a country or, "emigration" for people leaving. Do you have data for your claim? I have never researched that, but a brilliant man like yourself should have data like that ready to post….let’s see it.

[Iamtheman]

Although the ideas of socialism seem appealing, it a fundamentally flawed system and it begins a slippery slope that falls into communism.



Oh, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most of Western Europe? These countries have been socialist forever and they haven’t slipped into communism. More fear-mongering from the right? It’s not coy, we’re so onto that.

Socialism is theoretically the best system the human kind has created, however, it just can't be put in practice; it creates poverty and then equally distributes that poverty among all of the citizens, except for the governing elite of course. The countries you mention have applied a system that allows their citizens to create their own wealth and then that wealth becomes that of the masses and that is why they have succeeded, capitalism is evidently not perfect but I'd rather have the opportunity to work hard for what I need and want than being as poor as my neighbor, if we all sit and wait for our country to fulfill our needs all of our opportunities will be limited and we will all be equally miserable.

[pico]

Funny how some of you blame capitalism for the fact that the typical American spends beyond his means. Sorry, but you might want to attack stupidity there rather than capitalism.

how can you be sure about what is the cause? people spending patterns are conditioned in the environment they're in. if it is so easy to get credit, i don't see why not use it. people are not stupid, they know it is a loan. so why do people in asia saves a lot more? there are many reasons. one of them is the credit system is poor to non-existant in some countries. if you don't save, there is no way to get credit when you need the money.

US is the opposite, even 18 year old kid who has 10k in credit card debt can still get a student loan and bunch of credit cards. i'd say even the most frugal set of citizens will turn into big spenders. it has already happened in china. as more credit cards and debit cards accepted across the nation, more young people are spending beyond their mean. china is pretty much like 10-20 years behind in american spending pattern. you have girls who makes about 500 usd a month spend 100 dollars on a dress every other weekend. i see china heading towards the same problem as american capitalism.

people always want things, the more accessible the credits, the more they'll spend. sort of like a goldfish. overspending is the results of lax screening process, preditory lending, and bank taking up too much risk. americans got into the subprime morgage mess because they over-borrowed, i don't think they're stupid, but they're just not aware that the house price will always go up bullshit. even the smart people are duped. economist come up with models like how land is constant as population grow, house price should increase forever.

the current mess has a lot of factors, but my point is the system itself produce systematic risk that blows up once a while. good example is the martingale system. growth will be steady for a while, then everything blows up.

[pico]

what is wrong with you? there is nothing wrong with the system that only requires some tinkering.

market is still up 400% since the '87 crash. not bad.

america is still the engine of the world.

you all panic over a bump in the road? throw the baby out with the bath water!

give me a break.

the often quoted winston churchill, capitalism is the worst system on earth, bar all the others.

that is true. it really depends on how you interpret human nature. if you think everyone is evil and self-ish by nature, then capitalism is the best system. which makes sense, that is how the american church preaches...that you're borned with sin.

if you have a different interpretation that everyone is born pure, it is the envirnoment that corrupted them, then there is still hope to implement a better system.

so i think the dominant religion in USA plays a huge part in the their current eocnomic system.

[Iamtheman]

how can you be sure about what is the cause? people spending patterns are conditioned in the environment they're in. if it is so easy to get credit, i don't see why not use it. people are not stupid, they know it is a loan. so why do people in asia saves a lot more? there are many reasons. one of them is the credit system is poor to non-existant in some countries. if you don't save, there is no way to get credit when you need the money.

US is the opposite, even 18 year old kid who has 10k in credit card debt can still get a student loan and bunch of credit cards. i'd say even the most frugal set of citizens will turn into big spenders. it has already happened in china. as more credit cards and debit cards accepted across the nation, more young people are spending beyond their mean. china is pretty much like 10-20 years behind in american spending pattern. you have girls who makes about 500 usd a month spend 100 dollars on a dress every other weekend. i see china heading towards the same problem as american capitalism.

people always want things, the more accessible the credits, the more they'll spend. sort of like a goldfish. overspending is the results of lax screening process, preditory lending, and bank taking up too much risk. americans got into the subprime morgage mess because they over-borrowed, i don't think they're stupid, but they're just not aware that the house price will always go up bullshit. even the smart people are duped. economist come up with models like how land is constant as population grow, house price should increase forever.

the current mess has a lot of factors, but my point is the system itself produce systematic risk that blows up once a while. good example is the martingale system. growth will be steady for a while, then everything blows up.

Good point; and here comes another paradox, without the ability to spend, even beyond our limits, the economy simply would get stuck; demand for services and products is precisely what keeps the economy in motion. Consumption appears to be a necessary evil and capitalism would not survive without it, call it stupidity or simply being absorbed by the system, we need to keep our money in motion and that is how we create and distribute wealth, evidently someone has to suffer the consequences.