23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

[Sisifo]

Nonsense. Labor accepts as wages and benefits exactly what they think their labor is worth. If they undervalue themselves, the business owner is under no moral obligation to pay them more than they agree to be paid. Any business person who pays less and still gets employees to work for him is simply reflecting the true value of the labor involved. Marxism falsely maintains that the worker is "exploited" by not being paid the full value of his work, but that's a false claim because the value of one's labor is worth what some employer is willing to pay for it, no more. The more valuable the labor is (i.e. the more skilled the laborer) the more his work is worth, and the more the employer has to pay to obtain it in a free market.

The value of labor is set by free market forces and varies with the skill set required for the job and the market for laborers with that skill set. Nothing exploitative or coercive about it. A laborer wishing higher wages has only to make himself worth more on the market by improving his skill set.

I wish you hunger. Not the uncomfortable belly ache. The hunger that makes you a walking zombie, impairing your focus and your thoughts, doing the movements just from will power.

I wish you sickness. Not a cold. The maiming sickness that come from polio, leprosy, or the weaking of suffering dozens of infections.

I wish you the panic of seeing your beloved ones maimed and at your helpless care, dying in pain covered by flies. I wish it happens to you as a child, that you have to sell yourself for sex and die from hepatitis and violence as a teenager, or to die from lungs disease into a mine, just to feed your AIDS dying mother. I wish you the desperation of trying to find something. ANYTHING to eat. Of finding a simple antiseptic, of finding help.
As a father, to see your children fade away because you just can't find enough to feed them. To have to abandon them, or sell them, or kill them. I wish you will bury your babies with your own hands watching the stray dogs that will unbury and eat them.

I wish you to be a victim of war. And having your body mutilated as a collateral damage, and finding yourself homeless and disposessed drinking from puddles trying to find your family.

And I wish that it will all happen with the chance of looking at you or someone like you and listening to those same words.

I have lived the last 10 years in developping countries. Your words have nauseated me. I really wish that I would be religious and have the comfort of believing that you would suffer the above in a next live.

[Seth]

I would ask the same thing. Works for who? For what? When so much of the planet is capitalist and so much of the planet lives in abject poverty it's hard to see that as "working".

People don't live in poverty because of Capitalism. They live in poverty largely because of megalomaniacal totalitarian dictators, corruption, and Marxist/socialist ideology. Cuba was a thriving economy before Castro took over. Now it's a shithole of poverty and privation. Venezuela is headed down the same path. Every shithole tin-pot socialist dictator on earth follows the same Marxist plan, and people die by the millions, time and time again. And Marxists don't give a rip, because their ideological purity is far more important than actual people and their individual rights.

Only Capitalism has any chance at all of saving the poor of the world from starvation and privation. The United States provides more food and foreign aid to more poor people than any other nation on the face of the earth, and has done so for decades.

Democratic Socialism only works until it runs out of OPM, and it's immoral because it enslaves everyone to the service of the state.

[Seth]

Nonsense. Labor accepts as wages and benefits exactly what they think their labor is worth. If they undervalue themselves, the business owner is under no moral obligation to pay them more than they agree to be paid. Any business person who pays less and still gets employees to work for him is simply reflecting the true value of the labor involved. Marxism falsely maintains that the worker is "exploited" by not being paid the full value of his work, but that's a false claim because the value of one's labor is worth what some employer is willing to pay for it, no more. The more valuable the labor is (i.e. the more skilled the laborer) the more his work is worth, and the more the employer has to pay to obtain it in a free market.

The value of labor is set by free market forces and varies with the skill set required for the job and the market for laborers with that skill set. Nothing exploitative or coercive about it. A laborer wishing higher wages has only to make himself worth more on the market by improving his skill set.

I wish you hunger. Not the uncomfortable belly ache. The hunger that makes you a walking zombie, impairing your focus and your thoughts, doing the movements just from will power.

I wish you sickness. Not a cold. The maiming sickness that come from polio, leprosy, or the weaking of suffering dozens of infections.

I wish you the panic of seeing your beloved ones maimed and at your helpless care, dying in pain covered by flies. I wish it happens to you as a child, that you have to sell yourself for sex and die from hepatitis and violence as a teenager, or to die from lungs disease into a mine, just to feed your AIDS dying mother. I wish you the desperation of trying to find something. ANYTHING to eat. Of finding a simple antiseptic, of finding help.
As a father, to see your children fade away because you just can't find enough to feed them. To have to abandon them, or sell them, or kill them. I wish you will bury your babies with your own hands watching the stray dogs that will unbury and eat them.

I wish you to be a victim of war. And having your body mutilated as a collateral damage, and finding yourself homeless and disposessed drinking from puddles trying to find your family.

And I wish that it will all happen with the chance of looking at you or someone like you and listening to those same words.

I have lived the last 10 years in developping countries. Your words have nauseated me. I really wish that I would be religious and have the comfort of believing that you would suffer the above in a next live.

Which has what, exactly, to do with Capitalism? I'm guessing that most of those "developing countries" are run by totalitarian dictators or Marxists and have nothing to do with Capitalism or free market economies.

Capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty worldwide than any other political ideology, specifically including Marxism.

And I wish you joy, love, and most of all, freedom from the bondage of Marxist propaganda that has deluded you into believing that enslaving others to your needs is a moral thing to do. May you find freedom one day and discover the gift of true liberty.

[.Morticia.]

yep, little dick syndrome

(((((((((((seth's little dick))))))))))

[Hermit]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

That is a commonly advocated means for achieving world peace.

Now, let's tackle world hunger: What would be really helpful? Ah, yes. If governments all over the world stopped the unequal distribution of wealth...

Too easy, really, isn't it? Makes one wonder why none of these simple solutions have not been implemented by now.

[JimC]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

That is a commonly advocated means for achieving world peace.

Now, let's tackle world hunger: What would be really helpful? Ah, yes. If governments all over the world stopped the unequal distribution of wealth...

Too easy, really, isn't it? Makes one wonder why none of these simple solutions have not been implemented by now.

I love the smell of cynicism in the evening...

[redunderthebed]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

We could do so if the leftists, Marxists, Communists, collectivists and other various forms of dependent-class redistributionists would all drop dead of their own accord.

Since they won't, and since they are largely responsible for fomenting violence in the world, and have been for a long, long time, it's necessary to keep armies and spend money on defense in order to put down radical socialist revolutionary dictators and wannabees. Sadly, lethal force seems to be about the only way to prevent them from completely destroying the planet's economy.

In the end, it's their fault though. They could just give up their pretensions of totalitarianism and start respecting the rights of other individuals, and they could stop depending on others to slave for their benefit and take responsibility for their own actions. But they won't.

So, we have to fight, because surrender to collectivism is not a civilized or rational option.

Wow do you live on a parallel universe?

[Hermit]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

We could do so if the leftists, Marxists, Communists, collectivists and other various forms of dependent-class redistributionists would all drop dead of their own accord.

Since they won't, and since they are largely responsible for fomenting violence in the world, and have been for a long, long time, it's necessary to keep armies and spend money on defense in order to put down radical socialist revolutionary dictators and wannabees. Sadly, lethal force seems to be about the only way to prevent them from completely destroying the planet's economy.

In the end, it's their fault though. They could just give up their pretensions of totalitarianism and start respecting the rights of other individuals, and they could stop depending on others to slave for their benefit and take responsibility for their own actions. But they won't.

So, we have to fight, because surrender to collectivism is not a civilized or rational option.

Wow do you live on a parallel universe?

No. He is an extreme libertarian. Yes.

[Coito ergo sum]

The "secret" to Capitalism is:-

1) Cheap Labour
2) Cheap Resources / Energy
3) Cheap Capital

and by "cheap" below there true market value - if the game was played on a level playing field. Remove one and you have a Recession, remove two and you have a Depression. Remove 3 and you are............here.

Circular reasoning. Market value is set in part in reference to the availability and cost of labor, resources/energy, and capital. Capitalism, through free market functions, shifts to accommodate deficiencies in any of the three, thus restoring the balance.

For Capitalism to succeed the game needs to be rigged. Labour needs to be coerced into accepting low wages and poor working conditions. Cheap Capital comes from the Banking system literally creating money (if the only Capital available was from profits or Wealth creation there would be a lot less available - and expensive). Cheap Resources comes from keeping other countries in poverty - otherwise it would be like buying from Microsoft.........there is a virtuous (?!) circle for all 3 - but remove 1 leg and the system falls over.

BTW I am by nature a Freemarketeer and firmly beleive that Capitalism is essential for a society to progress, but it's a tool of man to ne harnessed and controlled - should not be an object of worship as it will eat it's own young (you & me).

Communism cares - but doesn't work
Capitalism works - but doesn't care

If it's "rigged" then it's not laissez-faire.

As for labour needing to be "coerced" - that's not exactly true. We can certainly have capitalism where labor is not coerced into accepting low wages or poor working conditions. Working conditions, at least in the US, by and large, are very good. We have a regulated environment where the rights of non-unionized workers are protected in various ways - we have a Department of Labor that provides resources to file complaints against employers for wages and hours violations, we have minimum wage and overtime rules, we have occupational safety rules and inspections, we have rules protecting health benefits and retirement plans. We have recourse for discrimination and harassment, accommodations for disabilities and many other legal protections for employees. Plainly, working conditions are not bad, and we have a generally capitalist society. We don't have a completely "laissez-fare" capitalist system, where the government plays no role in commercial affairs, of course. But, that was the big straw man in the OP - that capitalism must mean a completely unregulated system. It doesn't.

It's not the "banking system" that creates money, it's the government. Every penny produced in the US is government issued. The problem is not a free market in western countries - the problem is that the government controls the banking system.

I agree, capitalism is not something to be worshipped, and that pragmatic concerns should override capitalism as a dogma. Regulations are good and necessary. Monopolies should be broken up, etc.

I strongly disagree that "communism cares." It neither works, nor cares. Capitalism doesn't care either, but at least it sometimes works.

[Coito ergo sum]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

We could do so if the leftists, Marxists, Communists, collectivists and other various forms of dependent-class redistributionists would all drop dead of their own accord.

Since they won't, and since they are largely responsible for fomenting violence in the world, and have been for a long, long time, it's necessary to keep armies and spend money on defense in order to put down radical socialist revolutionary dictators and wannabees. Sadly, lethal force seems to be about the only way to prevent them from completely destroying the planet's economy.

In the end, it's their fault though. They could just give up their pretensions of totalitarianism and start respecting the rights of other individuals, and they could stop depending on others to slave for their benefit and take responsibility for their own actions. But they won't.

So, we have to fight, because surrender to collectivism is not a civilized or rational option.

Wow do you live on a parallel universe?

No. He is an extreme libertarian. Yes.

Seth? A libertarian? Not likely. He is pro-life, according to the thread and would have the government make laws preventing women from getting abortions, or making their uteruses subject to male control in the event of pregnancy where a woman wants to abort but the father of the child does not. Massively non-libertarian in that respect. I'll let him answer that, if it's an issue, but he sure doesn't seem libertarian.

[Coito ergo sum]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

That is a commonly advocated means for achieving world peace.

Now, let's tackle world hunger: What would be really helpful? Ah, yes. If governments all over the world stopped the unequal distribution of wealth...

Too easy, really, isn't it? Makes one wonder why none of these simple solutions have not been implemented by now.

Except that distributing wealth exactly equally would not solve world hunger - it would probably increase it. And, your statement is simple, but it certainly would not be easy to have everybody in the world have exactly the same wealth and income, nor would it really be desirable or practical. I want doctors to be paid more than check-out clerks at the Wal-Mart - wealth SHOULD be distributed unequally.

The problem is not the distribution of wealth, as far as hunger is concerned. The problem is that some people don't get enough food. To solve the problem, we need to get them food. First, one needs to identify where the hungry people are, and figure out what is going on in those areas to prevent food availability. Whether there are millionaires in the US or Britain or France has nothing to do with whether there is a famine in Ethiopia, for example.

[Coito ergo sum]

you're a hoot

do you actually believe the ignorant shite you post

Honestly, I don't agree with Seth on most things. But, I will defend him on this: what he has posted here has not been "ignorant." If you disagree with his assertions or rationale, it would be more productive to say, "Seth, you said X. I disagree with X, because of Y. You're wrong because of Z." If his comments really are that ludicrous as to merit the label "ignorant," then that ought to be a simple task.

[Atheist-Lite]

Communism is for ants and capitalism is for bees. Playing one system against another is for human beings. Hence the more successful countries are often a mix of strong social welfare nets and canny b'ggers exploiting the system.

[.Morticia.]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

That is a commonly advocated means for achieving world peace.

Now, let's tackle world hunger: What would be really helpful? Ah, yes. If governments all over the world stopped the unequal distribution of wealth...

Too easy, really, isn't it? Makes one wonder why none of these simple solutions have not been implemented by now.

I'm not advocating world peace.

I'm advocating the spending of tax dollars for the betterment and wellbeing of mankind.

And in case you haven't figured it yet, all that military spending is to enforce and intimidate the population into being exploited.

Read about the current trouble in Egypt. You'll find the government is using the military to "protect" the instruments of power,they have surrounded the key buildings with tanks, ie all the government departments.

You won't find a better current example of the use of force to keep an exploited and abused population down.

[.Morticia.]

you're a hoot

do you actually believe the ignorant shite you post

Honestly, I don't agree with Seth on most things. But, I will defend him on this: what he has posted here has not been "ignorant." If you disagree with his assertions or rationale, it would be more productive to say, "Seth, you said X. I disagree with X, because of Y. You're wrong because of Z." If his comments really are that ludicrous as to merit the label "ignorant," then that ought to be a simple task.

it's a case of needing a book to counter a few simple sentences

if he can't be bothered to find things out why should I correct him

You'll find most marxists don't argue

All I will say , and keep saying, is that discussing the economy , partisan politics and identity politics is pointless.

All that people need to do is ignore the propoganda learnt at school, ignore the mainstream media and what the bloke down pub says.

Look at your own life, the life of your parents, look at your friends and community and the city or town where you live. It's all there in front of your face.