Wealth 85 richest equals wealth 3.5 billion poorest.

[DK]

How does deregulation solve our problems? That's what caused this financial meltdown in the first place!

 

[Danoff]

How does deregulation solve our problems? That's what caused this financial meltdown in the first place!

Citation needed. Large government tends to have a great deal to do with some companies getting and maintaining advantage over others. Here's an example.

Some kids toys shipped from China to the US were found to contain lead. Outcry occurred. New legislation was proposed to increase standards on lead content testing in toys. Guess who helped author the bill, Matel. Guess what they wanted? No regulation? HA! They wanted insane regulation. They wanted expensive laboratories and machinery to be required with only the latest most expensive lead testing technologies. Why? So that they could put all small toy manufacturers out of business with one piece of legislation. Only the biggest toy companies have the ability to afford to comply with that legislation. The law passed, and Matel won.

That's regulation lining the pockets of the Matel CEO. Do you think there aren't other examples?

 

[DK]

I'm aware that there are times when big companies will push for tighter regulations to squeeze opponents out of business, but surely you're aware of instances where big companies have pushed for lighter regulations to increase profits?

 

[Danoff]

I'm aware that there are times when big companies will push for tighter regulations to squeeze opponents out of business, but surely you're aware of instances where big companies have pushed for lighter regulations to increase profits?

Big companies look for monopolies. You don't get monopolies from deregulation, you get it from law creating one for you.

 

[niky]

Ergo... no copyright laws... no Microsoft?

Too much regulation stifles innovation. But a complete lack of it disincentivizes it. There's no payoff in putting together the engineering or programming manpower for big projects in an unregulated world. (which is why some companies hate working in China. ) No payoff in building new power plants if you can't hold your customers to a long-term contract.

The question is: what parts do you leave unregulated, and what parts do you regulate?

 

[Enemem]

Ergo... no copyright laws... no Microsoft?

Too much regulation stifles innovation. But a complete lack of it disincentivizes it. There's no payoff in putting together the engineering or programming manpower for big projects in an unregulated world. (which is why some companies hate working in China. ) No payoff in building new power plants if you can't hold your customers to a long-term contract.

The question is: what parts do you leave unregulated, and what parts do you regulate?

You're assuming that working in the most profitable way is what is best for the planet. Most profitable only works for the owners. You may say that it would stifle innovation, I'm sure that the people who come up with them could find other areas in which to make their mark. The profit view has to be removed. This can only be done by informing people of the bad and the good of companies, and then the customers applying their principles, by voting with their feet or abstaining, to make the bad firms improve their practices. Surely the same is supposed to go when voting in a new government, Hobson's choice on that, I'm afraid, so that needs to be changed from the inside out.

Just because it's better from one point of view, doesn't mean that it's better from another. And the problem is that of viewpoint. Move people to a new position, and let them see what might be.

 

[Enemem]

Why? Please explain.
So you want to use government to stop people from using the government to gain advantage.... but every time that's attempted it gets turned to the advantage of the influential.
Lobby them for what exactly?

1) Seriously?
2) Yes, what's your answer?
3) I thought I'd leave that to smarter people than I. But presumably that's the way the system is set-up, to instigate change. Maybe it's set-up to fail? But just because I can't answer - doesn't mean that no-one else could. I think history probably has many examples of this.

 

[Omnis]

How does deregulation solve our problems? That's what caused this financial meltdown in the first place!

This again? Deregulation did not cause the financial meltdown. That is, if you assume it happened at all. Actually, the cause is the complete control of one of the most important aspects of an economy: the rate of interest. Interest is an extremely important tool by which to gauge the appropriate courses of action for actors in a functioning economy. Because its rate is not set by the market, (as virtually all other prices are-- except, again, those controlled artificially by government(s) and central banks) there are gross mistakes made in the allocation and utilization of resources. Eventually, these mistakes add up if not allowed to "clear". In other words, someone has to pay. The turmoil of the financial meltdown is the result of the enormity of these errors trying to clear. You can only sweep a problem under the rug for so long. Eventually you have a relatively tiny rug atop a huge pile of problems. A correction is needed-- the mistakes must be paid.

What's happening is that the government is stepping in and helping out those who made the mistakes. Instead of making the mistaken people pay the price, the losses are being spread over the entire population (people that use the currency) by the central bank creating new money to cover it. Rich and educated people can afford to play the game to make money off of the winners and losers in this whole scenario. That's why everyone in that group is so attentive to the every move of the Federal Reserve. The Fed controls the price of interest.

You're assuming that working in the most profitable way is what is best for the planet. Most profitable only works for the owners. You may say that it would stifle innovation, I'm sure that the people who come up with them could find other areas in which to make their mark. The profit view has to be removed. This can only be done by informing people of the bad and the good of companies, and then the customers applying their principles, by voting with their feet or abstaining, to make the bad firms improve their practices. Surely the same is supposed to go when voting in a new government, Hobson's choice on that, I'm afraid, so that needs to be changed from the inside out.

Just because it's better from one point of view, doesn't mean that it's better from another. And the problem is that of viewpoint. Move people to a new position, and let them see what might be.

The most profitable way to do anything is the best way to do anything. It is best for the planet by definition. Most profitable = least wasted resources. The profit view is the savior of the world. It is the only tool by which to tell people whether what they're doing is valued. Customers already vote on companies. They do it with their money and transactions. Capitalism is the most ubiquitous and most frequent form of democracy. The government sucks because you only get one vote for one or two assholes every four or so years. We'd be so much better off if we had a market of hundreds of organizations for whom we'd pay to provide the services that we expect of government. They'd bend over backwards to serve us.

 

[Enemem]

The most profitable way to do anything is the best way to do anything. It is best for the planet by definition. Most profitable = least wasted resources. The profit view is the savior of the world. It is the only tool by which to tell people whether what they're doing is valued. Customers already vote on companies. They do it with their money and transactions. Capitalism is the most ubiquitous and most frequent form of democracy. The government sucks because you only get one vote for one or two assholes every four or so years. We'd be so much better off if we had a market of hundreds of organizations for whom we'd pay to provide the services that we expect of government. They'd bend over backwards to serve us.

Capitalism

One big field. Loads of pesticides. Screw the wildlife. This is cheaper and more efficient.
You're poor, and it's your fault you live in squalor.
I'm all right, why should I help you. It'll cost me money.
It's cheaper to cut corners than do it properly, it'll be fine.
Democracy, what democracy. I've got lot's of money, and if you don't do what suits me best, I'll stop lining the pockets of the politicians. The government sucks because of capitalism.
It's okay that my factories choke you because I'm making money.
War. How many have been fought over something other than money?
CEOs get paid massive salaries, and award themselves huge bonuses on top of them, while they pay their workers minimum wage. This is a situation deliberately created, you know the bosses I'm talking about. They could pay more, but they choose not to. (I'll grant you some may not be like this).
Advertising - bah!
Your countries got no money. So you haven't got the internet. yadayadayada - i could go on forever.

 

[Famine]

i could go on forever.

Indeed. However, the trick is to make sense while doing so. Just fingerjaculating unconnected sentences into the screen helps no-one - least of all you.

 

[niky]

The profit view has to be removed. This can only be done by informing people of the bad and the good of companies, and then the customers applying their principles, by voting with their feet or abstaining, to make the bad firms improve their practices. Surely the same is supposed to go when voting in a new government, Hobson's choice on that, I'm afraid, so that needs to be changed from the inside out.

People are stupid.

Or more accurately: people already have all the tools at their disposal to make informed choices on government and products. Companies that are publicly traded are required to make public the information you require to make choices based on a company's environmental creds, employment ethics and so on and so forth.

So why do people still vote in terrible politicians?

Why do people buy products made in China, instead of those made locally? Why did the British car industry collapse?

Because people are stupid, selfish and self-interested. They don't care.

Oh, you can make them care. You can make them care about the silliest things. You can make them care that a product has "GMOs" in it, and get them to stop buying them. Even if the alternative is "organic" produce that's less efficient, uses up more land resources per ton of produce, costs more, and is no less genetically modified than the product you're boycotting, having been through thousands of generations of breeding, hybridization and genetic manipulation through radiation or forced mutation from intense interbreeding and inbreeding.

But you can't make them care about a government that kills dissidents with impunity, or buying products produced by factories owned by members of that government's ruling party. You can't make them care about land use. You can't make them care that every foreign made item they buy detracts from local industry.

-

While I agree that firms should pay for direct pollution (except CO2, as CO2 regulation can be left to occur naturally with fossil fuel prices due to direct pollution taxation), considering it as use of public resources, once you take that into account, the company that makes more with less energy and labor resources is making it more effectively, wasting less resources, and causing less pollution per unit produced.

 

[Tornado]

Capitalism

One big field. Loads of pesticides. Screw the wildlife. This is cheaper and more efficient.
You're poor, and it's your fault you live in squalor.
I'm all right, why should I help you. It'll cost me money.
It's cheaper to cut corners than do it properly, it'll be fine.
Democracy, what democracy. I've got lot's of money, and if you don't do what suits me best, I'll stop lining the pockets of the politicians. The government sucks because of capitalism.
It's okay that my factories choke you because I'm making money.
War. How many have been fought over something other than money?
CEOs get paid massive salaries, and award themselves huge bonuses on top of them, while they pay their workers minimum wage. This is a situation deliberately created, you know the bosses I'm talking about. They could pay more, but they choose not to. (I'll grant you some may not be like this).
Advertising - bah!
Your countries got no money. So you haven't got the internet. yadayadayada - i could go on forever.

I was unaware that the average Fortune 500 company are all run by Captain Planet villains.

 

[Enemem]

Indeed. However, the trick is to make sense while doing so. Just fingerjaculating unconnected sentences into the screen helps no-one - least of all you.

Sorry that I'm able to write differently to you. Some people understand what I'm saying. Those who don't ...pfft. I'd like everyone to understand. Good job on helping to provide a solution 👍. Even better job on criticising the messenger. Then again you've had a lot of practice.

Tornado. Sorry to burst your bubble. Doesn't take many bad apples in the 85 for the world to be a crappier place, and to make a lot of people miserable.

Soros for example.

Quite happy to bankrupt a country if it'll make him a buck or 2. And, no, I don't know if he's in the top 85.

Nicky, why are people stupid. Maybe we could do something about that?

People vote in rubbish politicians because they don't have a choice. That choice is an illusion.

Oh by the way Famine. Since when has fingerjaculating been a word. Congratulations, could be the first time ever on the web. I wouldn't have mentioned it. But your superior tone irks me. Waldorf and Statler rolled into one, bit like finger and ejaculating.

 

[Famine]

Sorry that I'm able to write differently to you. Some people understand what I'm saying. Those who don't ...pfft. I'd like everyone to understand.

A few pointers then.

Commas instead of full stops. Full stops break the flow, commas help continue it - they can be considered words that aren't really words (or used in place of words like "while" in this sentence). Even better would be using words to drag one clause into the next. The above quote could read:

Sorry that I'm able to write differently to you. Some people understand what I'm saying, but those who don't ...pfft. I'd like everyone to understand.

Small change, but it turns four staccato sentence fragments into a message.

That said, not a lot will help the post I was responding to, because the sentences are almost completely unrelated to each other and there's a significant over-reliance on line-breaks after the full stops too. It's almost like an ordered list, but without any actual order.

If you write so that each sentence leads on from the last, people can follow your thought processes through your writing. Make the sentences longer - full clauses are good - and they become more fluid. Folk can hop onto the stream of your paragraph at the top and ride the current down like pooh sticks to the end. Then use line-breaks to sort discrete thoughts into paragraphs and everyone can understand.

Good job on helping to provide a solution 👍.

No problems.

Even better job on criticising the messenger.

Where? I pointed out that the message was garbled, but said nothing of the messenger...

Then again you've had a lot of practice.

*shrug* No idea what this means.

Oh by the way Famine. Since when has fingerjaculating been a word.

I don't think it has ever been a word.

If we can get some common use going though it could be the OED's Word for 2014.

Congratulations, could be the first time ever on the web. I wouldn't have mentioned it. But your superior tone irks me.

Here's another occasion where full stops render your post quite difficult to read - a comma twixt "it" and "but" would improve it no end.

Also, tone is very hard to read and, as such, entirely within the confines of your head rather than contained in my typing.

Waldorf and Statler rolled into one, bit like finger and ejaculating.

"Portmanteau" is the phrase you're looking for.

So, back to the topic.

Suggesting that government legislation to curb capitalism will change voting habits of Joe Public is like suggesting that if the government required every public bathroom in the land to have alcohol gel handwash dispensers by law you'd cure all disease. 85% of people still wouldn't wash their hands after a tinkle.

And alcohol gel handwash is a panacea for the blitheringly ignorant anyway

 

[Enemem]

 

[Omnis]

Sorry that I'm able to write differently to you. Some people understand what I'm saying. Those who don't ...pfft.

That's too bad. Everyone here understands what you're saying: nonsense. We are having a conversation with you in the hopes that you will come to an understanding. I'm not here exhibiting my cojones for having known any of what I'm sharing with you. Don't come in here spewing and downplaying the other side without being able to have an intelligent conversation. It's not constructive.

For the record, you haven't even stated a position. Your fingerjaculations (aka ideorrhea) have been contradictory and confused. I'm not sure you're aware of what capitalism really is, nor what it is you're expounding.

 

[Enemem]

How condescending can you get? (rhetorical)

You are having a conversation with me in the hope that I will come to an understanding. How kind of you.

What if you're wrong ? And I'm right.

Different viewpoint right ?

I won't hold my breath for an answer to this one.

The OP states "does capitalism rule us more than ever before?". I'm presuming your answer is NO, as will be Famine's. Pretty sure you got the gist that I was a yes.

 

[Omnis]

Sorry if I sound condescending, but I'm not going to waste my time if you can't even put together a coherent position. Why should anyone? That question isn't a yes or no. As it stands you're committing an equivocation fallacy. You haven't even defined the terms of your argument.

I'm not wrong, by the way. People way smarter than me have already had this argument. It's been gone over ad nauseum.

 

[Danoff]

Ergo... no copyright laws... no Microsoft?

Too much regulation stifles innovation. But a complete lack of it disincentivizes it. There's no payoff in putting together the engineering or programming manpower for big projects in an unregulated world. (which is why some companies hate working in China. ) No payoff in building new power plants if you can't hold your customers to a long-term contract.

The question is: what parts do you leave unregulated, and what parts do you regulate?

Copyright is not regulation, copyright is intellectual property - property being a human right. Anarchy does disincentivize innovation, but that's because human rights are not enforced in anarchy, not because human rights are not infringed by government regulation.

 

[Enemem]

Sorry if I sound condescending, but I'm not going to waste my time if you can't even put together a coherent position. Why should anyone? That question isn't a yes or no. As it stands you're committing an equivocation fallacy. You haven't even defined the terms of your argument.

I'm not wrong, by the way. People way smarter than me have already had this argument. It's been gone over ad nauseum.

Well it's not working, and smarter people than me have been wrong. And yes, it is a yes/no question. Read the last line of the OP!!!!!!!!!

 

[Joel]

Well it's not working, and smarter people than me have been wrong. And yes, it is a yes/no question. Read the last line of the OP!!!!!!!!!

Really? In the western world us capitalist pigs live longer, healthier, easier, and better than anyone ever has in the history of the planet. We all have luxurious furniture, eat like kings, drive cars which are powerful, comfortable, and safe. We all get the kinds of educations that only the elite would have a few hundred years ago. Everyone is literate. We have enough money that we piss it away on inefficient tech in the name of helping the environment. Prosperity and wages are highest in the capitalist west. Food is so plentiful and cheap that even the poorest people in our countries are obese.

You're going to have to expand on that, and not with one liners, tell me what is deeply wrong with capitalism and the profit motive, and how a system which has brought the world untold prosperity isn't working.

 

[Danoff]

What's happening is that the government is stepping in and helping out those who made the mistakes. Instead of making the mistaken people pay the price, the losses are being spread over the entire population (people that use the currency) by the central bank creating new money to cover it. Rich and educated people can afford to play the game to make money off of the winners and losers in this whole scenario. That's why everyone in that group is so attentive to the every move of the Federal Reserve. The Fed controls the price of interest.

Milton Friedman (very wise man) said that inflation was taxation without representation. He was right of course, but I take it a step further and point out that inflation doesn't really harm the rich as much as it does the poor. Who has a larger percentage of their money tied up in dollars? The poor. Rich people tend to buy things with their money. They buy houses, cars, gold, stocks, other currencies, and land. They invest their money so that it doesn't sit in dollars, often avoiding the effects of inflation. The amazing thing is that it's poor people who seem to think they benefit the most from inflationary government policies, and so they vote for their own money to be eroded. Very strange thing.

Capitalism
One big field. Loads of pesticides. Screw the wildlife. This is cheaper and more efficient.

This isn't really about capitalism as much as it is about human nature. Anarchy leads to people taking advantage of everything. You have to expect certain behavior from people, which is why capitalism works so well. But if someone pollutes, it affects the property and rights of the people around them - and so the government should rightly step in, and that's not a breech of capitalism.

You're poor, and it's your fault you live in squalor.

Capitalism is also not really about assigning blame, but I will point out that the capitalist model has created some of the most upwardly mobile civilizations in the history of the planet. No system promotes poor people becoming rich better than capitalism.

I'm all right, why should I help you. It'll cost me money.

So charity actually has nothing to do with this. If you assume America is a capitalist nation, then charity is actually thriving under capitalism. What you're talking about is government-forced charity, which is immoral (because it involves force) and inefficient compared to private charity. There is nothing in capitalism that is inconsistent with charity - and America has demonstrated that quite nicely. What it is incompatible with is government-forced charity, which doesn't really work anyway.

It's cheaper to cut corners than do it properly, it'll be fine.

Tons and tons of purely capitalist companies make bank by not cutting corners. Consumers want quality too.

Democracy, what democracy. I've got lot's of money, and if you don't do what suits me best, I'll stop lining the pockets of the politicians. The government sucks because of capitalism.

That's not capitalism at all, that's corruption. That's too much government. You're pointing the finger in the exact wrong direction. There is nothing about lining the pockets of politicians in capitalism. The only time when you can line the pockets of politicians and get a return is when politicians are overstepping their duties (the protection of human rights) and meddling in the marketplace.

It's okay that my factories choke you because I'm making money.

That would be a rights violation. Allowing it would be anarchy, not capitalism. You're confused on this issue.

War. How many have been fought over something other than money?

Also not capitalism. How many wars have been fought by Microsoft? How many have been fought by governments?

CEOs get paid massive salaries, and award themselves huge bonuses on top of them, while they pay their workers minimum wage. This is a situation deliberately created, you know the bosses I'm talking about. They could pay more, but they choose not to. (I'll grant you some may not be like this).

CEOs get paid what they can earn, minimum wage workers get paid more than they can earn.

Advertising - bah!

Yes advertising, it is horrible to help spread the word about new products. Those evil advertisers who want you to know about the latest product you might want. How dare they?

Your countries got no money. So you haven't got the internet.

Uh.... What?

yadayadayada - i could go on forever.

Clearly. But you'd continue to be wrong.

 

[Rallywagon]

I feel ya Enemem. Some people like to blow hot air around a room. Regardless of how the grammar police want to treat your post, I used my vast and powerful common sense skills and made perfect sense of what you wrote.
What enemem was doing was indeed a list. Poorly formed as it may be. It is obvious exactly what he was trying to show. All of the bad attributes of capitialism. Did some of those 85 come about their fortune legitimately. Sure. Gates is a prime example, unless you are on Apples side of history, in which case, Bill is a theiving bastard. However, this is generally the exeption. The Rockafellers on the other hand, I believe to be the norm.
To that extent, without doubt these people holding onto most of the worlds wealth are running this country, quite literally and figuratively. Many Senators, Governors and other politians own businesses themselves. You think they don't use their political power to the advantage of their company? I think the most telling was the allowance of lobbiest, and worst of all, superpacts. Large infusions of untracable cash, thats a legit way to keep things kosher. Cause, you know, large corp really is worried about human welfare.
I think we get this nice notion that all is fair and right in the world here in Merika because of out living standards. Compaired to how middle and lower class live in other countries, even our bums have it made. We are like the Hunger games. We live in technology and luxury. Even our poor have access to so many programs and opportunities. Look at the rest of the world, see how their poor and middle class live.
Now all of this said. I don't hate on capitalism in general. The idea of rewarding hard work, and paying one for services rendered is a good one. The isseu I have is that with the current paradigm of letting the poor starve, sick go unaided and destroying the environment for the sake of some sort of profit margine however is not something I can get behind. Again, people like Bill Gates are in general the exception here. There was a movie we watched in a philosopy class I had last semester that really sent it home. Something like Mechanised Alienation. Anyway, its main focus is China and India, the two countries that feed America and the UK most of its goods. The film didn't use narration to tell its story, just the people and the view. And it spoke volumes to what our capitialism is doing to less fortunate countries.
I'll say this about capitalism, religion, politics and the alike. these are only tools. What makes them great or horrible is the people that use or misuse that tool. In the middle ages, religion made sense when we knew nothing about the science of the world around us. Just like capitalism made sense when we condsidered the resources of the world endless.
Our current capitalism paradigm however doesn't much care about people or the planet, and there is no refuting that. The only green it cares about is the dollar bill, and how to get the most of them out of your pocket. Bill Gates may have great things in mind with his charity. But how many lives were ruined in the manufacturing, and subsequent throwing out of all the computers made to run his companies software? Are you aware that nearly all of the computers you "recycle" end up back in China, on someones front lawn, waiting like small mountains for someone to take a hammer and smash all the little microchips, so they can collect the little bits of metal in them? The left over debris is swept to the side to poison the water table or be burned and poison the air. I don't see how a few hard working people have free rain to destroy the world. But, don't take my word for it, which I am sure you won't, I am sure they you will say that because I missed a comma somewhere that none of this makes sense and I should be dismissed.

 

[Danoff]

The isseu I have is that with the current paradigm of letting the poor starve, sick go unaided and destroying the environment for the sake of some sort of profit margine however is not something I can get behind.

Why the assumption that if the government doesn't do it it doesn't happen? Many charities that do a lot of fantastic work would have a bone to pick with you over this.

 

[Rallywagon]

You're going to have to expand on that, and not with one liners, tell me what is deeply wrong with capitalism and the profit motive, and how a system which has brought the world untold prosperity isn't working.

The world? No, the world has not seen untold prosperity, just the US and UK. I can tell you, having to been to a few other countries that arent as lucky as the US or the UK. They sure as hell would not agree with this, as they live in their shantties and the such a mile down the road from huge banks and wealth.

 

[Zenith]

It is funny how many people criticize Capitalism without actually knowing what it is...

 

[Danoff]

The world? No, the world has not seen untold prosperity, just the US and UK. I can tell you, having to been to a few other countries that arent as lucky as the US or the UK. They sure as hell would not agree with this, as they live in their shantties and the such a mile down the road from huge banks and wealth.

So... are you faulting capitalism for the dictatorships of Africa?

 

[Omnis]

Rallywagon, it's not grammar police, it's lets-have-a-constructive-argument-instead-of-mindless-finger-pointing police.

 

[Rallywagon]

Why the assumption that if the government doesn't do it it doesn't happen? Many charities that do a lot of fantastic work would have a bone to pick with you over this.

Why the assumption that I made that assumption? I sure didn't say that. This is a world issue that everyone is involved in, not this company or that.

It is funny how many people criticize Capitalism without actually knowing what it is...

Don't know waht your def is, but mine falls right in line with this: Capitalism: is an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits.

 

[Danoff]

Why the assumption that I made that assumption? I sure didn't say that. This is a world issue that everyone is involved in, not this company or that.

...because you said this:

The isseu I have is that with the current paradigm of letting the poor starve, sick go unaided

Which is only true if you assume that charity isn't happening. I see now that you didn't mean to say that - and now I must ask you what you actually meant with this statement, because clearly I didn't understand it.