« First « Previous Comments 40 - 47 of 47 Search these comments
There is absolutely nothing about capitalism, the control by owners over production and the distribution of revenue from production, that has even a tenuous relationship with economic productivity or the wealth of most individuals in a society. People who think capitalism is the mechanism responsible for prosperity simply do not know what capitalism is. Capitalism is NOT commerce, banking, currency, the creation of corporations or other economic units, payment for services render, trade, investment, enterprise, innovation, or free markets. Absolutely none of those terms have anything to do with capitalism. Hell, free markets and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
Capitalism is one and only one thing: control by owners over production and the distribution of revenue from production. This is a very specific mechanism. It is not a mechanism necessary for any of those other things I mentioned, not even investment. And it is not a mechanism that maximizes productivity, wealth ...
Dan,
Do you believe in evolution?
Who do you believe own the goods in North Korea? How about the capital goods (goods that can produce consumer goods) in North Korea? "The people" or the dictatorship? Goods are always owned; those who decide on how to utilize capital goods are the real owners of the capital goods.
Since capital goods have many alternative uses . . . do you think individual private owners competing with each for best returns would result in more efficient use of the limited supply of capital goods, or do you think bureaucratic managers making those resource allocation decisions on behalf of a mute "The People" would do better? How about bureaucrats consolidated into a party-state as those bureaucratic monopolies always eventuate?
If you believe in evolution, why do you think economic lives (enterprises) should be designed by committees instead of by individualized owners in charge of discrete chunks of limited resources and competing against each other?
Dan8267
2017 Sep 21, 10:07pm
Furthermore, communism isn't the only alternative to capitalism. Those two economic systems are virtually identical to each other.
Now go back to fucking goats, piggy.
What Marx called "Capitalism" was actually a relatively free market place (much less centralized than today's "Western Democracies"), where/when people (in the 19th century) had sound money and exercised much more control over their own lives than most of us do today.
What we have today is similar to plantation slavery back then: free education, free food (EBT cards), free medicine, free housing, etc. etc. for the slaves, all at the discretion of slave masters running the plantation via a plantation scrip that the plantation owner could devalue at will. "Free" means you don't get to decide priorities (by deciding where to put your own money) but your slave masters do. Out of the 10 planks in Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto of 1848, 8 of them are already implemented in today's western society.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2017 Sep 23, 1:01pm
You've just described how it's equal. If both parties agree that one person should stay home, then they should be compensated via alimony. Consider it severance pay.
Here's an idea: Give the kids to the father and get yourself out in the workforce / education system after a divorce. Then when you get laid off you'll find there is a huge diff between severance pay and alimony / palimony.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2017 Sep 23, 1:09pm
Women couldn't have credit cards until 1974.
And now look at the consumer debt problem we have. Almost every single woman I know needs to go to credit card rehab, but won't admit it to themselves.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2017 Sep 23, 1:11pm
If he gained his success after they were married, then I think it's reasonable to assume that she did support him in many tangible ways
No. That's just a stupid assumption. She could have been a horrible bitch to him for years and he may have become successful nonetheless. This is not rare.
justme
2017 Sep 24, 6:04pm
There is a solution to the problem: co-parenting with with men who can afford to pay for multiple children, instead of marriage,
That sounds a lot like how things work in a Muslim country under Sharia law. Is your head exploding from the incoherency of your views, "anonymous"?
justme
2017 Oct 5, 9:09am
There is a solution to the problem: co-parenting with with men who can afford to pay for multiple children, instead of marriage,
That sounds a lot like how things work in a Muslim country under Sharia law. Is your head exploding from the incoherency of your views, "anonymous"?
« First « Previous Comments 40 - 47 of 47 Search these comments
www.kj7VgBnQNUc
"Most people don't have careers. They have jobs."
So true.
"What happens when you double the labor force. You half the value of labor."
Also so true.
"And now we're going into a situation where women will work because men won't."
Probably true.
#politics
#economics