Capitalism

[new_trader]

Never argue with an idiot.

I'll take your advice. Now follow this link, there you will find what you are looking for. This applies to darktone as well.

 

[jsc]

An idiot.

 

[Pat494]

Is it right
1. To sell Thalidamide and other harmful products ?
2. To make blood money selling weapons to criminal lunatics around the world to kill people ?
3.If everything has a price, what is the price on your head ? Dead or alive.
4. For Govts to tell adults what they can or cannot eat, smoke etc. ?
5. Should mercaneries sell their expertise for money ?

There is indeed a dark side to capitalism

 

[barjon]

Jon,

........................By saying ‘controlled’ you are essentially saying that you want to restrict the choices of consumers to what is safe for a 10 year old child because you believe they cannot be trusted to make their own choices......................

I appreciate your points, nt, but I think the key word is "choice". All too often the consumers or providers of labour have had little choice or have had their choice based on false premise.

Do you think that many mill owners would have voluntarily improved conditions for their workers, for example, or would those workers have had to continue suffering those conditions because it was the only "choice" they had if they were to put bread in their mouths.

Similarly do you think that the tobacco companies were honest about the health implications of using their product, or did they hoodwink consumers into believing there was no risk.

 

[hhiusa]

Is it right
1. To sell Thalidamide and other harmful products ?

Thalidomide is a prototypical drug sold by Celgene for multiple myelomas. This is not evil big pharma at work. Side effects are a part of any drug. Just because it grows out of the ground and is naturally occuring, does not mean that is not a drug.

2. To make blood money selling weapons to criminal lunatics around the world to kill people ?

What does this have to do with capitalism? This is such a straw man argument. This statement precludes socialist countries from having a problem with arms trafficking. That is flaw number one. Weapons trafficing is dealt with by the legal system, not economic policies. That is the second faw.

3.If everything has a price, what is the price on your head ? Dead or alive.

This is so naïve to think that mercenaries are going to stop killing because of socialism as opposed to capitalism. Do you actually have any real arguments against capitalism?

4. For Govts to tell adults what they can or cannot eat, smoke etc. ?

But this is exactly what some of your friends in the kumbaya group hug club want. They want the government to ban cigarettes because they are harmful to your health. The kumbaya group hug club wants a big strong government to regulate economic policies and tell people what they can and cannot sell.

5. Should mercaneries sell their expertise for money ?

They already do and economic policy will not change that.

 

[barjon]

..........................Secondly @barjon, capitalism did not create tobacco companies. You are stating a false cause fallacy and I cannot fathom why. As the fallacy suggests, people falsely associate a correlation between something that happens after occurence of something else. Tobacco predates the ideas of capitalism and; therefore, it cannot be its cause. Your argument states that cigarettes companies would somehow be less out of control in socialism. How will mixing socialism with capitalism do any better than the naked capitalism by which you call it?.....................

Oh, you are a card, HH To try and interpret what I said into "tobacco caused capitalism" and cigarette companies would be "less out of control in socialism" is something of a stretch even for you.

Capitalism did not, of course, create tobacco companies, but the application of capitalism allows and facilitates them to exist.

For the rest, did you not read the words "not socialism".

Perhaps it would be more constructive if you argued about what I actually said rather than your own made up version of it.

 

[hhiusa]

@barjon

Hello, did you not read the article below by the Health and Social Care Information Centre in the UK. All of these people knew full well what they were doing and what the health risks were. There need not be any hoodwinking for people to do stupid things.

By Race/Ethnicity

By Age

By Education

By Poverty Status

In the UK

Deaths in England in 2013 among adults aged 35 and over
In 2013, 17 per cent (79,700) of all deaths of adults aged 35 and over were estimated to be caused by smoking. This proportion is unchanged from 2005.

Smoking among adults and children
1. One in five adults (20 per cent) aged 16 and over were smokers in 2012.
2. Unemployed people (39 per cent) (not working but seeking work) were around twice as likely to smoke as those either in employment (21 per cent) or economically inactive (17 per cent) (for example, students or retired people).
3. 22% of youths aged 11 to 15 have smoked cigarettes. This is the lowest the figure has been since the 1980s.

In England in 2010
26% of women smoked in the 12 months before or during their pregnancy.

In England in 2014
12% of mothers were smokers at the time of their delivery.
People who were married were less likely to smoke than those cohabiting. 33% unmarried and 14% married.

People in high managerial positions were extremely unlikely to be smokers at a 9% prevalence versus low positions with a 30% prevalence.

Yorkshire and Humber have the highest number of smokers while the South East has the lowest.

http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB14988/smok-eng-2014-rep.pdf

 

[postman]

Capitalism alone is doomed to failure.

The aim of capitalism is to create profit, it has no regard for human beings.

Capitalism stifles invention.
Once you have an idea and you've become dominant you can buy out other companies who come up with competing ideas. Then when you've wiped out the competition why bother coming up with a new product? Just keep selling the same old cheap rubbish to people.

Capitalism is not good for the consumer. It is not in the interests of corporations to create a product that is efficient and reliable. Once you have your oligopoly or better yet monopoly, try built in obsolescence to keep those consumers coming back.

Capitalism stifles art in all its forms.
There is no profit in wrapping up the Pont Neuf or draping half a kilometre of fabric across the Rocky Mountains, but I'm sure the results were spectacular and lifted the human spirit.

Left unchecked capitalism would result in the destruction of the environment. Capitalism per se tends to evil and governments are required to keep companies in check. There is no profit in responsibly disposing of waste products and if allowed capitalists would simply dump the waste where it is cheapest (in the sea or someone else's back yard).

Capitalism will result in dynasty’s.
This is being evidenced all around the world in Banking, Media, Government (Bush, Clinton, Bush Clinton? How can that happen in the Mecca of capitalism.

I could go on, (I generally do).

 

[barjon]

@barjon

Hello, did you not read the article below by the Health and Social Care Information Centre in the UK. All of these people knew full well what they were doing and what the health risks were. There need not be any hoodwinking for people to do stupid things.

They may have done, but it certainly wasn't because they listened to any warnings from the tobacco companies. Oh, I forgot, they didn't make any did they? Just kept denying the validity of such research for years and years.

 

[Forexmospherian]

Capitalism alone is doomed to failure.

The aim of capitalism is to create profit, it has no regard for human beings.

Capitalism stifles invention.
Once you have an idea and you've become dominant you can buy out other companies who come up with competing ideas. Then when you've wiped out the competition why bother coming up with a new product? Just keep selling the same old cheap rubbish to people.

Capitalism is not good for the consumer. It is not in the interests of corporations to create a product that is efficient and reliable. Once you have your oligopoly or better yet monopoly, try built in obsolescence to keep those consumers coming back.

Capitalism stifles art in all its forms.
There is no profit in wrapping up the Pont Neuf or draping half a kilometre of fabric across the Rocky Mountains, but I'm sure the results were spectacular and lifted the human spirit.

Left unchecked capitalism would result in the destruction of the environment. Capitalism per se tends to evil and governments are required to keep companies in check. There is no profit in responsibly disposing of waste products and if allowed capitalists would simply dump the waste where it is cheapest (in the sea or someone else's back yard).

Capitalism will result in dynasty’s.
This is being evidenced all around the world in Banking, Media, Government (Bush, Clinton, Bush Clinton? How can that happen in the Mecca of capitalism.

I could go on, (I generally do).

Hi Postman

All good points and I bet you might still be like me - and still a capitalist ( HH and N_T just cannot understand that part)

Its like owning the latest Ferrari or Rolls Royce car and still finding faults with them - it does not mean you hate the product and its no good

Part of the meaning of living is too try and improve and make things better

Capitalism as many faults and can be improved

Socialism may have even more faults - but it still can be improved .

If Perfection is not possible - get the best compromise or "balance" ( another word that will not be understood) that should fit all parties involved - ie the Human Race

F

 

[hhiusa]

They may have done, but it certainly wasn't because they listened to any warnings from the tobacco companies. Oh, I forgot, they didn't make any did they? Just kept denying the validity of such research for years and years.

What a terrible argument. Just because they were not told by the tobacco companies, does not remove blame from the individual for being stupid enough to smoke cigarettes. It does not matter who told them, they were still told of the dangers and continually admonished by doctors and the like for continuing to smoke. You just want a scapegoat.

 

[hhiusa]

Hi Postman

All good points and I bet you might still be like me - and still a capitalist ( HH and N_T just cannot understand that part)

Its like owning the latest Ferrari or Rolls Royce car and still finding faults with them - it does not mean you hate the product and its no good

Part of the meaning of living is too try and improve and make things better

Capitalism as many faults and can be improved

Socialism may have even more faults - but it still can be improved .

If Perfection is not possible - get the best compromise or "balance" ( another word that will not be understood) that should fit all parties involved - ie the Human Race

F

If you have to convince people you are a capitalist then you probably are not one. You are like the extremely flamboyant limp wristed gay person who keeps insisting that he is straight. For one, everybody already knows you are gay and two, who cares!

Put your left wing t-shirt on and wear it proud. Right wing Conservatives are not for any amount of socialism.

 

[barjon]

What a terrible argument. Just because they were not told by the tobacco companies, does not remove blame from the individual for being stupid enough to smoke cigarettes. It does not matter who told them, they were still told of the dangers and continually admonished by doctors and the like for continuing to smoke. You just want a scapegoat.

well, you seem to have forgotten that the example was about how the tobacco companies behaved. That's not much of a surprise though given how you seem to like to argue against statements of your own invention

 

[hhiusa]

well, you seem to have forgotten that the example was about how the tobacco companies behaved. That's not much of a surprise though given how you seem to like to argue against statements of your own invention

It was not about how the tobacco companies behave. It was about how you said capitalism was to blame for people's misery due to smoking, etc. It is not the responsiblity of the tobacco company to make sure you are not stupid enough to not smoke.

When banks offered subprime mortgages, people should have used your brains and realized that (1) they were entering into a mortgage they could not afford because they should know there own finances. Even if the bankers tell you that you can afford it, this is where your own judgement should have kicked in and said no that's not right. (2) Negative interest just meant they were tacking it at the end of the mortgage, hoping you would not look to closely. If you were thinking in your right mind, you would have asked "what is wrong with this picture and why is so cheap?". If you are buying a million house, which usually carries a $6,000/month mortgage and they are offering it to you for half, that should raise a red flag to you. All those people decided that even though it looked to good to be true, they wanted that house that they knew they couldn't afford. The bank told them everything would be fine. If the bank told you to jump off a bridge, would you?

 

[barjon]

It was not about how the tobacco companies behave. It was about how you said capitalism was to blame for people's misery due to smoking, etc. It is not the responsiblity of the tobacco company to make sure you are not stupid enough to not smoke.

When banks offered subprime mortgages, people should have used your brains and realized that (1) they were entering into a mortgage they could not afford because they should know there own finances. Even if the bankers tell you that you can afford it, this is where your own judgement should have kicked in and said no that's not right. (2) Negative interest just meant they were tacking it at the end of the mortgage, hoping you would not look to closely. If you were thinking in your right mind, you would have asked "what is wrong with this picture and why is so cheap?". If you are buying a million house, which usually carries a $6,000/month mortgage and they are offering it to you for half, that should raise a red flag to you. All those people decided that even though it looked to good to be true, they wanted that house that they knew they couldn't afford. The bank told them everything would be fine. If the bank told you to jump off a bridge, would you?

Yes, yes, I know "let the buyer beware" eh? That crie de couer so convenient for charlatans and swindlers (and dodgy capitalists).

 

[hhiusa]

Yes, yes, I know "let the buyer beware" eh? That crie de couer so convenient for charlatans and swindlers (and dodgy capitalists).

Cri de cœur. It is about common sense.

 

[Forexmospherian]

Cri de cœur. It is about common sense.

LOL

What a joker you are

Common sense - is that maybe like "fairness" and other non measurable words lol

You cannot have it both ways to fit your argument

I really do think you have your head in the sand

OK - lets stay with your word -

" Common Sense "

A great word - most of us think we have got it - look up the word common in your favourite book - ie the dictionary - surely that's an ugly word for a very right wing person - it involves the masses - ie taking guidance from others - ie you are now saying Human Beings can think for themselves -

You are correct - most sensible human beings with a even only the basic education know the basics laws of the land and what is right and what is wrong

But you don't want any form of democracy - with people having a say - you only want the clever and the rich to decide what is right for everyone else

Is that known as "common sense" to only very clever and rich people - ie just the top 5 % of Human Beings - how does that link with "common"

You arguments are just continuing to weaken - I have not even started yet

Must put my capitalists head on first and get trading to make money first

Everything else - that's secondary - cash is king remember - or in n_t case Gold is King

Regards


F

 

[barjon]

Cri de cœur. It is about common sense.

thx for the spelling. common sense is fine if you've got plenty pretty horrible if you haven't - can't blame people for listening to the "experts".

 

[Pat494]

LOL

What a joker you are

But you don't want any form of democracy - with people having a say - you only want the clever and the rich to decide what is right for everyone else



F

Have to disagree with you F on this point. The rich and clever are not usually altruistic ( with exceptions like philanthropists ). The capitalist rich and clever are balancing just how much they can squeeze out of the masses before they rebel seriously.

 

[Fugazsy]

poor people can also be not nice, I think people are nice or not pleasant and does not depend on how much money they have....