Do Capitalists Produce Nothing?

"Obama offered a few positive remarks about financial markets in his speech. Unfortunately, Obama seems to embrace the utterly unrealistic view that regulation of executive salaries and bonuses is necessary for the free operation of financial markets. Worse still, Obama seems unaware of both the role that Federal Reserve Bank regulation of interest rates and the monetary base played in financing the subprime boom and bust, and of the numerous Federal policies that promoted subprime lending.
The biased and confused perspectives taken by Matthews and Obama lead both of them to see federal regulation as the way to prevent future crises, rather than as the primary cause of past crises. The good news is that Matthews merely expresses an uniformed opinion, one that likely has no real consequence. The bad news is that Obama is all too capable of transforming his opinions into real public policies."

This is one of the worst paragraphs in any sort of economic article I have ever read.

 
At the end of the day though everything you said is just bullshit rhetoric and literally as you were typing it a village in India lost its only well to the Coke company and began dying of dehydration.
You can try to justify mindless profiteering any way you want but at the end of the day what a business wants to do is make money. And without government regulation they can, will, and do rape the shit out of the people of their respective countries in order to make more money.
Also I didn't read whatever you posted but now I know its fucking retarded because whoever wrote it thinks that capitalism is entirely responsible for technological innovation. You know, the Egyptians invented a lot of things, and they were not capitalists. China invented.....basically everything, including math. Not only were they not capitalist at the time, they still aren't even capitalist (well, supposedly). Still inventing things there.
You know, technically Switzerland isn't even really capitalist. I don't know if they invented anything but I must say I think of banks and watches before I think of plows and sheep.
If the government doesn't keep an eye on business, it will exploit the population. Every time. Hell, look at America. We barely even have a government anymore, its all fucking puppetry being controlled by major corporations.
 
bullshit, that guy hasn't been around since the 70s.

I really have no idea what hippie means these days, to me it's a loaded term. So to be clear...

If by hippie you mean that i've made myself aware of social justice issues, and can give a few theoretical positions as to how to address them -- then yes I can identify with that.

If you mean that I think that the status quo needs drastic change, towards a more 'equal' standard-- yes i also agree with that.

But I also contribute my share of work towards achieving these goals. I've made a bit of sacrifice pursuing that which i see as just and good. And I try to keep my ideals at the top of my priorities. So if you mean that I sit around and talk about these issues without acting on them -- then no, that's not me, at all.

 
because more often than not, in today's world, those means are dependent upon the infringement of other people's basic human rights.

if you have a socially responsible means of living a lavish lifestyle -- by all means do so. But when you obtain luxury as a product of a significant cost to others' livelihood then you're speaking of something unjust -- and it is in your best interest to avoid injustice.

 
It is human nature to want more and get it at all costs. Read John Locke or Thomas Hobbes. They both explain it perfectly.

Human nature is essentially "after me you come first and even then I just don't give a fuck. Get in my way I kill you"
 
and you'd say your life is nasty brutish and nasty?

i'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.
 
i dont know if ide say that.

if anything by having your basic needs met/exceeded you have more ability to be more charitable towards those less fortunate than yourself.

of course we dont need any more conscripted charity, i think the graduated income tax takes care of "giving back" and then some.
 
and i'm telling you what they want and need is a diverse environment with competition and cooperation.

imagine a world where there were no symbiotic relationships, where life was only constantly at war with itself... tell me what you see, because I can't imagine it.

You've got to remember that you're talking about a time period where the prevailing foundation of philosophy is rooted in Newtonian explanations of mechanical interactions. 'for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction...sort of stuff'

An example of how Locke's perception is too narrow in scope, take his theory on labor ownership; he only considers the direct human effort and importance for the use of an object. Why does a tree's labor in growing its own fruit not entitle the tree to the same ownership that the man would inherit through the labor of picking it? Especially if life is supposed to only be based on a principle of selfishness.

Going back to what i was saying at the beginning, the tree produces the fruit as an offering of cooperation to the rest of us --if i can personify the tree "you eat my fruit, but spread my seeds."

Also on a more personal side note, I don't think either Hobbes or Locke had wives, so unless you really want to end up as a dry old wanker... ;)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top