View Full Version : How has evolution produced Capitalism.

19-02-2014, 09:51 AM
When evolutionary forces produce diversity and difference but Capitalisms raison d'etre is monopoly control ?

19-02-2014, 10:00 AM
The Tory/Republican mantra "Greed is good". Or should that be God.

19-02-2014, 10:12 AM
ABC you can't answer the question because you've made a massive error of assumption. You've hindered yourself with bad dogma.

Evolution has produced capitalism for the same reason evolution produces anything:

Because evolution is a continuing force for change that will eventually find the most efficient and powerful method of overcoming a problem. Ergo capitalism. And rabbits.

And because capitalism is a product of evolution, so capitalism reflects and produces evolution.

The "raison d'etre" of capitalism is not "monopoly"; that is the "raison d'etre" of individual businesses. Capitalism has no "raison d'etre". It is merely a concept, an idea.

Woolworths would have planned for monopoly on our high streets, if they could have. Look what happened to them. Capitalism and evolution in action. Extinction for the species that cannot adapt.

The challenge for mankind is to harness the powers of capitalism to ensure that prosperity and wealth can grow and be shared throughout the world.

19-02-2014, 10:13 AM
because social and political systems are not organic (in neither the sense of being derived from living matter nor in the sense of being in a harmonious relationship with all its parts).

19-02-2014, 10:22 AM
Minnie, that's a terrible cliche.

How about "Only Desire can drive us forward"?

The self-centred motto of "greed is good" could fall under the umbrella of "Only desire can drive us forward".

Is all desire greed? No.

Does desire for ourselves necessarily equate to greed? No.

But without any desire, why would we do anything? Desire is not to be deified, glorified nor vilified. It should harnessed for what it is worth, and some desires are more worthy than others.

Only capitalism allows us to fully take up our own social responsibilities as individuals. We are richer (materially and "spiritually" for it.

19-02-2014, 11:04 AM
Not so sure about 'spiritually' Rowls.

19-02-2014, 11:10 AM
I always get a bit fed up of the "greed is good" slogan only ever being attached to the Tories.

I thought new labours bling and live the dream generation was far more tasteless and self entitled than anything that went before.

At least the yuppies and the greed of the 80's were driven by marketing forces in order to drag England out of its barbaric Unionized socialist bullying that had completely brought the Country to its knees and made us resemble the old Soviet Union.

19-02-2014, 11:16 AM
Evolution has not really produced capitalism. The dynamic of evolution is capitalist in nature in that it seeks to make adaptations to the best possible advantage of each species.

This is sometimes at the short term expense of other species until evolutionary processes kick in ensuring the survival of each species along the chain. Sometimes a species might drop out of the chain if it cannot adapt quickly enough but this is very much against the interest of other species. In other words shared wealth and prosperity is in the interests of all.

19-02-2014, 11:27 AM
Depends what you do with the wealth that capitalism affords us AndyattheTurf.

Try making a monthly donation to oxfam is you're living on the breadline. It's not easy when you're broke yourself.

Ofcourse, you can give your time if you don't have any material or monetary wealth to give.

But try giving your time to a good cause if you're an African farmer who has to spend all day, by necessity, toiling in a field using medieval farming methods to feed your family.

OK, I agree that "spiritually" is a woolly and silly word but I'd still say it is "spiritually" uplifting to give generously when it is possible. Capitalism is the overriding force that enables such generosity.

19-02-2014, 12:34 PM
There is nothing wrong with Capitalism. It's the abuse of Capitalism that's the problem and the results of that abuse is what gives Capitalism its bad.

Jail the corrupt bankers and let's start over with real Austrian Economics, when this corrupt, debt base monetary system fails, as all fiat systems do eventually.

19-02-2014, 12:45 PM
If evolution has produced capitalism then it will almost certainly lead to it's demise. You cannot have exponential economic growth in a finite world which has always been the same size and always will be the same size.

19-02-2014, 12:45 PM
It's interesting that Rowls is celebrating (perfect) capitalism as a means to make charitable donations, but if we had (perfect) socialism then charity wouldn't be required.

19-02-2014, 12:57 PM
I agree to a point Atheist. But sadly (perfect) Socialism is a pipe dream because too many people are inherently selfish. And selfishness is not the exclusive trait of capitalists. Some of the most selfish people I've seen are self professed socialists.

19-02-2014, 01:04 PM
I agree to a point Atheist. But sadly (perfect) Socialism is a pipe dream because too many people are inherently selfish. And selfishness is not the exclusive trait of capitalists. Some of the most selfish people I've seen are self professed socialists.

All men are equal, but some are more equal than others. :)

19-02-2014, 01:06 PM
“Some of the most selfish people I've seen are self professed socialists”

Maybe that’s what lies behind AtheistDingle’s wild-eyed religious zeal on all things ‘left’. Deep down he knows he’s a selfish, greedy man… in the same way as the god-fearing homophobic preacher with his ‘feelings’ for the boys in his church.

I think Atheist protests too much.

19-02-2014, 01:06 PM
IMHO both systems will fail even if perfect, Atheist. For socialism, mankind will not take only according to his needs and for capitalism the charitable donation aspect will only extend only as far as the donation is for the benefit of the giver as well as the taker.

You need to add the idea of a 'higher calling' to both systems whether religious or humanitarian.

19-02-2014, 01:33 PM
I wasn't saying that perfect socialism was possible, I was simply pointing out that while Rowls lauds the equally impossible perfect capitalism for it's benefits to charity, that perfect socialism would mean that charity wouldn't even be needed.

19-02-2014, 01:52 PM
Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy **** we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very ****ed off.

19-02-2014, 02:18 PM
Bobbysox has struck a chord with his post.

When I was in South America the general concencus was that America liked doing business with these poorer countries because they were run by corruptable politicians. The corrupt Politicians would sell America its natural resources and then do a runner to Brazil with loads of brown bag money. America would later send aid to these countries and convince itself that it was the good guy.

Its a bit like a rapist acting like a benevolent moralist because its handed its victim a towel afterwards.

19-02-2014, 03:24 PM
"Its a bit like a rapist acting like a benevolent moralist because its handed its victim a towel afterwards."


19-02-2014, 03:33 PM
Capitalism appears to grow wealth more quickly, however it doesn't always distribute this wealth fairly.For example, we still have a lot of absolute and relative poverty in the world. Capitalism also needs some regulation from goverment's, when it is under-regulated we end up with the crash and turmoil of our recent recession.Its not perfect really is it.

19-02-2014, 03:36 PM
Evolution amounts to taking the rough with the smooth

19-02-2014, 06:20 PM
"It's interesting that Rowls is celebrating (perfect) capitalism as a means to make charitable donations, but if we had (perfect) socialism then charity wouldn't be required."

Nearly, very nearly. This aptly shows the difference between socialism and capitalism. Socialism works on paper, capitalism just works.

I am not "celebrating perfect capitalism". We don't have such a thing and there never will be such a thing. People already DO give to charity and they are able to do so because of capitalism.

Imperfect capitalism is making this possible right now.

If we waited for "perfect socialism" and the end of the need for charity ... well, we'd be waiting ...

... waiting ...

... waiting ...




Until we realised there's no such thing as a perfect system. Capitalism is just by far the best one.

Of course, if we pressed on with the discredited notion of "perfect socialism" again we'd end up a lot poorer before this fundamental truth shook us by the necks again.

19-02-2014, 07:10 PM
Capitalism also needs some regulation from government

Capitalism needs no regulation, the rules are quite simple.

The system has been going down hill since we allowed the Americans to control world finances under the Bretton Woods agreement. The agreement was the best solution at the time but we should never have expected the Americans to play fair.

The situation worsened in 1971 when Nixon scrapped the agreement and implemented the dollar standard, making all the world's major currencies, including Sterling, fiat.

19-02-2014, 07:34 PM
I think my neighbour drove a Sterling Fiat in the 1980s.

Or was it a Reliant Sterling?

19-02-2014, 07:44 PM
Capitalism seems to be the best of a lot of bad options. The trouble with Socialism is:

1. It disincentivises ambitious people from starting and growing businesses, thus requiring a large public sector employment base instead and high taxes to fund it.

2. Growth and thus average standards of living are restricted, not over one economic cycle but over decades, which have a massive cumulative effect.

3. The country does not attract skills from outside, which eventually leads to stagnation.

The extreme example that income equality does not lead to a higher standard of living would be North vs South Korea, the poorer people in the latter still having a far higher quality of life than the majority of the former.

Let's look at a truly equal society in the UK - say there are 40 million working people, and say they are all paid equally, at maybe £35,000 per year (a big rise on the current average). There is zero unemployment, zero VAT, no companies so no Corporation Tax and we are all one

19-02-2014, 08:14 PM

19-02-2014, 08:19 PM
I have seen no evidence that capitalism has, is or ever will work. If you believe it has created a better and more 'free' world, I would like to hear exactly what we have benefitted from it.

I don't believe we have 'evolved' (I'd use that term very loosely) into capitalism, capitalism has created a paradigm evolution. A state of mind where huge over consumption and a dog eat dog mentality has driven social morality into a downward spiral. A minuscule example of this would be to take a look at your local high street, where charity, pawn and quick loan shops dominate your view. Then take yourself to the end of the street and you will notice a mega store, where you can purchase all the goods and services you will ever need. Goods that are produced in exotic countries like China and Thailand, so they keep production costs to a minimum so you can buy that extra automated coffee dispenser.

Never before has the distance between rich and poor been so great, in this so called modern world. We

19-02-2014, 08:26 PM
85 people are richer than 3,500,000,000 of the poorest, when do we call it quits?

Those 85 people are the cheating crooks, who give capitalism its bad.

19-02-2014, 08:45 PM
Well done to wickdkewlclaret who wins the award for blatant loony leftie of the year (in association with the Sun).

Your diatribe wins you a pair of sandals, a bag of lentils and a subscription to the Guardian which runs out next year when the paper goes bust.


19-02-2014, 09:02 PM
Interesting suggestion at point 3, Sheffield.

History has shown that far fewer immigrants (apart from a handful of idealogues) were drawn to old socialist republics than those encouraging free trade, the USA being the prime example and these days perhaps Western Europe. Mankind seems to move towards opportunity.

East/Central Europeans I have spoken to unsurprisingly detest their old regimes (admittedly for a range of reasons) and seem drawn to this country because of the opportunities it provides rather than the benefits that come with them.

19-02-2014, 09:29 PM
Rowls, the penultimate backward thinker who would rather sit in an arm chair with a blanket in toe, waiting for all this to blow over.

We talk about evolution, but nothing what you have said has any foresight what so ever. Unfortunately for you, your generation is coming to an end and mine has to pick up the pieces.

That hippy dippy insult is cute as well. As an owner of business that is growing despite the economic downturn, I feel very confident in my consciousness of our current economic and social situation.

'We're turning the bull loose.' Will that be on your epitaph?

19-02-2014, 09:45 PM

Chances are, we're of similar age wickd.

You don't think I've any foresight, eh?

Check out the thread entitled "Join the Fight Against the Socialist Forces of Conservatism" that I started this morning and tell me that I haven't made a bold prediction on that thread.

I've read your opinions on economics before in Adbusters.

If you're a business owner I wish you all the best of luck. As a business owner who doesn't understand capitalism you'll need all the intuition you can muster.

What do you do, by the way? Are you the e-cigs business owner?

19-02-2014, 10:01 PM
Rowls,if we wait for the perfect capitalism society we will be waiting
Its never going to get it right,is it?
Same old rhetoric.

The Bedlington Terrier
19-02-2014, 10:03 PM
The big slug eats the little slug, capitalism works in exactly the same way. You end up with one big bloated slug that just flushes itself down the plug hole. The time is coming!

19-02-2014, 10:32 PM
Oh that thread, yes I noticed, I laughed at it earlier this morning. What are they going to be eating? Monsanto patented GM grains? You think they will help farmers utilise the skills to ensure the produce food for generations to come? Will they end up losing swathes of arable land to soil that has to be pumped with nutrients for it to produce? What economic and resource benefit will America gain from investment in Africa? It's rich that a nation built on capitalism is reaching out, giving a helping hand by producing food for them, isn't that a tad bit social? When what capitalism really is, is if you can't achieve it by yourself using enterprise, your on your own sort of speak. Will communities become self reliant or reliant on industrial agricultural companies, and outside invested corporations? Africa is indebted from attempting to build infrastructure, could this conceivably be another debt?

There's foresight Rowls, and then there's a perpetual feedback loop.

We own a small foo

19-02-2014, 11:22 PM
eagles - Go back and read my posts more carefully. The thing that you missed you slap you squarely on the cheek. It's that obvious.


You might have asked the same question about the even more impoverished farmers of China only 20-25 years ago. No need to ask these questions anymore since China opened up its markets and reaped the benefit of free trade to move from one of the worst third world countries to the second largest economy in little short of a single generation.

Here's the answers to your questions.

What are they going to be eating?
If the trade agreements are successfully put in place then in 20 years time they'll be eating whatever the heck they want to eat. Like the rest of the world.

Monsanto patented GM grains?
If they want to. Patented GM grains tackle hunger as effectively as unpatented non-GM grains. No, actually, GM patented grains tackle hunger better because you get a better yield.

[b]You think they will help farmers utilise the skills to e

19-02-2014, 11:30 PM
Self preservation has always been the number one driver for human beings.

And this is translated into how we act en masse.

The main aim of any company is to make profit. Be as competitive as possible. Overcome their rivals. As said above, companies only look for the main chance when investing abroad. Charity just doesn't come in to it.

We are fiercely tribal as individuals and nations, to the extent that wars have been fought over assets which both sides want.

Is there any serious counterbalance to this dog eat dog, greedy way of living?

What about the Church who preach to us that "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven".

Well, the leader of the Church of England (the Queen) is one of the richest people in England.

And the Roman Catholic Church is one of the richest organisations on the planet.

So its "Do as I say, not as I do" from them.

Historically there have been several groups who just take what the

19-02-2014, 11:48 PM
A good post 1959_60 but want to make just a few tiny points:

"Self preservation has always been the number one driver for human beings."

This is why we have so many tariffs and taxes on trade that all need abolishing. As tribes we don't like the idea of our produce going to far off lands. But only through the exchange of goods and services can we make everyone prosperous.

Africa is losing out because she isn't trading.

"Historically there have been several groups who just take what they need and live for the common good. American Indians, Aborigines and several African tribes. They practised the nearest thing to pure communism that the human race has ever attained...from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

A twee point. What do these "communist" groups have in common?

A. They are living in hunter-gatherer societies. Take more than you need in this scenario and there's nothing left when you come to harvest next season. These cultures ar

20-02-2014, 01:02 AM
Wickdkewlclaret, it's all very well to hark back to the days when the high street was full of small shops, all of them open until 9pm except on half-day closing. As a shopkeeper yourself, perhaps you do work a 72 hour week, 51 weeks a year, with a week holiday in Blackpool every year. But a lot of those shopkeepers (like yourself, capitalists) worked so they could have a better life, so their descendants did not need to work 72 hours just to exist. And remember, these shopkeepers were the lower middles, in the richer half of society.

It's not really true to say that the gap between rich and poor has never been greater. Think back to the landowners and mineowners of early Victorian times - while they were building their vast country estates, and using hundreds if not thousands of staff to run them, the miners were dying at 40 if they were lucky because of poverty.

What is true is that in capitalist countries, the number of rich people has increased almost immeasurably. Countries

20-02-2014, 06:54 AM
I'm away for a couple of days now, but i'll reply when i return. There's a lot that needs ironing out here that's for sure, maybe an awakening or two.

20-02-2014, 08:08 AM
Only when we have lost everything are we free to do anything.

20-02-2014, 08:14 AM
Thanks to Capitalism, people like Wicklewhatshisname can run a successful business.

20-02-2014, 09:19 AM
And thanks to socialism he can take the financial risk of starting a business knowing that if it goes wrong and he goes bust he'll at least be able to feed himself and his family.

20-02-2014, 02:10 PM
Crikey, capitalism as part of the evolutionary process. I bet even Rowls doesn't really think that, and let's not give him another reason for believing that capitalism is the only way. Evolution, as in adaption, mutation, natural selection and most importantly, biology? As a species we have developed and changed, but we have also created the potential for our own demise with nuclear and biological weapons and goodness knows only what with genetic engineering and no doubt other weird and wonderful scientific messings about with nature. Are these part of evolution too? If so we could have evolved to a point where we could wipe ourselves out because of a moment of human error. And what about obesity? Some of the largest capitalist countries have the biggest obesity and other health problems. How does that fit with evolution and the survival of the fittest?

20-02-2014, 02:56 PM
Big obesity and health problems? Too much listening to the BBC leads to the demise of critical thought. Life expectancy in this country is higher than ever before, and increasing. I've just come back from a cruise including Senegal and Gambia, where they don't have any obesity problems at all, and I promise you they have worse health problems.

People dying of heart attacks at 70 due to overweight does not affect "survival of the fittest" - their breeding days are over. (There are no financial implications either, because people who die at 70 are a lot cheaper to run than people who linger till 90 in a nursing home.)

20-02-2014, 03:09 PM
The food supply is a good analogy to demonstrate how we acquire more than we require.

In the animal kingdom you never find unnaturally overweight predators. That's because they hunt, catch and consume only the food they require. It's not a conscious thing, it's just how evolution has made them. The only predators you do find that are overweight are the likes of polar bears that have to build body fat in order to survive seasons with fewer opportunities to hunt.
That's how non-capitalist animals live. They hunt the food they need, and leave the rest (because they don't need it) for whoever else needs to hunt it.

The human, however, would hunt for the food he needs to survive. Then, after a while, he'd trade some of his animals for some traps one of his neighbours has invented. This makes hunting somewhat easier.

Our enterprising human then has an idea! If while he's hunting he captures more than one prey then he'll not need to hunt tomorrow. Soon he'd start to acquire so much food th

20-02-2014, 03:27 PM
Socialism works on paper, capitalism just works

Socialism will never work because there are too many powerful people who don't believe in it, don't want it to work, and will not let it work.

There aren't many case studies of true Socialism actually being implemented anywhere. You've either got the extremist end of Socialism (Communism), or the 21st Century Socialism (Tony Blair's right wing idea of socialism).

I don't think Socialism will ever be given a chance to succeed. At least not in this country.

20-02-2014, 03:33 PM
Socialism just doesn't work period.

Bit like Brian laws as Burnley manager, it doesn't matter how many times you spin it, it still doesn't work.

20-02-2014, 03:35 PM
It's that selfish gene.

20-02-2014, 03:59 PM
It's not just powerful people who don't like socialism, McGreal. Ordinary people don't like it either.

Socialism isn't just about wanting to look after the poor. It's about suppressing your own desire to be rich.

So, for example, many thousands of teachers over the last umpty years have taken early retirement - a true socialist would not have taken early retirement, he would have carried on until 65 (if health permitted) in the interest of the wider population.

Lots of people buy new cars when it isn't strictly necessary, or buy more expensive cars than they need, because it's fun to have a flash car. A socialist wouldn't have - he'd get by on a 10 year old Fiat because it does the job, and is better for the wider population (apart from the people who build new cars, that is).

Capitalism is about wanting a better life for yourself and your family. It's a natural human instinct. Socialism wants you to reject that instinct, it wants you not to want better things for your famil

20-02-2014, 04:12 PM
Why can't we all agree with what we all know is actually the truth?

Capitalism on it's own will always lead to the rich exploiting the poor, and Socialism on it's own will always lead to Capitalism.

20-02-2014, 04:14 PM
People will often do what is intrinsically bad for them though. Obesity is a good example. The power of big business to persuade you that you want something even when it is bad for you. We have been persuaded that capitalism is good for us.

20-02-2014, 04:17 PM
Capitalism is good for us, at least as far as health goes. People in capitalist countries live longer. People in rich countries live longer. And it's not that they live longer at the expense of people in poor countries, because the poor have always died young.

There's a lot of bilge spoken by people who claim not to like capitalism - but they've still got the house, the car, the foreign holiday, the expensive electronic gizmos. What most socialists enjoy is giving away other people's money.

20-02-2014, 04:23 PM
Capitalism is good for us, at least as far as health goes. People in capitalist countries live longer.

What makes us a Capitalist country?

We have social welfare, corporate welfare, a national health service, a national broadcasting service, a free state education, a national minimum wage, health and safety at work laws, regulations on our market economy to prevent companies from abusing their power, etc., etc.

So if all that doesn't make us a predominantly Socialist nation, what is it about Capitalism that trumps all that and makes us a predominantly Capitalist nation?

20-02-2014, 04:26 PM
The difference being that in poor countries people are sick without being encouraged, whereas in wealthy capitalist countries we are persuaded to make ourselves ill.

20-02-2014, 04:56 PM
We're a predominantly capitalist nation because, by and large, the people of this nation work in a capitalist way for their own benefit. People try for better jobs and more income because of the money they're allowed to keep, not for the privilege of paying more to the government in taxes. The government provides some compulsory socialism, charities provide some voluntary socialism (which almost all comes out of spare cash that we don't want, not sacrificial giving), but by and large we're in it for ourselves.

Socialist countries are where the people voluntarily (it never happens) or compulsorily (in communist countries) do not get any benefit from working harder. They get the same money whatever they do, they don't personally benefit from wealth production.

20-02-2014, 05:04 PM
Socialism as an axiom requires us all to have a similar opportunity that requires good housing, enough money to make use of your abilities etc, but most of all it is about collective responsibility. The whole trust of the modern world is individualism
and individualism sits well with the capitalist mantra. Sadly individualism is both narcassistic and fearful and so we get a tormented kind of democracy where deception, deviousness and denial become its buzz words. A a consequence we become lesser as individuals and as a collective unit.

20-02-2014, 05:06 PM
That is a very weak argument, dsr.

If you work slowly for one hour in the UK you get paid just as much as if you work your nuts off for that hour.

Workers in socialist countries work to earn a wage just like we do in this country. Some of them are happy to remain at the lower rung of the career ladder while others have ambition and want to more up the career ladder - just like in the UK.

And where did you get the idea that people in Socialist nations work mostly for the privilege of paying taxes?

You're going to have to do better than that if you're going to make the case that the UK is more Capitalist than Socialist.

20-02-2014, 05:11 PM
"Capitalism is about wanting a better life for yourself and your family. It's a natural human instinct. Socialism wants you to reject that instinct, it wants you not to want better things for your family, unless the whole community can have them too. That's why it will never work."

i'm reluctant to dip my toe into this sh!t pit, but the above quote does go to show what a low ebb discourse on fairness and equity has reached in this country.

pal, you have to understand the difference between instinct and appetites/appetences before you start pontificating on the rights and wrongs of capitalism.

countless studies have shown a number of primates - not least humans - have an innate sense of fairness and egality.

what you are describing are appetites, not instincts. they are not natural. far from it. they are the factitious.

It is called marketing/advertising.

you and you ilk really are capitalism's dupes. how embarrassing.

20-02-2014, 05:25 PM
I've looked up appetence in my dictionary. It's not there. Appetency is, it's an archaic word for longing or yearning, so I presume it's related. Appetite or instinct, does it really matter?

My great grandfather worked 6 days x 12 hours a week, and his days off were Sunday, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day. (Born in the early 1850's.) I work 5 days x 7.25 hours a week, 34 days holiday. I think mine's better, and I don't think that's just because of marketing and advertising.

Anyway, I wasn't pontificating on the rights and wrongs of capitalism - I was talking about the success of capitalism, not its fairness.

20-02-2014, 05:42 PM
My great grandfather worked 6 days x 12 hours a week, and his days off were Sunday, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day. (Born in the early 1850's.) I work 5 days x 7.25 hours a week, 34 days holiday. I think mine's better, and I don't think that's just because of marketing and advertising.

You don't think your better situation has anything to do with employment law? And by the way, what makes you think your great grandfather wasn't living under Capitalism back then, if that's what you're living under now? Your Great-grandfather wouldn't have had any of those socialist qualities i described earlier (except maybe education) and won't have been protected by socialist laws such as the employment laws we have now (like the 'working week').

In fact, your great grandfather was living under something closer to Capitalism than you are right now.

Thanks for proving my point better than anything I could have said.

Edit: see link. - [url=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/appetence]vi

20-02-2014, 05:46 PM
thank heavens for the EU and its working time directive, eh?

20-02-2014, 07:40 PM
This country is primarily capitalist because the engine that makes the most money for the country is by taxes by privately owned companies. Socialism requires the state to control the generation of wealth . This usually is where it goes wrong and we get cars like the trabant and the Austin allegro.
Capitalism...your wage is my income my income is your wage.

20-02-2014, 07:45 PM
Capitalism doesn't work instantly, atheist. If (say) Cuba declared tomorrow that they were going to follow the US capitalist system, they wouldn't be as rich as the US on Saturday. It would take time.

Under the current system, they'll never get rich.

20-02-2014, 08:43 PM
Some interesting comments above.

Many seem to be suggesting that the main criteria of being respected is how rich a person is. I think this is extremely shallow.
(Nelson Mandela v Roman Abramovich?)

When you are lying on your deathbed reflecting on your life, what would you like to be remembered for? A big bank balance or the good work and happiness which you gave yourself and other people?

Some people will always look to make more money, no matter how rich they are. And they will do this to the detriment of others, taking pleasure at the downfall of other people who don't fit into their plans.
As long as they are doing well they give little thought for others.

And you can roll this analysis out from individuals to companies to nations.

Like it or not, we are all capitalists to one extent or other.

And I have no problem with huge wealth, as long as it has been attained without being at the cost of others.

20-02-2014, 08:51 PM
"And I have no problem with huge wealth, as long as it has been attained without being at the cost of others."

there is more chance of a camel passing through the eye of a needle than that sentence making sense.

as balzac wrote - behind every great fortune stands a grand crime.

20-02-2014, 09:01 PM
That's largely true Rebel, but there are some fortunes made by doing good work, or by worthwhile creations.

Musicians, artists, writers, many inventors etc have enriched our society and become very wealthy though.

20-02-2014, 10:23 PM
Balzac has come out with some real tosh over the years, though the quote above is not Balzac but Richard O'Connor from "Oil Barons - Men of Greed and Grandeur".

Occasionally though a gem comes through the chaff - I like the Balzac quote:

"Qui dA?pense trop na??est jamais riche."

Or in other words "Those who spend too fast never grow rich."

Doesn't sound like a man who would be supportive of the Labour Party nor one who is opposed to the acquisition of wealth ;-D

20-02-2014, 10:51 PM
Sounds more like a labour manifesto pledge .

20-02-2014, 11:38 PM
Now, who would have thought a post such as this on a football message board would create such debate and relatively interesting reading too.

It only goes to show the quality of debate that can be had.

Well done claretmadders. I salute you all.

I've only one additional comment/question to make in response to a comment Rowls made in one of his first responses/posts as it's pretty late and I'm ready for retiring to sleep.

Rowls comment was:

'Capitalism has no "raison d'etre". It is merely a concept, an idea.'

and the question is:

Rowls,surely you do not believe that? Do you?

21-02-2014, 10:53 AM
But Gosia, aren't we all six fingered hillbillies? ;)

25-02-2014, 03:40 AM
Capitalism, baby!

(Reddit title: ****bag Comcast)

And FYI, "just leave for another supplier" isn't an option for 30,000,000 American's because the only other ISP for them is Time Warner Cable ... which is merging with Comcast.