And what people do they get to vote on? The corporate sponsored wealthy elitist douche bags that appear most on television.
Too bad all viable candidates won’t do anything about it and the movement will never get enough momentum to put a candidate who would do something about it into power.
I’m not that pessimistic.
Realistic*
I wouldn’t be surprised if the movement produces some of its own candidates. And OWS is getting to be strong enough that some of them might even stand a chance come election time.
I have to admit that it’d be hilarious to see politicians argue on TV the way most people do on this forum.
I would literally laugh out my ass. 
“Well I believe blah blah is this way due to blarg blarg.”
“Well, dipshit, you’d be wrong 'cause of hee haa”
“You’re both faggots, it’s obviously hort snort! Where the fuck do you two get your info?”
Capitalist entrepreneurs/countries strive for maximum profit (I don’t think I have to prove that). Thus they tend to do two things:
-
Exploit national workforces (as of late international workforces too). They keep the precarian/proletarian prosperity so low that the workers have to live under constant fear of losing their job, but they let them have enough money to work more or less efficiently. This makes very motivated workers. At the same time working class children are unable to obtain higher education to organize themselves(not including statistical deviations). Then capitalism takes the INCREDIBLE profit and does two things: 1. Invest into technology, bribes, wars or anything enabling them to gain an advantage over their national or international competitors, 2. Personal enrichment of the elite. Any capitalist increasing the wages of the workers und thus increasing their feeling of security, potentially decreasing their productivity at the same time does not understand capitalism and will be out of the business in 1-3 years.
-
exploiting (non-national) resources. Capitalism never strived after public prosperity of man, but instead after highest profit at all costs. That is why capitalist countries can usurp other countries (“bring freedom” to a country with low degree of literacy and technology and with a high amount of resources). The exploited are often not organized and educated enough to resist, or get marginal benefits. This is nothing out of the ordinary. This is what Capitalism is. It is NOT welfare oriented. That is why everything happening right now is NOT a mistake in the system. On the contrary: everything is as it should be.
Global welfare is the goal of Socialism but people are not altruistic enough for that. Because if global welfare was instituted, everyone of us would earn about 8000 Dollars a year (Global GDP divided by global population). Not enough to buy an Ipod. (This is polemics I know, the I pod would be a lot more expensive in such a system).
That said I have no idea why people are protesting. Most of them are surely above
8000 dollars a year.
So the computer you use came out of of nowhere? The house you live in, the machines which were used to build it. The machines used to mine the resources. The technology made available to have electricity, clean water, heat and gas. The software on your computer, the video games. The clothes you wear, the food you eat. List goes on and on. The technology that has improved our lives so vastly compared to earlier generations was made available through capitalism.
The technology that improved OUR lives (e.g. those int he western world mostly) was made possible by the rational and scientific thinking emerging in the Age of Enlightenment. Mathematics, physics, chemistry. Legislature and organisational constructs created outside of theocentrist concepts. Capitalism is one of the products of this thinking. Especially the competitive aspect. Market socialism, my favourite, is another.
But tell me, if the technologies have improved our life so greatly? Why are the Occupy Wallstreet guys protesting? And why is 2/3 of the world still unable to buy these technologically advanced products?
Hint: because capitalism does not strive after global prosperity or welfare. But Market Socialism for example does.
Without capitalism many technologies would have likely never existed. You can’t invent new things if you don’t have the resources made available to you through capitalism. For example, a farmer might need a piece of machinery that someone else who is qualified could construct. In return, this person could receive food which he needs to survive. You need resources? Well someone is going to have to get them, or someone is going to have to build a machine to get them. Either way that someone is not going to do it for free.
You can’t get around the fact that so far capitalism is the only system that has increased the standard of living of the largest amount of people on this world. It’s far from perfect, but there is no alternative system that has shown to be more effective at raising the standard of living of most people.
Socialism doesn’t work. Maximum individual freedom and a free market does. Something the United States seems to have forgotten.
Capitalism may not be in the best interest for everyone, but it´s the only system that has consistently proven to improve the lives of the common people. That is a fact, as fucked up as this world still is we´re just gonna have to deal with it.
Government plays a big role in the problems capitalism supposedly creates, socialists like to talk about monopolies in capitalism when it is in fact government intervention in the market that creates many of the monopolies. That´s just one example.
Socialism doesn’t mean people are going to be doing things for free.
I’m not sure you know what socialism is.
Oftentimes maximum individual freedom and free market are antithesis of each other. I do not have the freedom to go into our house and take your stuff, rape your wife and decapitate your dog. Simply because I’m not allowed to do that (I can but there are severe consequences if I do) does not mean that my individual freedom is being squelched.
And what about the monopolies that would naturally come about without government intervention? By the way, do you have anything beyond a quote from Friedman that says that government intervention in the market creates monopolies at all?
Like an example of a monopoly caused by government intervention?
I’m not sure you know what libertarianism is.
Of course they won’t do it for free, I never said that. They’ll be forced. That’s what socialism is all about. Force. That’s why it will never work.
Watch the video? It’s not a quote.
Again, watch the video.
I actually do.
Actually, no. That’s not what socialism is all about.
I can’t discuss with the author of the video. He is not here. How about if I talk to you?
Ok, we will do this one at a time because I respect your love of freedom.
Myth 1: “There is a free market”.
It is a carefully elaborated illusion of most economic or political systems to pretend to the non-elite participants that they are more free than in any other system. EVERY market has some rules and boundaries that restrict freedom of choice, because every market functions in an environment of politics and moral. A market looks free only because we SO unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we simply fail to see them. How “free” a market is, is a political question. The usual claim by free-market economists is that they are trying to defend the market from politically motivated interference by the government is false. Government is always involved and those free-marketeers are as politically motivated as anyone.
[i][u][color=Red]We see regulation ONLY when we don’t endorse the moral values behind it.
IN all objectivity: there is no free market.
[/u][/i]Proof?
- child labour ban dating back to 1819 Cotton Factories Regulation Act,
(back then the House of Lords in England objected that “labour ought to be free. Children want and need to work 12 hours a day.” See how it works? If you think that children are to work instead of going to school, because you need their workforce, it’s suddenly a restriction of freedom. But 90% of liberal economists would not even think of introducing child labour back into capitalism, would they?)
-environmental regulations (restricting CO2 emissions of factories and cars)
(I remember the debate very well: "if people want to drive in more polluting cars or if factories find more polluting production methods more profitable, why should the government prevent them from making such choices?) - trade restrictions on: slaves, organs, drugs, electoral votes, government jobs, legal decisions, university places (turning a blind eye to university donations in the US), certain firearms, plants, chemicals). Moreover you need licenses to buy or sell 90% of chemical components, medicinal stuff.
- licenses to practice a certain occupation (doctors, lawyers, policemen)
- consumer rights (warranties, restricitons of commercial activity on Sundays, holidays, areas of trade restriction)
- restriction of cheap immigrant workforce using immigration lawes
- Federal Banks controling interest rates
- average working hours (60 hours a week in 1905, around 40 in 2010); back then laws were labeled ‘unconstitutional’ if they limited working hours to 10 hours a day, because it deprived the people of the right to work as much as they wanted…
THE list is endless… You are not wrong in an absolute sense if you defend capitalism, but neither am I if I defend socialism, because it is NOT an objective matter. It is a matter of moral and principles. Economic theory can never tell what is best for us in terms of health, happiness, environmental protection, religion but it is a ruleset of labour/cash/ware traffic that is FORMED by our values, standards and scientific, philosophical and religious/atheist world-views.
Stop acting as if capitalism is an absolute truth in turms of freedom or happiness. The Occupy Wall Street Protesters live in a laissez-faire, “liberal” capitalist society. So protesting for better living conditions while “not being against the capitalist system” is in my opinion retarded. Need to go to work.
I am a capitalist myself. However, what I see being espoused by people like Freidman or those in the Austrian School is not really capitalism at all.
It’s closer to fascism or corporatism. What they propose flies in the very face of capitalism and, whether they mean it to or not, they destroy capitalism.
Can you give any examples? Why Friedman bothers you and why the Austrian school?
They are radically different economic schools.
Well, in my opinion, the Austrian School of Economics is to economics as the Discovery Institute is to science. ASE relies on a priori assumptions and their methodology is highly dubious and do not bear out in any real world applications.
As for Friedman, well, his approach to economics brought us the fun that was 2007-today. We’re still recovering. He asserts that ample supply and reduction in regulation will lead to demand. This is completely upside-down from what the real world shows. Supply does not lead to demand. Demand leads to supply.
“Trickle down economics” doesn’t work which is what Friedman was all about.
His entire “Free to choose” series is uploaded on Youtube, if you watch it you’ll find hes not like that at all. How you could possibly link him to fascism is beyond me, that makes NO sense whatsoever. Friedman believed in limited government, a free market and maximum individual freedom. He wants people to be in charge of their own lives, to have the economic freedom to better their lives in a way they see fit.
Corporatism is made possible through a large and powerful government, as Friedman said whenever government gets too powerful it will be taken over by corporations. Then you get corporatism, much like we have today. Through this government they protect themselves from competition, limiting the free market by putting regulations and taxes in place. He uses Hong Kong as an example of how successful a market would be if let to operate on its own (there is still a government, but it has little to no influence on the market).
There is no such thing as a government that has little to no influence on the market. You, my friend, are mixing things up. You are confusing authoritarianism and libertarianism with liberalism and conservatism.
If you really want free to choose, then you’ll go with Keynesianism and demand-side economics where maximum individual liberty is guaranteed. Friedman’s idea that limited government means maximum liberty is flawed. He, like you, believes that the only thing that government can do is limit liberty.
I say that government CAN limit liberty but it doesn’t HAVE to. In fact, it can GUARANTEE liberty by placing regulations and taxes on things that harm people. Think about it. You claim “maximum individual liberty” yet you want to eliminate a tool that protects people from harm.
Are you a libertarian or are you an authoritarian, Jeannotvb? If you’re an authoritarian, then STOP ADVOCATING TAKING AWAY THINGS THAT PROTECT US FROM HARM. You might as well grab people’s guns and say that you no longer have the right to private property if you’re going to stop me from being able to use government to protect myself from harm.