The fundamental problem with capitalism (as described by Bo Burnham

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 282
#241
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Capitalism creates inflation. It is part and parcel of the system. Busts and booms are also built in.

Capitalism has no power to print money. Governments do.

See Venezuela for Exhibit A.
Topic's author
#242
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Capitalism has no power to print money. Governments do.
And yet capitalism requires money to be printed
#243
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
And yet capitalism requires money to be printed.

Trade can be in goods.
Topic's author
#244
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Capitalism requires a standard of trade. That means money in practical terms.
#245
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Or virtual currency which a government has no power to print.
Topic's author
#246
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Virtual currency is money. Money is an idea. Any form of currency which is no longer held in value becomes instantly valueless. 

You cannot eat money. It makes poor fuel and worse tools. You cannot mate with it and make little people. Money's only value lies in our agreement about its value. Cryptocurrency represents the same thing to those who trade in it. They are hoping it will one day mean the same thing to everyone. 
Topic's author
#247
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
The value of money is maintained by the will of the people not the government even if the federal reserve is what gives them this confidence. That is why cryptocurrency has the potential to become money without the need for a government. 

Capitalism will always require a government however to enforce the will of its corporate overlords and to maintain their ownership of the means of production. 
#248
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I think this is only a problem with safety equipment manufacturers. 
#249
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
The value of money is maintained by the will of the people not the government...
  Since the conversion from the gold standard to floating exchange rates, supply and demand determine currency value more than ever, but governments set those policies. 
Topic's author
#250
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Sum1hugme
Since the conversion from the gold standard to floating exchange rates, supply and demand determine currency value more than ever, but governments set those policies. 
The government may even be what makes the people believe in a currency but it is the belief and not the government that makes it currency 
#251
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
working as much as they can and as hard as they can. 
That, too, is a faulty assumption. Wealth is acquired more by working smart than working hard, or as much as one can. If your goal is only to work min wage, then, yes, long and hard might get there, but even then, probably not. Education is the key. Make one marketable. Make one skilled. Then continue learning. As soon as possible, start investing. Make money work for you instead of just working for it. Stop trying to acquire things until able to do so without borrowing so much, increasing one's debt. I still drive a 20-year-old truck, not because I must, but because it still runs without costing an arm and leg for maintenance. Do I care what people think, that I don't replace a car every three years? No. This is not rocket science. It does take ambition, planning, and execution.
You argue that I make it sound easy. It's not. It takes commitment to personal responsibility, and many have ignored that. Don't.
#252
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Capitalism exists for the sole purpose of generating profit. Anything else that comes of it, good or bad, is merely an unintended consequence.
The unintended consequence is what causes society to improve.

I agree we live in a world where workers are exploited 
The workers aren't being exploited by rape whistles being made.  Less people are being raped because rape whistles are being made.  Capitalism didn't create the rapes.

If you think capitalism sucks, sell your computer, sell everything you own, and give the money to the poor if you really don't care about money.
#253
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm talking about the value of the money, not the existence of the money itself, although many governments have historically minted currencies.

  The value of a currency can be heavily affected by government policy.
#254
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Why are you so fixated on Marx?
Because your arguments are Marxian. You're following a rock, who cannot even, and never did run a lemonade stand; perhaps the bare bones of capitalism. Follow who has already achieved, and copy their style, not Marx. Think, and do like them, not Marx. You may not even be aware of who Marx is. Burnham doesn't, either, so why is he a role model? He's a kid who found a candy store.
#255
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
You're saying that the motivation for people with education and skills is exploitation, but note that your beginning was one going to the other, asking for the first's expertise in an area he has made a profession, and discovers they can be of equal service to one another. Where's the exploitation? They each have a service performed they mutually agree are of equal value. That's not exploitation. You use a term for justification that is flawed because neither party feels they have been exploited; they both achieve their needs.
Topic's author
#256
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc

 If your goal is only to work min wage,
I don't believe this is anyone's goal. Many people do not have the luxury of turning down full time minimum wage work last they suffer homelessness, destitution and starvation. Few people get a "small loan" from their parents in the way you or Donald Trump mean it. Most people borrow money from their parents because their car has broken down or their kids are sick or their heat was shut off. The economically disadvantaged are disproportionately affected by any financial hardship. I'm starting to think you don't know what it is like to struggle with food security and financial stability. Certainly you don't if you think it is a choice.

Topic's author
#257
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
The unintended consequence is what causes society to improve.

Only if improving society is not your intention. 
If you think capitalism sucks, sell your computer, sell everything you own, and give the money to the poor if you really don't care about money.
The system is compulsory. The threat of homelessness and destitution enforced by the implicit threat of police violence prevents this from being a viable solution. It is odd that you are recommending that I lose everything when I want everyone, including you, to have enough. I think it says something about our individual philosophies. 
Topic's author
#258
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Because your arguments are Marxian. You're following a rock, who cannot even, and never did run a lemonade stand; perhaps the bare bones of capitalism. Follow who has already achieved, and copy their style, not Marx. Think, and do like them, not Marx. You may not even be aware of who Marx is. Burnham doesn't, either, so why is he a role model? He's a kid who found a candy store.
The source of any argument is not as important as the argument itself. I don't care whose idea feeding and housing everyone was first it is a good idea. People ought to he fed and housed.
#259
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't believe this is anyone's goal. 
Just the Democrats.

Many people do not have the luxury of turning down full time minimum wage work last they suffer homelessness, destitution and starvation. 
How many would benefit from education, and choose to deny themselves of that advantage?

 you don't know what it is like to struggle with food security and financial stability. 
You're right. My father didn't encourage me to be entitled. He taught me ambition, planning, and execution. It's not rocket science. It's not black magic. It's common sense. It works. Anybody can do it. Why don't they? Because they whine.

People ought to he fed and housed.
People ought to feed and house themselves. We've abdicated personal responsibility for entitlement. Don't you get it? That's communism. Forget socialism, that's just communism lite. And it seeks your destruction as a thinking individual. It wants you poor, and dumb, and needy. Personal responsibility drives ambition, that drives planning, and that drives execution, and defeats communism.
#260
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@secularmerlin
The unintended consequence is what causes society to improve.

Only if improving society is not your intention. 
In order for capitalism to function, you must benefit your society in order to get paid.  Amazon only gets your money if you agree to buy using their website.  If it wasn't for the 1%, we'd be living like the Amish.

It is odd that you are recommending that I lose everything when I want everyone, including you, to have enough.
People get enough since they get jobs.  But if you care about the homeless, your free to invite them into your own home.  You can be as generous as you want with your own recources.  However, you are a thief if you give other people's money away.

Making the 1% take care of poor people with their money is like making middle class Americans take care of Africans with their money.  If a 1% person wants to give their money away, that it their right.  If an individual wants to sponsor African children to save their lives, that is their right.  It cannot be forced in a free society.
Topic's author
#261
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
In order for capitalism to function, you must benefit your society in order to get paid. 
I don't know where you got this idea but you can become and maintain your one of the top one percent earners while actively working towards an unprecedented ecological disaster.
Topic's author
#262
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
However, you are a thief if you give other people's money away.
You are also a thief if you steal people's labor. 
#263
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Labor doesn't get stolen.  It is exchanged at a mutually agreed rate.
Topic's author
#264
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
Labor doesn't get stolen.  It is exchanged at a mutually agreed rate.
Those who own the means of production refuse to share even scraps of their wealth unless we agree to whatever wage we are offered or be subjected to possible destitution, homelessness and starvation enforced by the implicit threat of police violence by the state. There is generally excepted to he a disparity in wages with white men getting on average more scraps and more opportunities for employment, advancement and also for being extended credit than a woman or person of color. This is not a voluntary system it is an obligatory one. It would be impossible to "live like the amish" without first engaging in capitalism to the degree at least which affords you the price of land upon which to build. 
Topic's author
#265
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
Jeff Bezos does not deserve more money than a nurse or a first responder or someone who works with disabled children or someone working to make beneficial medicine but he makes more than any of them will make in a life time. Perhaps Jeff Bezos deserves a living wage (as do we all) but he doesn't deserve a billion dollars because no one is entitled to more than they need as their neighbors starve. You are no more responsible for this system than I am but that you are gain more benefits under the system than most people did does not make it a good system just one that arbitrarily favors you.
#266
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
 If it wasn't for the 1%, we'd be living like the Amish.

You sound like a monarchist in a feudalist society bro.

"If it wasn't for the king you wouldn't have this tiny amount of money".

Should we now get on our hands and knees and bow down to king bezos and his majesty bill gates?
#267
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@949havoc
I'm saying exploitation isn't a bad thing if people want to use each others resources. And they agree to do it.

The problem with Marxism is that they insist free trade can never be mutual.
#268
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I agree. It's just that the word carries a negative connotation.
#269
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Those who own the means of production refuse to share even scraps of their wealth
As an investor, I don't want to give my money to strangers.  That's like forcing you to give money to kids in Africa.

unless we agree to whatever wage we are offered
The wage is mutually consensual.  If you want more money, find a better job.

or be subjected to possible destitution, homelessness and starvation enforced by the implicit threat of police violence by the state.
You need to contribute to society for society to give you something in return.  People aren't trying to get into socialist countries the way they are trying to enter America.  Clearly, Americans are doing something right that the Chinese aren't.

 There is generally excepted to he a disparity in wages with white men getting on average more scraps and more opportunities for employment, advancement and also for being extended credit than a woman or person of color.
Just like Asians get more than whites, and that Jews get more than Christians.  Few are advocating for taxing Asians and Jews to pay for White Christains.  But this is because people in a free society are allowed to earn what they are able and willing to earn and they can spend or invest that money as they see fit.

It would be impossible to "live like the amish" without first engaging in capitalism to the degree at least which affords you the price of land upon which to build. 
Land is not a right.  You have to pay for property.  Capitalism is an unequally shared blessing.  Socialism is an equally shared misery.  People aren't moving to communist Cuba, Venezuela, or even left wing Scadinavia the same way they are moving to America.

Jeff Bezos does not deserve more money than a nurse or a first responder or someone who works with disabled children or someone working to make beneficial medicine but he makes more than any of them will make in a life time.
Jeff Bezos contributes way more to society than a nurse (nurse make a lot as well).  Jeff Bezos's company sells tens of millions of products to people every single day.  A nurse may help out 5 people in a day.

but he doesn't deserve a billion dollars because no one is entitled to more than they need as their neighbors starve.
Other people starving isn't my problem and it isn't yours.  If you feel different, your free to sponsor kids in poverty with your own money.  You can be as generous as you want with your own money but your a thief if your generous with other people's money, irrespective of how rich they are.

You are no more responsible for this system than I am but that you are gain more benefits under the system than most people did does not make it a good system just one that arbitrarily favors you.
It's not arbitrary.  People that contribute more to others get more money from those others.  Jeff Bezos gets money from you when you buy something on Amazon at a cheaper price than what the store offers for the same product.
#270
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
"If it wasn't for the king you wouldn't have this tiny amount of money".

Should we now get on our hands and knees and bow down to king bezos and his majesty bill gates?
The King didn't produce to society in mutually consensual ways; the American top 1% did.  The King inherited his power and wealth from somebody who engaged in practices not mutually consensual to obtain that wealth.  The top 1% obtains their wealth through mutually consensual means.

If socialism worked, then why aren't people rushing to get into Cuba, Venezuela, or the EU(except for some Muslims, but even they often head to America)?