|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 28, 2015 19:18:10 GMT
the common thread is that they are all doing it for profit. as for what is being controlled by a cartel? consider the ongoing erosion of collective bargaining rights for wages and benefits. greed portrays capitalism as the savior of mankind, but the truth is that capitalism only works on a more or less level playing field, and the goal of he greedy is to prevent a level playing field. Greed can portray capitalism any way it wants, but that doesn't mean greed is what capitalism is about. The goal of greed is to make people think others should give them everything they want without doing anything on their part to earn it. Greed makes one think that just because someone else has it, they somehow deserve it. That's not capitalism. Greed makes one think that they somehow deserve to have more than other people have. also not capitalism, but most greedy people use capitalism as an excuse for doing their best to enable their greed. America has two groups of people in it. those who divide people into two groups and those who don't. but beyond that it also has one group who considers wealth to be the ability to buy what they want, and another that considers wealth the ability to prevent others from having what they, themselves, take for granted. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 28, 2015 19:25:23 GMT
Greed can portray capitalism any way it wants, but that doesn't mean greed is what capitalism is about. The goal of greed is to make people think others should give them everything they want without doing anything on their part to earn it. Greed makes one think that just because someone else has it, they somehow deserve it. That's not capitalism. Greed makes one think that they somehow deserve to have more than other people have. also not capitalism, but most greedy people use capitalism as an excuse for doing their best to enable their greed. America has two groups of people in it. those who divide people into two groups and those who don't. but beyond that it also has one group who considers wealth to be the ability to buy what they want, and another that considers wealth the ability to prevent others from having what they, themselves, take for granted. I really don't think there are many wealthy people that don't want others to be successful. What they don't want is what they have to be taken away just because someone else wants it. I am not the least bit jealous of what others have. Maybe a little envious, but not jealous. I look at them more as an inspiration. If they can earn it, there is no reason I can't earn it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 29, 2015 0:50:07 GMT
capitalism works because it is a definition of the default socioeconomic model humanity uses in the absence of any other socioeconomic model. No, it's not. Authoritarianism and Dictatorships are the default. "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." -- George Orwell Consider the family unit. In most of the Western world, usually, mom and dad set the rules and provide what they think the family needs. The kids have little or no say in what happens to the family, except to the extent their parents allow them. Their parents are supposedly acting for the good of the unit (the family) in all the decisions they make. Hopefully, most families are benevolent dictatorships, but dictatorships nonetheless. Within small tribes and cults, similar structures exist. In these societies, it's strictly the Head of the Tribe (matriarch or patriarch) who has virtually absolute control over everything, for the benefit of all. Unfortunately, some leaders don't have the tribe's best interest at heart, and as such, a bad leader can destroy the tribe. Usually, this happens when the leader puts their own or their family's needs in front of the tribe's needs. And you'd better do what they say or they'll break your head! Capitalism requires a certain level of lawful behavior and acceptance of everyone's rights in order to function--fundamentally, you get to keep what you earn, not just what you can defend from others. It relies on the free market to survive and prosper--you can't use force on someone to trade with you; you both must benefit. When this is allowed to break down, you get authoritarian dictatorships as well. Criminals gonna criminal. There are crooks in every form of government including the family, as anyone who ever had a fight with a sibling knows.  Whereas under socialism, since the government effectively owns everything, it is the worst monopoly possible. You only get what the powers that be allow you to get as your fair share. Instead of sharing the wealth, it's sharing the misery. Work harder? Good for you! But that won't give you any direct benefit. Except, of course, for the dear leaders who make the decisions (See Ms. Chavez, above). How does that work out? Look at the old Soviet Union, or China before it decided to embrace capitalism (even if they don't like to admit it). Look at Cuba or North Korea. Compare their lifestyles with more free market countries, and you soon see the result. You don't even have to go way over there. Look at our own history: The original Pilgrims essentially agreed to commune-style living, where every product was shared among themselves for the common good. They almost starved the first year. The next year, they divided the community into private shares, letting each keep what they grew, harvested, or made. Surprise! No more starvation. I'm not about to ask you to pity the poor billionaire CEO, but have you ever really looked at what they do, or how they really live? Can you be responsible for thousands of people's livelihoods with a clear conscience? Do you want to spend almost every waking hour making sure things get done? Can you make millions of shareholders, large and small, happy? Can you anticipate and outmaneuver your competitors, and keep the government happy? Can you rely on your suppliers also keeping you happy and in business, and that they aren't cheating you? A CEO doesn't just come into the office, fire half the employees, then fly off to their private island full of dancing girls, all while lighting cigars with $100 bills, you know. To be a CEO takes a lot of focus for years, and to stay a CEO means juggling an endless array of variables, not all of which are under your control. How much would they have to pay you to take on that responsibility? What is every waking hour of your life worth? I always liked one CEO's lament: "When things go right, the CEO often gets too much credit; when they go wrong, they often get too much blame." I agree to a point: When the company fails, it's always the management's fault, because they are paid to make it not fail--regardless of the situation. As for not giving their best effort, why wouldn't you, if you profit by it? Do you really expect to get paid for phoning it in? You're worth what you can contribute, no more, no less. Any company that pays someone to not contribute will soon be out of business as soon as the money runs out. If you're a good negotiator, you might get more for a time, but eventually, that money stream will dry up. If a CEO makes money for the people who own the company, he's worth the pay. If not, just like the lowliest worker, he's out. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 29, 2015 1:07:32 GMT
Greed makes one think that they somehow deserve to have more than other people have. also not capitalism, but most greedy people use capitalism as an excuse for doing their best to enable their greed. America has two groups of people in it. those who divide people into two groups and those who don't. but beyond that it also has one group who considers wealth to be the ability to buy what they want, and another that considers wealth the ability to prevent others from having what they, themselves, take for granted. I really don't think there are many wealthy people that don't want others to be successful. What they don't want is what they have to be taken away just because someone else wants it. I am not the least bit jealous of what others have. Maybe a little envious, but not jealous. I look at them more as an inspiration. If they can earn it, there is no reason I can't earn it. I've never seen anyone who wanted to specifically stop others from prospering as their goal, and if such a person exists, I'd like to know who they are. I have seen others who want to take every advantage they can to profit. I'm ambivalent towards them at best; usually, if they're obnoxious enough, someone else sets up competition and knocks them out. The system adjusts, in other words. Now, for those who break the law, we have prisons. We also have antitrust actions that break up monopolies. Just look at the Bell system--remember how we were told that the breakup was going to hurt everyone in the country? Now, I can call anywhere in the US and talk as long as I want for about 10 bucks a month. Hardly the disaster we were sold, was it? And isn't it curious that when a company gets big, it goes to the government to keep out competition? That's definitely the exact opposite of free markets. That's why we have to be vigilant against such companies, and fight them in the courts and with antitrust legislation, not sit around giving out subsidies to our friends (Solyndra, anyone?). It is an amazing bit of marketing that "crony capitalism" is even a term--corruption like that has zero to do with capitalism. If anyone can show me how "crony capitalism" is part of a free market, I'd appreciate the lesson. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 29, 2015 1:11:59 GMT
Greed makes one think that they somehow deserve to have more than other people have.<snip> No, the greedy think they deserve to have things they haven't earned, especially if they belong to someone else. Jealousy is possibly the ugliest of emotions. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 29, 2015 1:17:21 GMT
A discussion on socioeconomic policies and systems. Please be nice or it'll be locked or deleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 29, 2015 1:28:25 GMT
Jealousy is possibly the ugliest of emotions. Don't you mean envy? Jealousy is just the fear of having something taken away from you. Envy is wanting what others have and - in its ugliest form - taking it from them by force. I'm fairly certain that's why envy is considered one of the 7 deadly sins and not jealousy. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 29, 2015 1:37:21 GMT
Jealousy is possibly the ugliest of emotions. Don't you mean envy? Jealousy is just the fear of having something taken away from you. Envy is wanting what others have and - in its ugliest form - taking it from them by force. I'm fairly certain that's why envy is considered one of the 7 deadly sins and not jealousy. In my dictionary, they're synonyms. But yes, that's what I meant. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 29, 2015 1:52:17 GMT
Don't you mean envy? Jealousy is just the fear of having something taken away from you. Envy is wanting what others have and - in its ugliest form - taking it from them by force. I'm fairly certain that's why envy is considered one of the 7 deadly sins and not jealousy. In my dictionary, they're synonyms. But yes, that's what I meant. That's a strange dictionary you've got there. The two are in no way synonymous. Jealousy is the feeling you get when - for example - another man steps into the room and your comparison of him vs. yourself leads you to believe that he might be able to run off with your wife, or get that promotion you want. It basically stems from your own feelings of insecurity and anxiety brought on by your perception that someone else is better than you and might take or be given what you have or want. Envy is the feeling you get when you lack another's superior qualities, achievements, or possessions and either desire them for yourself or just wish that the other person didn't have them. Envy is making the decision that the other person doesn't deserve what they have, or that you deserve it more than they do. EDIT:To put it more simply: Envy: Believing that others don't deserve what they have, or that you deserve it more Jealousy: Believing that you don't deserve what you have/want and that as soon as someone figures that out, they'll take it from you |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 29, 2015 1:58:34 GMT
Don't you mean envy? Jealousy is just the fear of having something taken away from you. Envy is wanting what others have and - in its ugliest form - taking it from them by force. I'm fairly certain that's why envy is considered one of the 7 deadly sins and not jealousy. In my dictionary, they're synonyms. But yes, that's what I meant. Yes, many dictionaries say their synonyms. Here's the way I define the terms. I know, I'm not Webster. Just my own definitions. Jealousy - Wanting something just because someone else has it. Envy - Seeing someone else with something you would like to have and wishing you were them or could somehow acquire what they have. To me, Jealousy is a complete waste of time. Envy can be a powerful motivator. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 29, 2015 2:03:48 GMT
Take it up with Merriam-Webster: noun jeal·ou·sy \ˈje-lə-sē\ Simple Definition of jealousy: an unhappy or angry feeling of wanting to have what someone else has Synonyms: covetousness, enviousness, green-eyed monster, invidiousness, envy ============================== noun en·vy \ˈen-vē\ Simple Definition of envy: the feeling of wanting to have what someone else has Synonyms: covetousness, enviousness, green-eyed monster, invidiousness, jealousy ================================ EDIT: The Oxford Dictionaries have similar definitions. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 29, 2015 2:05:19 GMT
In my dictionary, they're synonyms. But yes, that's what I meant. Yes, many dictionaries say their synonyms. Here's the way I define the terms. I know, I'm not Webster. Just my own definitions. Jealousy - Wanting something just because someone else has it. Envy - Seeing someone else with something you would like to have and wishing you were them or could somehow acquire what they have. To me, Jealousy is a complete waste of time. Envy can be a powerful motivator. I believe what you're describing there is what's been suggested as the difference between malicious envy and benign envy by some psychologists. Malicious envy is wishing others didn't have what they have, or that you can take it away from them. Benign envy is the motivator you're talking about. Wishing you could also have what they have. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 29, 2015 2:09:01 GMT
Yes, many dictionaries say their synonyms. Here's the way I define the terms. I know, I'm not Webster. Just my own definitions. Jealousy - Wanting something just because someone else has it. Envy - Seeing someone else with something you would like to have and wishing you were them or could somehow acquire what they have. To me, Jealousy is a complete waste of time. Envy can be a powerful motivator. I believe what you're describing there is what's been suggested as the difference between malicious envy and benign envy by some psychologists. Malicious envy is wishing others didn't have what they have, or that you can take it away from them. Benign envy is the motivator you're talking about. Wishing you could also have what they have. I try to stay away from psychologists. I don't like people trying to figure out how my brain works. If I can't figure it out, they sure can't. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 29, 2015 2:15:30 GMT
<snip> Jealousy: Believing that you don't deserve what you have/want and that as soon as someone figures that out, they'll take it from you I'd call that insecurity more than jealousy. Or maybe paranoia, in the sense of "They're out to get my precious!" Don't get me wrong; I understand that definition of jealousy, although the one I used is common here. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 29, 2015 2:18:27 GMT
Take it up with Merriam-Webster: noun jeal·ou·sy \ˈje-lə-sē\ Simple Definition of jealousy: an unhappy or angry feeling of wanting to have what someone else has Synonyms: covetousness, enviousness, green-eyed monster, invidiousness, envy ============================== noun en·vy \ˈen-vē\ Simple Definition of envy: the feeling of wanting to have what someone else has Synonyms: covetousness, enviousness, green-eyed monster, invidiousness, jealousy ================================ EDIT: The Oxford Dictionaries have similar definitions. While it's a common misunderstanding that's made it into everyday use, that doesn't make it any less of a misunderstanding. Try googling "the difference between jealousy and envy" and all the links will lead you to the same explanation that I just gave. Homer Simpson knows the difference  |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Dec 29, 2015 2:35:46 GMT
Meh. As I said, I see your point, but we're arguing the difference between different subtle definitions of the same words--and apparently, I stumbled into some folk's definitional/grammatical hobby horse if it's a big enough issue to make it into the Simpsons... Reminds me of the "10 items or fewer" fanatics (vs. the "10 items or less" crowd). And yes, the "fewer" folks were correct. As far as an appeal to authority, I'll accept Oxford and Webster over Wiktionary. I'd check the OED but I don't have access online. It's nitpicking, in my opinion. Your mileage may vary... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 29, 2015 9:21:04 GMT
Back when I was doing 18 hr days 7 days a week, I was "Capitalist"... The more I could do to attract profit, the more I enjoyed the take-home pay. What? You mean you worked and made something of yourself rather than mope in your parent's basement complaining to your friends on the confuser how your employer was mistreating you? The anti-capitalist crowd would insist that you were part of the problem. You should have at least been out picketing how you weren't being given enough free stuff. Erm... a LOT of it was basement work, although in the trade its called "Cellar". Free stuff?... I got cellar services to re-plumb the whole pipe run taking two yards out of each line, a new chiller, thus fresher product, less waste, better condition ales. I still have the hats I got from Guinness, and t-shirts, I am a life member of the Jack Daniels fan club, and I still get offers from some places. During the stay at the pub, it was upgraded from smoky old dive to a more respectable place, the trade increased, and I was on profit share. Its partly my work there that paid of my current mortgage and allowed me to work Part Time. Who would I picket?.. myself?... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 29, 2015 9:36:21 GMT
So where do I start?...
The "Company" is setting a price not on what its worth but how much they can get away with charging.
Look at modern communications companies, such as Sky.
They get BILLIONS in advertising revenue, enough to make profit on just that.
But still they want a sizeable chunk of YOUR wages to watch programs that were once free broadcast but are now part of the sports package.
Thats "Fair"?...
The car you could once afford has now been updated and has lots of toys....
They dont do a version minus the toys in your price range any more.
You MUST pay for the extra toys, even though its "just the same car"
(Think the BMW Not-A-Mini here...)
It was designed as a small cheap runabout to bring motoring to the masses...
Nope! not any more.
They can now offer you a repayment scheme.
"Think of all the extras you now have"
All I wanted was to be able to get from A to B in reasonable time...
I dont NEED in-car wifi, why are you making me pay for that?.
You are making me buy several products I do not need because thats the only way I can buy a product I do want....
I go to the supermarket to buy a couple of rolls for me and the Missus to have Lunch.
They now come in packs of six.
Yeah sure you can buy single rolls... from our "Fresh bakery pick your own range"
I note somewhat sarcastically that two rolls from that range is the same price as a pack of six?...
So I either buy what I want or what you want to sell me but both at the same price YOU have decided I can afford?...
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 29, 2015 10:51:20 GMT
Meh. As I said, I see your point, but we're arguing the difference between different subtle definitions of the same words--and apparently, I stumbled into some folk's definitional/grammatical hobby horse if it's a big enough issue to make it into the Simpsons... Reminds me of the "10 items or fewer" fanatics (vs. the "10 items or less" crowd). And yes, the "fewer" folks were correct. As far as an appeal to authority, I'll accept Oxford and Webster over Wiktionary. I'd check the OED but I don't have access online. It's nitpicking, in my opinion. Your mileage may vary... You may feel it's nitpicking, but to me, when I hear that someone like you - a person I find very intelligent and have the utmost respect for - and even the people who write the freakin' dictionaries don't know the difference between the two, it's a sign to me that we as a society are letting stupid and lazy win. Apparently, enough people were using the terms interchangably at some point that the few left who knew the difference gave up trying to correct them and the stupid and lazy got their way. They changed the dictionaries, simply because a lot of people couldn't be bothered to learn the difference and now their stupidity and laziness is affecting how intelligent people are using the language. If enough people repeat the same thing enough times it becomes true in the public mind. Yes, the difference between two words may seem minor, but the concept bleeds into other areas as well. That's why the Mythbusters have had 14 years of material for a show. Enough crap has been repeated enough times that people don't know the truth anymore. That's why something like this bothers me. It's a symptom of a greater problem. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 29, 2015 11:13:09 GMT
How better to control what you say than to take away your language.
|
|
