Return to Gold Standard?

Wow, that took quite some reading.

You're basically quoting the ideas of the Wealth of Nations. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it in theory, i'm saying it doesn't work in practice. Much like statist communism. A free market economy works to some extent but the trickle down theory is a disaster.

It is a matter of ethics. It is not equality, socialists want, but fairness.

Your argument against monopolies/oligopolies is based on mobility. How much mobility does the poor man, or for that matter, the homeless guy have?

You fail to realise that Corporations are expert at manipulating both Governments and individuals in third world countries, and, to a lesser extent, in the West as well.

If you want proof of capitalism's relative failure for the individual, i can give you 2004 figures. The Federal Poverty Line is $18'000. But it was instigated in 1976. It's mathematical basis was that food spending consisted of about 1/3 of income. These days it's more like 1/5. So i multiply by 5, rather than 3. 26% of Americans lived under the poverty line in 2004. The trend has been upwards. In Britain, for example, the HBAI survey this year has shown 38% of British people in poverty. The population of Britain is 61 million. You do the math.

I'm suggesting that we find a system that will work for after the revolution, or otherwise, some system to implement after the collapse of capitalism.

Well...I'll take that as a compliment since I never read Wealth of Nations. Guess I have a better grasp of it than I thought.

So...trickle down theory.

It works in theory. Would work well, and does, in systems where labor has sufficient power. Evident if you look at union development and other stuff.

Monopolies. Not based on mobility...at all actually. Not sure how you're getting that. I'm saying that they are market failures. Monopolies are usually busted up by the government. Oligopolies tend to fall apart quickly.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if a homeless or poor guy can't move anymore. If one town is price gauging on something, word tends to get out and the lost business isn't worth the small group of people who can't drive the extra distance.

Plus, that only works in fields with high entry barriers. Stores and stuff usually don't have much, so it's hard for a monopoly that would affect the common man to form. There are really few monopolies left in the world. Please name one if you want to hammer down this part of the debate.
--
Corporations are good at manipulating people. So are lobbying groups. So are grassroots campaigns. Lots of things work. Technically what you are describing is corruption, which is generally outlawed.

Not sure what else you are driving at with that. Just a standard biased stance against business. A few rotten apples surprisingly don't ruin the bunch (you just have to pick them out).
--
Poverty level

The census bureau disagrees with you. They've got us at 12.5% for 2007. Also a general rise in median household income among native born Americans. Also a decrease in families without health insurance. Some other stuff about the last survey in 2008 showing some signs of success. It actually goes with what I'd heard before, that "things were getting worse" because we had more immigrants who were naturally getting a lower start and dragging down the stats. Americans on the whole were doing fine.

A short and interesting read actually http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

Plus...I don't get the multiplying by 5. So...food spending makes up less of one's income. That means...that we need less money to buy food...which means...things have gotten worse?

Where exactly do you set the "poverty line" anyway? One person could live a half-decent life in a number of small towns (mine included), if they had that much for their family. Heck...I'm going to be living on less than that in a fairly expensive suburb (by myself...but still) with decent food and utilities (just checked the math to make sure of that and reduce the embarrassment).

Almost forgot about this one.

A cool video analyzing poverty in the third world and how the expanding free market has helped in various places.

It's 18 minutes long, but one of the TED talks. Also cool just to see the new statistics tools that he's using. His main point was using these new tools to unite UN data and make it understandable for the world.

Here's the link http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html

The Parakeet said:

Corporations are good at manipulating people. So are lobbying groups. So are grassroots campaigns. Lots of things work. Technically what you are describing is corruption, which is generally outlawed.

Click to expand...

Of course it is, but it is a tool that the capitalists use. And making a law or a rule does not generally solve the problem. That is why we have criminals.

The Parakeet said:

Not sure what else you are driving at with that. Just a standard biased stance against business.

Click to expand...

Basically, yes. But the system is inherently flawed, because it doesn't allow for human nature. (Funny that). Thus, it needs constant state intervention to run efficiently. Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom) and Smith (Wealth of Nations) both said that if one company failed, it would not be perceptable because that market was covered by hundreds of different businesses. How has that turned out? Can you spell F-A-I-L-U-R-E?

The Parakeet said:

The census bureau disagrees with you. They've got us at 12.5% for 2007.

Click to expand...

By the way, in the following paragraphs, when i say average, i don't mean the ordinary average person, i mean the median salary.

The census bureau are using their unchanged system, mate. Food cost a third of average income in 1976, so the Federal Poverty Line was the decided rate (six thousand) multiplied by three.

Now, since the average income has risen considerably - growth equilibrium, capitalism, creation of wealth through that technique - the price of food only counts for about a fifth of the average income. So you drag the FPL up as well, to coincide with that change. Food now costs around a fifth of the average income. Multiply the base by five, and you have thirty thousand, rather than eighteen thousand. Do you earn above thirty thousand a year?

An example of exploitation (one of very many):

http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/welfare/2009/04/29/examples-of-capitalist-exploitation-in-romania/

An Australian perspective on wealth inequality and capitalism:

http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1393&Itemid=106

Just a few links between capitalism and poverty and what that means for people:

http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/content.aspx?audioID=19950

http://www.swp.ie/arc.php?page=29&dept=arc

A short montage of three reasons to oppose capitalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxIM0mARDHs&feature=related

The system isn't inherently flawed. It just doesn't work .

You don't seem to get it. Yeah. We notice if one company goes down. Yeah. There aren't hundreds of some companies around. There are a whole bunch of reasons for that.

You have entry barriers that make it hard to just start a company quickly.

You have an inherent need for people to have certainty in a product - This is why we went to franchises actually

There are legal issues in the form of patents and copyrights.

Also a whole bunch of other cool little market failures. That's what most of economics is really. Examining market failures, understanding why they happen, and then working to fix them. No different then what you would have to do to ever implement your system.
--
Your system is absurd for poverty.

We already adjust it. We use the Consumer Price Index to update it. The figure is about $21,000 for the last one. The CPI is also infamous for overestimating inflation...so yeah. It's workable.

All this shows is that you believe people should have a heck of a lot of disposable income.
--
Your links

1. Okay...a few jerks scammed some people. We have laws to stop this. Capitalism allows for this. The power of labor to bring about equality. Even anarcho-capitalists would demand that one honors a contract. Bringing this up is no different than me finding an example of someone scamming a government welfare program (which could do right now) and showing how that means that communist policies won't work.

On another note, just how has any communist style program raised them out of poverty? The TED video I posted showed that a number of countries saw great growth under capitalism.

2. Jerks like their money. Again, this happens. They value their high spending and feel that it's worth it. What gives you the right to say what they can do. Plus, that money goes to pay lots of people lower on the vine anyway. They just contributed $6 million to the consumer market.

3. Pointless. We'd need a global economy, a massive redistribution, a way to make a top scientist earn as much as a weaver, etc. Standard appeal to emotion. Weak debating tactic.

4. I'll ignore the biased source. General ignorance though. The starvation in the world is due to a bad distribution system. This is usually caused by political issues, not economic issues. If we can get food to the country, then we usually do.

5. Ignorant appeal to emotion.

Seriously watch the TED video. It was cool, even if you don't agree with it. You can see some new tech at least.

Right, sorry i was away. I'll finish this once and for all now.

There are two sides of the anti-capitalist argument. An economic and an ethical one. You've backed these points separately several times so i don't even know why we're having this conversation, really.

The faults of capitalism can be explained in economic terms. For example, market failures, monopolies, oligopolies and other back-door agreements to swindle the consumer.

They can also be explained in ethical terms. In the fact that capitalism is inhumane. It is the exploitation of the worker's labour for the fiscal gain of the business owner. The basic technique for escaping recession is to intensify the exploitation of the worker. Capitalism's creation of inequalities in wealth create poverty.

These two main groups of points mean that to counteract them, which in many cases, they won't, a Government must exist to keep the free market in check. To maximise efficiency, keep up consumer rights, keep up worker's rights, to attempt to reduce or alleviate the exploitation of the worker. The Government is always a flawed entity. Because of the simple fact that it wields power. You need a huge beauracracy and checks and limitations and independent commissions, organisations and committees to stop or even only limit this. Third World countries, for example, do not have these.

A few other points are that capitalism creates pollution and capitalists are reluctant to pay out for environmental purposes because they wish to keep efficiency of the factory/chemical plant/whatever high.

That capitalism exploits workers is under NO DOUBT. The entire idea behind the capitalist's perspective of capitalism is to pay out as little as possible and rake in as much as possible. This is what profit is. Why is it even being debated?.

Anything that the Government can possibly do to counteract the adverse effects of capitalism is immediately forgotten about in Third World countries, where the corrupt Governments accept bribes and there is no social welfare to catch those that fall through the gaping chasms of society. Even in First World countries, companies are shown in a similar light. McDonalds, for example, has a "No Unions" policy. Barclay's are known to engage in highly unethical banking. Arms companies repeatedly export to nations that are under an arms embargo. Coca Cola and Starbucks fund the Israeli army through giant loans. The existence of sweatshops should be noted, also.

Eventually, capitalism is unsustainable. It relies on a continuous growth equilibrium. That is ridiculous, due to the simple fact that there are finite resources in the world.

I also demand that my appeals for emotions be heeded. It is only a weak debating tactic for those with no moral guidance, ethics, heart or conscience. It is a clear indicator of poverty. As is the fact that more than half the world's population lives on less than $2 per day.

Your argument relies on the principle of free market capitalism. Which is flawed. It does not take into account public deficit spending (tax money and fiscal stimuli) or investment. The latter is highly important since, in Britain (i have no idea of the American figures), the top 10% of the population own 98% of all private shares in Britain. It is precisely for this reason that Maynard Keynes introduced his idea in his book (which i've just finished reading). He was a critic of free market capitalism but was not a socialist or communist and wanted to save capitalism (the Wall Street Crash had just seen the collapse of free market capitalism).

I imagine that someone as indoctrinated as you probably won't be swayed by me. After all, i'm much too young to understand properly, i'm obviously an idealist... Regardless of my protests to the contrary. I'm a realist Parakeet. I do not have the delusion that the world is perfect, that the system is flawless, or that Government always looks out for our best interests. I'm progressive and anti-capitalist because i refuse to adhere to the status quo. Because i am not blinded by the doctrine that says that "There Is No Alternative" (whom i call the TINA apologists) or claims that socialism is impractical.

I have read Marx and Reagan is wrong. I understand it perfectly. I agree with (almost) everything within it. I am a socialist and i understand Marx. However, i highly doubt that Reagan understood it, or if he even read it.

On a side-note, it's interesting to note that the first ever person to claim that "There Is No Alternative [to capitalism]" was none other than Adolf Hitler.

Anyway, i'm done. I can't be bothered to continuously pound basic facts into the ears of those that have built a titanium, concrete-reinforced wall around their brains.