Is the current global economic system leading us to catastrophe?

Nothing has been stolen by the rich (excepting criminal behaviour).

SUD123456

Acording to the state.

People who ascribe to us vs them in capitalism do not understand capitalism.

SUD123456

Yes, we do. The elite class of owners get to controll the lives of everyone else. That is a reality neo-liberals need to come to terms with.

The rich can get richer, while simultaneously the lives of the non rich can be improved. China, India, Brazil etc are perfect examples of this. Similarly, the working poor today in N America have decent accomodations, TVs, cell phones etc. Arguably these are basics today, but the standard of what is basic continues to rise.

SUD123456

Relative income inequality does NOT benefit everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

You're defending the status quo and justifying it as just, or at least that's how I perceived your post.GazaAli

So you were wrong, I'm not mad.

Anarchism is the only way to go, tbh.

Anarchism is the only way to go, tbh.

Aljosa23

Definitely. That way, the person with the most guns wins.

I'd definitely rather work for a warlord rather than the state of New York.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

Anarchism is the only way to go, tbh.

airshocker

Definitely. That way, the person with the most guns wins.

I'd definitely rather work for a warlord rather than the state of New York.

Warlords are rulers, they have no place in anarchism. Anarchy happens when people decide to reject unjustified authority.

RushKing

Too bad the majority of people are sheep and they seek a shepherd,

You trade one form of authority for another. Or you have pockets of authority which will be far worse than our current form of government.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT! I'll be on the side with the most guns.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

Warlords are rulers, they have no place in anarchism. Anarchy happens when people decide to reject unjustified authority.

airshocker

Too bad the majority of people are sheep

Which is why the state is still around, anarchy happens when the majority of people reject illegitimate authority. Which means the rejection of small scale and large scale tyranny! Human nature is not static.

RushKing

1) You make absolutely no sense.

and

2) Naturally it is.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

Which is why the state is still around, anarchy happens when the majority of people reject illegitimate authority. Which means the rejection of small scale and large scale tyranny! Human nature is not static.

airshocker

1) You make absolutely no sense.

and

2) Naturally it is.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

Which is why the state is still around, anarchy happens when the majority of people reject illegitimate authority. Which means the rejection of small scale and large scale tyranny! Human nature is not static.

RushKing

1) You make absolutely no sense.

and

2) Naturally it is.

ugh, shut up with your anarchy bullshit

We lived without hierarchy as hunter gatherers the majority of our history on this planet. Human nature is not black and white.RushKing

I wasn't\ implying hierarchy is a part of  basic human nature, you did that all by yourself. That doesn't change the fact that TODAY most people are sheep.

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

1) You make absolutely no sense.

and

2) Naturally it is.

lostrib

ugh, shut up with your anarchy bullshit

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] We lived without hierarchy as hunter gatherers the majority of our history on this planet. Human nature is not black and white.RushKing

ugh, shut up with your anarchy bullshit

Your promotion of anarchy is a load of crap, it wont work

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

ugh, shut up with your anarchy bullshit

lostrib

Your promotion of anarchy is a load of crap, it wont work

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] I'm not the one bullshiting here.RushKing

Your promotion of anarchy is a load of crap, it wont work

don't care

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Acording to the state.

And commonsense

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

People who ascribe to us vs them in capitalism do not understand capitalism.

RushKing

Yes, we do. The elite class of owners get to controll the lives of everyone else. That is a reality neo-liberals need to come to terms with.

Your hyperbole is nice, but no one is controlling your life except you.  On topic; Is capitalism a zero sum game.  Yes or no? This is all you need to answer to understand whether the system is fundamentally us against them or not.

The rich can get richer, while simultaneously the lives of the non rich can be improved. China, India, Brazil etc are perfect examples of this. Similarly, the working poor today in N America have decent accomodations, TVs, cell phones etc. Arguably these are basics today, but the standard of what is basic continues to rise.

SUD123456

Relative income inequality does NOT benefit everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

Relative income inequality is simply a measure.  It tells you nothing about the actual conditions experienced by anyone and is neither necessarily good, nor necessarily bad.  Do you dispute the actual outcomes that I have used as examples?  Is it not a fact that people live at higher standards of living now then at any time in the past?  

The point is capitalism is NOT a zero sum game, therefore it can and does accomodate relative income inequality without a necessary absolute benefit transference from one group to another.  How much relative income inequality you accept in your society is not driven exclusively or even primarily by the underlying capitalistic system.

I think you confuse the issue of wealth generation with the issue of societies' choices wrt wealth redistribution.

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

Your promotion of anarchy is a load of crap, it wont work

lostrib

don't care

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] I wasn't the one who brought up anarchism in this thread.RushKing

don't care

What are you going to do? It's not like you can make your views and beliefs look any dumber

Human nature is not black and white.RushKing

What are you going to do? It's not like you can make your views and beliefs look any dumber

lostrib

Oh yes he can.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

What are you going to do? It's not like you can make your views and beliefs look any dumber

airshocker

Oh yes he can.

*shhhh* 

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Human nature is not black and white.Aljosa23

In Brussels they have a boy that pees into a fountain.  And they drink that.  No wonder the Euro is such a mess. F*ckin pee drinkers.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

Which is why the state is still around, anarchy happens when the majority of people reject illegitimate authority. Which means the rejection of small scale and large scale tyranny! Human nature is not static.

RushKing

1) You make absolutely no sense.

and

2) Naturally it is.

Yes, we do. The elite class of owners get to controll the lives of everyone else. That is a reality neo-liberals need to come to terms with.

Your hyperbole is nice, but no one is controlling your life except you.  On topic; Is capitalism a zero sum game.  Yes or no? This is all you need to answer to understand whether the system is fundamentally us against them or not.

SUD123456

It's not a zero sum game but that dosn't mean weath can't flow in certian directions. The boss and an employee don't have equal bargining power, so one has more control over the other.

The rich can get richer, while simultaneously the lives of the non rich can be improved. China, India, Brazil etc are perfect examples of this. Similarly, the working poor today in N America have decent accomodations, TVs, cell phones etc. Arguably these are basics today, but the standard of what is basic continues to rise.

Relative income inequality does NOT benefit everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

 

Relative income inequality is simply a measure.  It tells you nothing about the actual conditions experienced by anyone and is neither necessarily good, nor necessarily bad.  Do you dispute the actual outcomes that I have used as examples?  Is it not a fact that people live at higher standards of living now then at any time in the past?  

The point is capitalism is NOT a zero sum game, therefore it can and does accomodate relative income inequality without a necessary absolute benefit transference from one group to another.  How much relative income inequality you accept in your society is not driven exclusively or even primarily by the underlying capitalistic system.

I think you confuse the issue of wealth generation with the issue of societies' choices wrt wealth redistribution.

SUD123456

I didn't say capitalism is a zero sum game, that dosen't mean private bussness owners don't control lives. This is an argument about capitalism not about living standards that rose due to industry. Industry is a part of capitalism, but industry it self is not capitalism. I am not a primitivist. Prisioners have voluntary actions, but that dosen't mean they are in control of their lives.

Acording to the state.

And commonsense

SUD123456

What do you mean by "common sense"? Property is a very subjectve subject.

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

1) You make absolutely no sense.

and

2) Naturally it is.

MakeMeaSammitch

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] We lived without hierarchy as hunter gatherers the majority of our history on this planet. Human nature is not black and white.RushKing

Not all rulers can measure up.

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] We lived without hierarchy as hunter gatherers the majority of our history on this planet. Human nature is not black and white.RushKing

You're either trolling, or just stupid.

Done

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] We lived without hierarchy as hunter gatherers the majority of our history on this planet. Human nature is not black and white.RushKing

wouldn't the presence of leaders imply a heirarchy

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]There were always tribal leaders/elders dumbass.

lostrib

wouldn't the presence of leaders imply a heirarchy

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] Not all leaders are rulers.RushKing

wouldn't the presence of leaders imply a heirarchy

*facepalm* nvm

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

wouldn't the presence of leaders imply a heirarchy

lostrib

*facepalm* nvm

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] Well I'm not against hierarchy in sports, one team being recognized as better than the other. I don't believe their is anything wrong with someones authority having more weight in a subject they know more about, but there needs to be questioning.

RushKing

*facepalm* nvm

*facepalm*

Rofl. Facepalm doesn't even begin to cover it.

This place really is a hive mind, a place for the irrational sort of collectivism. At least it seems like it.I thought this was a place were people could discus politics with mutual respect. I guess not. :?

This place really is a hive mind, a place for the irrational sort of collectivism. At least it seems like it.I thought this was a place were people could discus politics with mutual respect. I guess not. :?

RushKing

You thought you would find mutual respect on the internet?  Are you 12?

This place really is a hive mind, a place for the irrational sort of collectivism. At least it seems like it.I thought this was a place were people could discus politics with mutual respect. I guess not. :?

RushKing

It most definitely isn't a hive mind. I disagree with quite a few people on this forum. The fact that those of us who do disagree often can come together and call your ideas stupid speaks VOLUMES about this place.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

This place really is a hive mind, a place for the irrational sort of collectivism. At least it seems like it.I thought this was a place were people could discus politics with mutual respect. I guess not. :?

lostrib

You thought you would find mutual respect on the internet?  Are you 12?

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

This place really is a hive mind, a place for the irrational sort of collectivism. At least it seems like it.I thought this was a place were people could discus politics with mutual respect. I guess not. :?

RushKing

You thought you would find mutual respect on the internet?  Are you 12?

Perhaps if you didn't say stupid shit, people would listen

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

You thought you would find mutual respect on the internet?  Are you 12?

lostrib

Perhaps if you didn't say stupid shit, people would listen

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] I didn't expect everyone but SUD123456 and GOGOGOGURT to throw insults.RushKing

Perhaps if you didn't say stupid shit, people would listen

Well then stop saying stupid things over and over again

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] I didn't expect everyone but SUD123456 and GOGOGOGURT to throw insults.RushKing

Perhaps if you didn't say stupid shit, people would listen

I just wanna buy some pants.