Why I believe capitalism is morally wrong and evil...

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Who the heck has been feeding you this crap? DePaul has one of the best CS programs in the country. Two, almost everyone I knew in the CS program got a job, even the retarded guy.

A degree may not be important in your twenties, but the lack of one is begining to hurt me now. I've risen about as far as I can go, without a degree. The tech bubble is over, and they want people that can demonstrate stick-to-itiveness, which is what a degree really represents.

Its my own experience che... their program is good, but they have no decent job placement assistance/ career guidance...

I didn't say a degree isn't important at all... its just that companies look at your experience first...

[Roland]

Ned:

"Spanish spending also increased overall demand to pull the economy ahead at a great rate."

There wasn't a lack of demand. The early medieval liquidity problem was solved by silver coinage and an accompanying expansion in mining.

"Standards of living in Spain undoubtedly skyrocketed."

Nope, Castile became increasingly depopulized and poorer. The effect was less in other regions because there were more limits on taxation and a more business-friendly climate.

[NeOmega]

but if you invent a pill that costs 1 cent to make and makes people perfectly happy, or cures cancer... it is morally wrong to extort people for it.

What pill costs one cent to make? Aspirin? Don't you understand, the actual manufacture of the pill is the easy part. It's the discovery of the correct balance of chemicals to cure the ailment that takes millions, perhaps billions, of dollars.

And then, you can't just spread that cost evenly over each pill, and try to make no profit for the sake of humanity. Then your pharmaceutical company goes bankrupt, and guess what? No bankrupt company that I can recall has ever invented any kind of cure for anyone.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sava
People should be able to charge whatever they want for their own works... if its too high, then people won't buy (nice rhyme ) but if you invent a pill that costs 1 cent to make and makes people perfectly happy, or cures cancer... it is morally wrong to extort people for it. I'm not saying it should be free, just fairly priced, or licensed for a large lump sum. I find it utterly disturbing that the health care system in the US holds old people hostage and extorts them for prescription drugs that they need.

Exactly!

Today in the U.S. it isn't capitalism, it's what I call "Corporatism"- big bussinesses with crappy products beating out small companies with good products. Also, Adam Smith would be appalled if he saw his ideas for economics being abused like they are today.

[Odin]

Originally posted by NeOmega
What pill costs one cent to make? Aspirin? Don't you understand, the actual manufacture of the pill is the easy part. It's the discovery of the correct balance of chemicals to cure the ailment that takes millions, perhaps billions, of dollars.

And then, you can't just spread that cost evenly over each pill, and try to make no profit for the sake of humanity. Then your pharmaceutical company goes bankrupt, and guess what? No bankrupt company that I can recall has ever invented any kind of cure for anyone.

You're missing the point. Most of the profit doesn't go to medicine development, it goes to the company bigwigs who own most of the stock. (the owner usually has 50+ percent of stock so the investors really don't have any control, depite what lies you read in civics or economics textbook propaganda)

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Odin


You're missing the point. Most of the profit doesn't go to medicine development, it goes to the company bigwigs who own most of the stock. (the owner usually has 50+ percent of stock so the investors really don't have any control, depite what lies you read in civics or economics textbook propaganda)

Total and utter B.S. You need to go back to economics to understand how stock works.

The owner does not usually own 50% of the stock.

In fact, please cite one example of an owner of any publicly traded stock that owns even 30%. I seriously doubt you can. IIRC Bill Gates holds like 15 - 18%.

[Dis]

is the original post weird or is it just me?

communism is bad, captialism is bad. What does that leave?

Capitalism seem like the natural order of things. Like the evolution post way on page 1. Of course some people get screwed under this system. but that is evolution for you. Some people get screwed. Of course in the U.S. we have democrats who pay the people that get screwed.

Sounds like a win win solution to me. The people who get screwed get compensation and the people who make tons of money have...well... tons of money.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
Ned:

"Spanish spending also increased overall demand to pull the economy ahead at a great rate."

There wasn't a lack of demand. The early medieval liquidity problem was solved by silver coinage and an accompanying expansion in mining.

"Standards of living in Spain undoubtedly skyrocketed."

Nope, Castile became increasingly depopulized and poorer. The effect was less in other regions because there were more limits on taxation and a more business-friendly climate.

I smell price controls.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your statement was that someone doing somehting to feel good is greedy, because you think that feeling good is not part of basic human needs. i think you are wrong there. Wanting to feel good is normal, and hence, not excessive, thus it can't be 'greedy' at all.

I think you are wrong there. Doing acts of charity is to continue the 'good feeling' beyond how you normally feel good and there is greedy. You cannot say that there are somethings you cannot do 'too much' of. Even in charity, people can do too much of it, and then they are simply greedy for the benefits it confers to them.

I don't think you need to feel all good about yourself in order to live. If we go back to your state of nature, I doubt natives really ever thought that they should do charity. Therefore it was unnecessary for them and thus since it is 'excessive', greedy.

Cpitalism is about the flow of capital, where the capital comes from is immaterial to what should be done with it, and what the most efficient ways of creating it are.

Actually where the capital comes from is fairly important. The costs depend on where it arises. The slave trade wasn't cheap. It cost a lot of money. As pointed out, the people that bought the slaves LOST money. Therefore showing it was an inefficient practice and thus needing to be replaced.

Just because the original thinker thinks something means nothing, ask Marx.

Of course it means something! Marxism is defined by Marx. True Communism is Marx and Engles. Everything else are variations on the basic theme.

Man didn't decide to farm. Man didn't decide to become civilized.

Yes he did. He weighed, in a cost-benefit analysis, if he should continuing doing what he has been doing or adapt. He adapted.

That gold and silver came into spain, eneded in flanders and the netherlands. Spain speant all its money on frivilous things, like wars. Think of Spain as someone who won the lottery and spent it al away. that money doesn't disappear, it goes to the merchants and others there to meet the needs of spain. And since that money, unlike lottery money, ddn't come out of the pool of capital already around, but come from 'thin air', all the better!

Wrong. Money out of 'thin air' is the worst. It is extremely inflationary wiping out any benefits accrued by it. The inflation killed any gains the Spaniards made off it.

How I feed myself is a question of economics now, because it has been made an issue of economics, not because it is naturally. I have never seen a book on the economics of the aborigenes, yet they eat.

Because the economics of the aborigenes is boringly simple. It's a communal economic system. The question of eating is always an economic question. A question of weighing costs and benefits of certain actions.


Roland already (basically) addressed the point about the New World changing Europe's views, so I'll just contend with this:

In fact, the huge boom in population was probably vital to the huge growth of capitalism (more workers, more consumers)

BS. Capitalism does not need a huge amount of workers. If there are not a great amount of workers, capitalism adapts the economy to capital intensive technologies. Why do you think Europe went to that mode of production? Because compared to India, China, etc, they were severly underpopulated. Of course, capitalism tends to create a boom, because first, medicines and the technology of sanitation (it doesn't suffice to simply put a hole in the ground) lower the death rate, and the birth rate continues to remain high. Eventually that growth stabilizes because capitalism tends to reduce family size (cost of children becomes relatively much higher). A larger population isn't needed for capitalism and never was. Capitalism did fairly ok in places that didn't have a 'boom'.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
Its my own experience che... their program is good, but they have no decent job placement assistance/ career guidance...

They don't need one. I didn't know a single CS student who didn't get a job before graduation.

I didn't say a degree isn't important at all... its just that companies look at your experience first...

And when it comes down to you and another candidate, they'll take the one with a degree. I got my last job over all the other candidates because they thought I had a degree (I didn't tell them I did, but I didn't say I idn't either). Others with just as much experience were lost out because I had an edge (albeit a false one).

Trust me on this, Sava. I have a hell of a lot more experience on this than you do.

[Saras]

--"I'm not saying it should be free, just fairly priced"

It is fairly priced, since at the current prices people willing to buy have the exact amount of money ready and willing to go for the exact amount of pills corps are ready and willing to make

Jeez!