LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-24-2019, 07:57 PM   #16
jefro
Moderator
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,290

Rep: Reputation: 2957Reputation: 2957Reputation: 2957Reputation: 2957Reputation: 2957Reputation: 2957Reputation: 2957Reputation: 2957Reputation: 2957Reputation: 2957Reputation: 2957

I do like my job. I liked the big computer place better but sadly they left.
 
Old 10-24-2019, 08:06 PM   #17
rokytnji
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 17
Posts: 5,867
Blog Entries: 21

Rep: Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935
Quote:
but sadly they left.
Like Tonka Toys/Hasbro did going to China due to capitalism.
Bet there are no tariffs on toys.
 
Old 10-24-2019, 09:15 PM   #18
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,481

Rep: Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
You guys have basically talked about one of the very points I was thinking of, in that; just because a country has a "market economy", it doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't elements of Socialism embedded in government policy. As you two point out, China is a perfect example of where you have what is very much a Communist country, but does allow at least some Capitalism in it's economy. So the question is that; can you have a sustainable "hybrid" economic system, where by, you can get the benefits of working hard, while maintaining ideals that would otherwise be considered as "Communist" or "Socialist" policy's?

Because even with Capitalism, there are many that work very hard, and take a school teacher for example, they may work in reality for say 14 hours a day, but yet have to fight for a lousy 2% extra pay, not to mention being slugged with many taxes. But yet, someone who has money can pay cleaver accountants to avoid a lot of taxes. Is that really the best Capitalism can do? It hardly seems like a reward for "working hard" to me.

Also, the US committed itself to put a man on the moon, which took at least 10 years to do, and once done, it was arguably one of the greatest ever achievements of mankind. And this was something done by the US government, and not by private business. This obviously took a lot of money and resources to achieve. Could one say that if it wasn't for Capitalism, that it would not have happened? Well, I believe the Soviets also went to space themselves didn't they?
jsb, China is not a Communist country since Communism does not allow private ownership. Also regarding your question of Communism or Socialism both are one and the same, only difference is one is fast (Communism) and the other is a slower route (Socialism), but both end in the same place which is government control of everything.

Lao Tzu taught 2,500 years ago that Governments should be kept as small as possible and that the best form of Government is one where the people do not realize there even is a Government. This is also what the Founders of the USA were trying to create and did for some time. Greece also had this for some time early in their history.

Problem is very few countries actually follow Capitalism, they try to have Money creating Socialism or Revenue creating Communism etc... neither is Capitalism. If you really research Capitalism you will find that the Socialists, Communists and Fascists have all but ensured that we the people never have a chance to actually practice it.

For starters: End the personal income tax, disband standing armies and revert back to Navies/Air Force and Reserve troops/National Guard (or other countries equivalent), go back to ancient tax rates max at 10% or less for everyone---with no exemptions, limit the government to only defense-interstate issues and trade deals, remove all defense treaties and only permit trade deals, end central banking, allow banks to make money on service fees and end interest on loans, ban governments from borrowing money/balance budgets... That would be a wonderful start to move towards real Capitalism/freedom. Not this hubris the world knows now.

PS: Communism/Socialism/Fascism are not new they are as old as mankind's first forays with government. It's actually a return to how mankind was in its barbaric past, hence all of the atrocities they create when attempted in more modern times. The idea of Capitalism is relatively newer and reflects a more evolved viewpoint.

PSS:
To summarize a teaching from Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu... it is evil to force equality it cannot be done. Nowhere in the Universe does equality exist other then time and space being relatively the same for each being/life. Anytime someone proffers equality what they actually advocate is control, and it is not bringing people up to a higher equal level, it always involves lowering people (with the exception of the ruling class) to an equally low-docile-more easily controlled level. Its the method of controlling the herd but applied to human management. The best a government can due is stop Monkeying around, stop interfering and allow things to be, allow things to follow their natural course. Sometimes things are up and sometimes they are down but neither can last long. The goal of effective management is to keep things in the middle without reaching the extremes....

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 10-24-2019 at 09:49 PM.
 
Old 10-25-2019, 04:45 AM   #19
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,483

Rep: Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji View Post
Under it. Looking up. Supply and demand huh?

I guess that why renters are gouged in my horse town.
Groceries keep going up.
Taxes too.
Living in the open desert.

Barter would suffice. For services or parts.
With tech and AI . The human condition could evolve past what has been standard since cr-magnon built his 1st 7 eleven.

Cuz capitalism has had a long run as a system.
I think you missed the major point. What you are referring to, what we in the US live under now, is not Capitalism. At the very least it has become Oligarchy since a few families basically control the government to benefit them at the expense of everyone else.
 
Old 10-25-2019, 06:29 AM   #20
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 3,546
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 1969Reputation: 1969Reputation: 1969Reputation: 1969Reputation: 1969Reputation: 1969Reputation: 1969Reputation: 1969Reputation: 1969Reputation: 1969Reputation: 1969
@ChuangTzu Have you noticed that people who diss equality are invariably well off? I suspect most of us in this forum are included under that head. And yet, if inequality was really a good thing for society as a whole, the poor would benefit from it too and so you would expect them to approve of it. You might expect to hear poor people saying things like, "Well, I'd rather be rich than poor obviously, but I'd rather be poor in an unequal society like this than in a more equal one." How come I've never heard a poor person say that?

Recently an experiment was carried out in which subjects were given tokens to play with. In the early rounds of the game, everyone got the same number of tokens but in the later stages, some people were chosen at random to get more than the rest. The game tested their willingness to share by transferring tokens. It was found that the players who received more tokens quickly persuaded themselves that they deserved their good fortune. They were also less willing to share than the other players.

Last edited by hazel; 10-25-2019 at 09:13 AM.
 
Old 10-25-2019, 06:58 AM   #21
rokytnji
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 17
Posts: 5,867
Blog Entries: 21

Rep: Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935Reputation: 2935
I didn't miss the point.

People are naturally greedy. So that throws proper capitalism right out the window.
Call it what ya like. Everyone else calls it capitalism.
At least that is what bloomberg news calls it.
 
Old 10-25-2019, 07:27 AM   #22
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: Currently OpenMandriva. Previously openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,208

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659
ChuangTzu, While I'm not sure you can call China a capitalist country, putting that to one side for minute... my point was that a country having a "market economy" does not prohibit the government having policy's you could refer to being more of a Socialist type, rather than for example the type of policy's you see in the US - particularly health care and welfare policy's. Following on from Hazel's very good point quoted below; if you look at countries like the Nordic countries (Sweden being a very good example), the poor have a much better quality of life than they would have in the US for example, and more to the point, they have far more equal societies - in fact, some of the most equal in the entire world. For example, every Swedish citizen is entitled to a pension, they are very much what you could call a "welfare state". Yet, they also have private businesses, private property, etc, and are a very stable democracy and country.

Having a far more equal society means things like less crime, less disadvantage, less greed, a better quality of life for all, etc. It also gives more opportunely for people to contribute when they feel like they're a valued part of society. So it casts a lot of doubt on the idea that, "just make people rich and you'll improve their life". It's been proven time and time again that the idea of "trickle down economics" simply doesn't work, because most of it stays at the top, and doesn't just "trickle down" to the masses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
@ChuangTzu Have you noticed that people who diss equality are invariably well off? I suspect most of us in this forum are included under that head. And yet, if inequality was really a good thing for society as a whole, the poor would benefit from it too and so you would expect them to approve of it. You might expect to hear poor people saying things like, "Well, I'd rather be rich than poor obviously, but I'd rather be poor in an unequal society than in an equal one." How come I've never heard a poor person say that?
...
Well said Hazel.

Last edited by jsbjsb001; 10-25-2019 at 07:37 AM. Reason: clarity
 
Old 10-25-2019, 08:11 AM   #23
wpeckham
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Continental USA
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RedHat, DSL, Puppy, CentOS, Knoppix, Mint-DE, Sparky, Vsido, tinycore, Q4OS
Posts: 3,064

Rep: Reputation: 1337Reputation: 1337Reputation: 1337Reputation: 1337Reputation: 1337Reputation: 1337Reputation: 1337Reputation: 1337Reputation: 1337Reputation: 1337
Capitalism is one of the most powerful economic systems ever created. It should NEVER be confused with a political system, nor should it ever be directly involved in politics. Alas, unrestrained capitalism becomes an inhumane burden upon society, so (like government itself) it must be constrined to act in ethical and beneficial ways.

There is no perfect system, but a system of checks, balances, and standards can come close.
 
Old 10-25-2019, 10:05 AM   #24
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,483

Rep: Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
<snip>

PSS:
To summarize a teaching from Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu... it is evil to force equality it cannot be done. Nowhere in the Universe does equality exist other then time and space being relatively the same for each being/life. Anytime someone proffers equality what they actually advocate is control, and it is not bringing people up to a higher equal level, it always involves lowering people (with the exception of the ruling class) to an equally low-docile-more easily controlled level. Its the method of controlling the herd but applied to human management. The best a government can due is stop Monkeying around, stop interfering and allow things to be, allow things to follow their natural course. Sometimes things are up and sometimes they are down but neither can last long. The goal of effective management is to keep things in the middle without reaching the extremes....
For the snipped section I'd just like to say that what little I know of China conforms far more to Communism than to Capitalism. In my view Private Property begins with self, owning one's life and fundamental life choices. Allowing some land an item ownership is way too little without Freedom of Speech, Dissent, and self-determination, not to mention an actual say in who governs and how.

People are NOT equal and it is ridiculous to attempt to force it since it isn't possible with the very important exception of treatment under Law, and that should be forced stringently. Entitlement invariably morphs into Aristocracy, an elite and privileged class, as if they didn't already have sufficient advantage not only just the fruits of their labor but in an environment that very often by chance, favors that field. Such items of chance include timing and location. Luckily being at the right place at the right time is responsible for many fortunes at least as much as foresight. The "Better Mousetrap" concept is oversimplification in the extreme. It is absolutely essential that Law be just and evenly applied. That's where equality is not only possible but required for any society to remain just and free, which incidentally has proven to provide the best environment for all citizens, rich and poor, even though it has never completely existed. Just getting closer to that ideal has been enough to prove the point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
@ChuangTzu Have you noticed that people who diss equality are invariably well off? I suspect most of us in this forum are included under that head. And yet, if inequality was really a good thing for society as a whole, the poor would benefit from it too and so you would expect them to approve of it. You might expect to hear poor people saying things like, "Well, I'd rather be rich than poor obviously, but I'd rather be poor in an unequal society like this than in a more equal one." How come I've never heard a poor person say that?
Hazel I think you and Chuang Tzu may need to qualify what sort of equality you both refer to. I suspect they are not the same.

As long as equality under the law exists, there will be a natural tendency for some to be more wealthy than others, and it won't always be because the wealthy earned it by being tops in their field. Someone pointed out that Teachers are an example of an extremely important profession that is vastly underpaid which is probably why it is also rather low in requirements in most areas. There are numerous people who were so far ahead of their time that they died literally penniless. There are entire fields of study that are underrated. An example of this is that here in LQN as well as among many Senators and Congressmen many have questioned such pure research experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider resulting in dropping funding for the US Super Collider saying that knowing how we got here or how the Universe works isn't of immediate value. Scientists pointed out that Radio Waves were not called "radio waves" at first. They were just some recently discovered unknown radiation. Others have noted when asked of what value is pure research asking "Of what value is a baby?" It is unconscionable that this is so widely misunderstood or ignored.

It is apparent that Education is needed to counter the Greed that so many assume is a natural state for all humans. The problem IMHO is the slight but important difference between Greed and Desire. If a person will choose to steal the whole pie and not share with his fellows is he also prepared to live alone when they die of starvation? That gets very blurry in a large enough community. Beyond mere tax dodges and self-aggrandizement, there is value in investing in the Future, there is value in helping to create a society in which people don't have to starve or go without health care, that have education available that can be a path to better oneself and family. Not recognizing that is to accept crime and disease, just to mention a few ills, as a natural and acceptable state. That this isn't more widely understood is a failure in what passes for modern education, not the economic system. That the economic system is less than supportive is the fault of Law and Lawmakers which is partly created by uneducated voting. See? It is a dog biting it's tail, a self-sustaining running in circles going nowhere.

I am not poor relative to much of the world's population but I am financially poor relative to the standards of the US, yet I vote for Capitalism, real Capitalism not the oligarchy we are currently stuck with through ignorance and greed. Greed is not good but desire is, and we should all be free to try to make such dreams become real. I can't see any other system that promotes such a concept across the board than Capitalism

Last edited by enorbet; 10-25-2019 at 10:09 AM.
 
Old 10-25-2019, 04:23 PM   #25
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,481

Rep: Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
For the snipped section I'd just like to say that what little I know of China conforms far more to Communism than to Capitalism. In my view Private Property begins with self, owning one's life and fundamental life choices. Allowing some land an item ownership is way too little without Freedom of Speech, Dissent, and self-determination, not to mention an actual say in who governs and how.
We agree enorbet, true ownership starts with the right to self preservation-self protection as well as free speech right to dissent etc... A fundamental right is the right to live, as long as that right does not infringe on anothers right to live. Which is why murder is illegal for instance, and the convicted loses his/her rights since they violated the fundamental right of another person. When I was referencing China it was merely on economic standards which become more Capitalistic each year. You would have to go back a few centuries to find "freedom" in China it was a major tenet of their Philosophy/Psychology/Religion/Science, it actually helped to inspire the founding fathers in USA. "Orientalism" (terrible term) was all the rage in the 1600's-1850's then returned again in the early 1900's until Mao destroyed China under the guise of One World Socialism/Communism.


Quote:
People are NOT equal and it is ridiculous to attempt to force it since it isn't possible with the very important exception of treatment under Law, and that should be forced stringently. Entitlement invariably morphs into Aristocracy, an elite and privileged class, as if they didn't already have sufficient advantage not only just the fruits of their labor but in an environment that very often by chance, favors that field. Such items of chance include timing and location. Luckily being at the right place at the right time is responsible for many fortunes at least as much as foresight. The "Better Mousetrap" concept is oversimplification in the extreme. It is absolutely essential that Law be just and evenly applied. That's where equality is not only possible but required for any society to remain just and free, which incidentally has proven to provide the best environment for all citizens, rich and poor, even though it has never completely existed. Just getting closer to that ideal has been enough to prove the point.
Yes equality under the law is very important. One caveat though, those in positions of power or authority should be held to a higher standard and have harsher punishments (politicians, police, teachers, judges etc...). To reference ancient China again, they had a wonderfully creative solution for this, Generals, politicians etc... had to wear a feather from the crown of the White Crane around their neck. If found guilty of corruption/bribery etc... they were forced to lick the feather which killed them very quickly. You see, the feathers of the red crown on the White Crane are highly poisonous. So they had a method to reduce corruption among the "leaders" and during two dynasties Han and Tang corruption was almost non existent.
 
Old 10-25-2019, 04:27 PM   #26
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,481

Rep: Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
@ChuangTzu Have you noticed that people who diss equality are invariably well off? I suspect most of us in this forum are included under that head. And yet, if inequality was really a good thing for society as a whole, the poor would benefit from it too and so you would expect them to approve of it. You might expect to hear poor people saying things like, "Well, I'd rather be rich than poor obviously, but I'd rather be poor in an unequal society like this than in a more equal one." How come I've never heard a poor person say that?

Recently an experiment was carried out in which subjects were given tokens to play with. In the early rounds of the game, everyone got the same number of tokens but in the later stages, some people were chosen at random to get more than the rest. The game tested their willingness to share by transferring tokens. It was found that the players who received more tokens quickly persuaded themselves that they deserved their good fortune. They were also less willing to share than the other players.
hazel, yes those studies are interesting and highly suspect as well. In the "real world" it is the more Capitalistic societies that are the most giving. Even the "poor" in "rich" countries tend to give more of their hard earned money to charity then rich people in other countries. Socialists, Fascists and Communists are the least giving people you will ever encounter.
 
Old 10-25-2019, 04:30 PM   #27
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,483

Rep: Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528Reputation: 2528
Interesting stuff, Chuang Tzu, and yes Mao was apparently a hypocritical pig of a man (in more ways than one) but I can't abide "held to a higher standard" for anyone. It seems to me those held to a higher standard will get the notion that they have paid in more so they are owed more. Things are either equal or they are not, and equality under the law is essential to the proper mindset of any reasonable social contract... no exceptions. None.
 
Old 10-25-2019, 04:34 PM   #28
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,481

Rep: Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
ChuangTzu, While I'm not sure you can call China a capitalist country, putting that to one side for minute... my point was that a country having a "market economy" does not prohibit the government having policy's you could refer to being more of a Socialist type, rather than for example the type of policy's you see in the US - particularly health care and welfare policy's. Following on from Hazel's very good point quoted below; if you look at countries like the Nordic countries (Sweden being a very good example), the poor have a much better quality of life than they would have in the US for example, and more to the point, they have far more equal societies - in fact, some of the most equal in the entire world. For example, every Swedish citizen is entitled to a pension, they are very much what you could call a "welfare state". Yet, they also have private businesses, private property, etc, and are a very stable democracy and country.

Having a far more equal society means things like less crime, less disadvantage, less greed, a better quality of life for all, etc. It also gives more opportunely for people to contribute when they feel like they're a valued part of society. So it casts a lot of doubt on the idea that, "just make people rich and you'll improve their life". It's been proven time and time again that the idea of "trickle down economics" simply doesn't work, because most of it stays at the top, and doesn't just "trickle down" to the masses.



Well said Hazel.
You're confusing politics with Capitalism, the two should not be intertwined even though they have become so. See my other responses. Funny you mention trickle down economics since that is the base theory of Socialism and Communism. Give unto the government everything and we will distribute downward as we see fit.

There is no greater economic force (so far) then the belief and willingness for someone to rise up through sheer will and hard work, to build and grow as they deem fit and necessary to become a force unto their own and to leave a lasting impression that they existed and the world was a better place because of it. That is a summary of Capitalism. Why wait in line for government bread when you can bake bread, open a bakery and provide a fantastic product for everyone. Others have the ability to do the same, heck you can even bake bread at home for your own family.

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 10-25-2019 at 04:43 PM.
 
Old 10-26-2019, 06:55 AM   #29
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: Currently OpenMandriva. Previously openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,208

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659Reputation: 1659
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
You're confusing politics with Capitalism, the two should not be intertwined even though they have become so. See my other responses. Funny you mention trickle down economics since that is the base theory of Socialism and Communism. Give unto the government everything and we will distribute downward as we see fit.
I think you've misunderstood the point I was making, as by no means was I trying to say Capitalism and politics are the same thing. I was saying that just because a government may have Socialist type policy's, this does not mean that the country said government governs cannot have a market economy that's based on, and/or employs Capitalism. Private ownership of business, property, etc are AFAIC very much concepts at the core of Capitalism. Going back to the China example, it also does not mean that a country isn't still a Communist country just because it employs same Capitalism in it's economic system. So not sure how that's saying that Capitalism and politics are the same thing. So in regards to China, then their political system is very much a one party Communist system, while their economic system is a weird mix of communism and capitalism (probably capitalism to a lesser extent).

Also, "trickle down economics" is a strategy that's been employed quite a bit in any Capitalist based system you like, many times over. So does mean Capitalism is really just a front for Socialism? Doesn't sound like it to me. How many "jobs" do you really think the "government" has created (apart from public service/government jobs)? Well, none. Why do you have private businesses then? Don't THEY create the jobs? Well, provided they create enough, then perhaps "trickle down economics" has a chance, pity it never seems to work hey...

Quote:
There is no greater economic force (so far) then the belief and willingness for someone to rise up through sheer will and hard work, to build and grow as they deem fit and necessary to become a force unto their own and to leave a lasting impression that they existed and the world was a better place because of it. That is a summary of Capitalism. Why wait in line for government bread when you can bake bread, open a bakery and provide a fantastic product for everyone. Others have the ability to do the same, heck you can even bake bread at home for your own family.
Well, while I don't totally disagree, I can't say I completely agree. I don't agree that everyone only works because of the money at the end of it. Some people work because they really like what they do, you can look at this very place; does anyone here get paid for coming here and offering help? No. Would say that because we don't get paid here that it's not work? Well actually, it is still work, just because nobody is getting paid, that doesn't mean it isn't work. Capitalism by itself doesn't give someone "the will" to do something, that can only come from within. There's plenty of people who have jobs that they may get paid for, but do the bare minimum just for the sake of a paycheck. You either want to do something, or you don't. Like I said before, some of man's greatest achievements weren't a result the this "economic force" called Capitalism you speak of. Also, what's "hard work" exactly mean? Does it mean you work at least 14 hours a day? Does it mean you have to do hard physical labor? Well I suspect that term means different things to different people, so hardly any definitive measure.
 
Old 10-26-2019, 04:49 PM   #30
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix while testing others
Posts: 1,481

Rep: Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511Reputation: 1511
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
I think you've misunderstood the point I was making, as by no means was I trying to say Capitalism and politics are the same thing. I was saying that just because a government may have Socialist type policy's, this does not mean that the country said government governs cannot have a market economy that's based on, and/or employs Capitalism. Private ownership of business, property, etc are AFAIC very much concepts at the core of Capitalism. Going back to the China example, it also does not mean that a country isn't still a Communist country just because it employs same Capitalism in it's economic system. So not sure how that's saying that Capitalism and politics are the same thing. So in regards to China, then their political system is very much a one party Communist system, while their economic system is a weird mix of communism and capitalism (probably capitalism to a lesser extent).
We are getting a little OT but since its your thread I guess not really OT.
Communism does not permit any other method/system, it is complete and total ownership of everything by the Government. By that definition China is not a Communist country, this is one reason why even they (Chinese) refer to it as "Chinese Style Communism" and Pres. Xi stated in his annual address that they have not achieved true Communism (refer back to above definition). China is a Socialist/Capitalistic country which moves more towards Capitalism each year. They even created their own version of the World Bank and World Monetary Fund a few years ago. Its very difficult to use modern terms for Chinese bureaucratic systems because they have always had a unique method of governing. Mao wanted true Communism and that nearly destroyed China and resulted in the murder of over 60 million people, including 450,000 scholars that were buried alive.



Quote:
Also, "trickle down economics" is a strategy that's been employed quite a bit in any Capitalist based system you like, many times over. So does mean Capitalism is really just a front for Socialism? Doesn't sound like it to me. How many "jobs" do you really think the "government" has created (apart from public service/government jobs)? Well, none. Why do you have private businesses then? Don't THEY create the jobs? Well, provided they create enough, then perhaps "trickle down economics" has a chance, pity it never seems to work hey...
A fair policy is an equally low tax applied to everyone on profit not income, taxing income is tantamount to slavery/sin. Most of the worlds tax policies only serve the ruling elite.


Quote:
...Some people work because they really like what they do, you can look at this very place; does anyone here get paid for coming here and offering help? No. Would say that because we don't get paid here that it's not work? Well actually, it is still work, just because nobody is getting paid, that doesn't mean it isn't work. Capitalism by itself doesn't give someone "the will" to do something, that can only come from within. There's plenty of people who have jobs that they may get paid for, but do the bare minimum just for the sake of a paycheck. You either want to do something, or you don't. Like I said before, some of man's greatest achievements weren't a result the this "economic force" called Capitalism you speak of. Also, what's "hard work" exactly mean? Does it mean you work at least 14 hours a day? Does it mean you have to do hard physical labor? Well I suspect that term means different things to different people, so hardly any definitive measure.
Your mixing words/definitions. Capitalism allows a person to make money or not, make alot of money or not, be poor, be middle class, be well off, be extremely rich etc... No one said you have to make alot of money in Capitalism, there are many many not for profit companies/organizations in Capitalistic countries. There is a local coffee shop I like to frequent that donates all profit (after expenses and salaries) to local charities and to a town in Africa they "sponsor". That is a very good social program but in a Capitalistic country. Red Cross, Salvation Army, GoodWill, Catholic charities etc... are just a few examples of organizations that provide "social benefit" within a capitalistic system.
Regarding your question about hard work, it can mean whatever you want it to mean. But I will tell you this, I know people who live/have lived in Cuba and they are MD's. Ask them about hard work and the promises of Socialism/Communism. They will respond with 16-20 hour days earning around $40-$65 per month. That's right the government pays MD's in Cuba about $40-$65 per month. Fathom that for a minute. This is why so many Doctors have to drive cabs or cook in restaurants to pay their rent/bills, they rely on tips from tourists to earn a living. And they have to wait on average 20 years for a new government provided roof on "their" home.
 
  


Reply

Tags
capitalism, means of production, socialism


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Too Much Choice, FOSS vs. Capitalism, Windows "Security", Mono LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-03-2009 12:40 AM
LXer: The problem with the computer industry under capitalism - Free Software the ans LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-06-2007 12:41 AM
LXer: Red Hat finds home in heart of capitalism LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 12-12-2006 11:54 PM
Linux is Capitalism? emereck Linux - General 3 05-21-2006 11:04 AM
RANT - so much for capitalism gui10 General 73 05-07-2002 02:28 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration