Capitalism and the Common Man

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Let's see if you guys can discuss the article without resorting to stereotypical communist cliches.


Capitalism and the Common Man

There are some arguments so illogical that only an intellectual or politician can believe them. One of those arguments is: capitalism benefits the rich more than it benefits the common man.

Let's look at it.

The rich have always had access to entertainment, and some times in the comfort of their palaces and mansions. The rich have never had to experience the drudgery of having to beat out carpets, iron their clothing or slave over a hot stove all day in order to have a decent dinner; they could afford to hire people. Today, the common man has the power to enjoy much of what only the rich could yesteryear. Capitalism's mass production have made radios and televisions, vacuum cleaners, wash-and-wear clothing and microwave ovens available and well within the reach of the common man; thus, sparing him of the drudgery of the past.

What about those who became wealthy making comforts available to the common man? Henry Ford benefitted immensely from mass producing automobiles but the benefit for the common man, from being able to buy a car, dwarfs anything Ford received. Individual discovers and companies who produced penicillin, polio and typhoid vaccines may have become wealthy but again it was the common man who was the major beneficiary. In more recent times, computers and software products have impacted our health, safety and life quality in a way that dwarfs the wealth received by their creators.

Here's a little test. Stand on the corner and watch people walk or drive by. Then, based on their appearances, identify which persons are wealthy. Years ago, it wouldn't have been that hard.

The ordinary person wouldn't be dressed as well, surely not wearing designer clothing, nor would they have nice looking jewellery plus, they wouldn't be driving by. Compare the income status of today's airline passengers with those of yesterday; you'll find a greater percentage of ordinary people.

That's one of the great benefits of capitalism; it has made it possible for common people to enjoy at least some of what wealthy people enjoy. You say, "Williams, common people don't have access to Rolls Royces and yachts!" You're wrong. Microsoft's Bill Gates is super-rich and can afford to ride in a Rolls Royce and go yachting sailing; so can Williams - just not as long. I can rent a Rolls or a yacht for a day, half-day or an hour.

Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man. Capitalists seek to find what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible. Here's a question for us: are people who by their actions create unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and more fun available to the ordinary person, and become wealthy in the process, deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals and politicians? Are the wealthy obliged to "give something back?" For example, what more do the wealthy discoverers and producers of life-saving antibiotics owe us? They've already saved lives and made us healthier.

Despite the miracles of capitalism, it doesn't do well in popularity polls. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias. But for the ordinary person, capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.

Walter E. Williams
August 25, 1997
Return to articles page

[IcarusAngel]

This has indeed been answered. Standards of living often improve in monstrous and totalitarian countries like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the United States. This does not mean in anyway that the system is justified.

Furthermore, while Americans are benefiting from capitalism, things seem to be getting worse for a great deal of people in the Third World. Millions of people are on the brink of starvation in third world countries just so Americans can order a pizza and watch the game -- it's their resources that's being plundered for US benefit.

Too many people are starving around the world while consumes by far the most amount of resources despite only having about 5% of the world's population if that.

Finally, the "wealth gap" in America is widening and, inflation adjusted, the minimum wage is less now than it was in the 70s and people and the people at the bottom are starting to have less gain.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

This has indeed been answered. Standards of living often improve in monstrous and totalitarian countries like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the United States

How is the USA totalitarian? Are you calling the capitalist class (this includes the owner of Farmer Joe's market and Walmart) the tyrants? Instead of "one big tyrant" we have hundreds and thousands of them? Is that your argument?


things seem to be getting worse for a great deal of people in the Third World.

Unless you have evidence to back this up.

I've read things have gotten better and worse for some countries.

How is this capitalism's fault?


the minimum wage is less now than it was in the 70s and people and the people at the bottom are starting to have less gain.

How many people even make the minimum wage?


Too many people are starving around the world while consumes by far the most amount of resources despite only having about 5% of the world's population if that.

Don't blame their totalitarian governments or their corrupt legal system...blame the USA!

[JazzRemington]

This article uses typical Capitalist cliches, namely that Capitalism is the reason why there has been so much progress in the world and that the rich and poor benefit equilly. You know, after the original poster tells us not to use cliche communist responses. But I bet the person who wrote that article would be quick to point out that Capitalism either has never existed or doesn't currently exist.

Second, any economy that is growing will raise the standard of living. The average Russian worker, for instance, in the 1980s was far better off than in the late 1800s. Just beause a Capitalist system was in place when the standard of living improved does not emply that Capitalism itself caused it. Correlation does not imply causation.

Third, the author seems to say that renting is the same as owning, which is false. Renting a nice car is not the same as owning it. Sure, a poor person can waste what little money he has on RENTING something a rich person OWNS!

Fourth, the author ignores health care. The quality of health care has improved due to scientific research (i.e. not Capitalism), but the number of people who have access to quality health care has not improved. A true test of this person's logic would entail stating that Capitalism is the reason why only a minority have access to quality health care and seeing if he disagrees. We are only asserting this man's logic.

Fifth, he is confusing scientific research with Capitalism. Scientific research is based on solving a need and is irrespective of whatever economic system just happened to be in place. In fact, many forms of technological progress are designed to go beyond scarcity, which is one of the tenents of Capitalism. So it seems there are some technologies that are harmful to Capitalism. I wonder what the author would say to that.

Sixth, if all technological advances were dependent on Capitalism, then we would only see fewer advances because of restrictions based on property rights, fluctuations in the market, etc. If a person who has developed a new technology cannot properly run a business to market his new technology, then the new technology will not reach society, despite whether or not such a technology would be beneficial.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 29, 2007 12:54 am

How is the USA totalitarian? Are you calling the capitalist class (this includes the owner of Farmer Joe's market and Walmart) the tyrants? Instead of "one big tyrant" we have hundreds and thousands of them? Is that your argument?


You should read this book by John Perkins. No, hes not a stereotypical raving left-wing commie scumbag , he's ex-CIA. One of your boys, no less.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

[BobKKKindle$]

The author suggests that under Capitalism rich and poor people enjoy the same goods and thus it is a system of equality and wellbeing. This is simply based on anecdotal evidence and is in blatant denial of the facts - in a national and international (note that he neglects to mention why it is that US proletariats can purchase microwaves and the conditions in which they are made) level, Capitalism is a system of (growing) inequality under which most people live in conditions not of happiness and security, but of hardship and struggle. Even in the United States, the 'richest country in the world', a substantial propotion of the population does not have access to even the most basic amenities - such as housing. The author has never experienced what it is like to live at the bottom of Capitalist society, as is evident from his naive, and frankly, patronising and insulting, comments.


Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man. Capitalists seek to find what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible

Wrong. This an assertion and the author does not ofer any explanation or analysis. Capitalism does not reward people who serve others. There are in fact many ways under Capitalism that allow individuals to recive vast wealth without really making any imporant or recognizable contribution to others and through no personal merit - an obvious example that comes to mind is inheritance - individuals, if they recive sufficient inheritance, can live in conditions of luxury for the duration of their lives simply because they were born into a rich family. This not a secondary aspect of the system but is in fact one of the most important forms and causes of inequality - of the 10 richest people in the entire world, 4 have this financial status because they are members of the Walton (Walmart) family. This single example shows how this point is utterly void.

Fundamentally, the author neglects to realise that those that actually produce the goods and services that people enjoy do not recieve the revenue from the sale of the commodity in question - they are unable to assert ownership of the products of their labour. The Capitalist may have no or a minimal role in the production process itself and is still allowed to profit from production through ownership of the means of production. Do you think this is fair? If so, why?

[luxemburg89]

I've read things have gotten better and worse for some countries.

How is this capitalism's fault?


Well the third world is generally dependent on money from the 'first' world. Let's take your beloved USArse for now. The capitalist systems in America and Britain have seen themselves imposed on Africa, and so Africa believes this is the system that works. However due to the fluctuating nature of Capitalism (that is, it will go up and down) they find themselves reaching relative highs and lows. Now in the USArse this is best demonstrated in the late 1920s - early 1930s. The 1920s brought a huge consumer boom in your country, on the surface stocks and shares and all that bollocks were going to keep on rising. However there were certain underlying problems: The farming industry was suffering; overproduction and underconsumption was becoming rife by 1928; the anti-immigrant racism (read up on Sacco and Vanzetti); and the problems in the housing industry (projects unfinished in the Florida Land Boom). These factors (as well as others) brought about the Great Depression, the figurehead of which was the Wall Street Crash (this was NOT a cause it was a result of speculation problems throughout the decade). Capitalism's nature suggests, or rather involves, the fluctuation of success. It also means that one person shall succeed at the expense of another. For every pound a business man has, that's one less pound that should have gone to a worker. For every dollar an American entrepreneur sucks out of people, thats five less meals for a child in Africa.

In other words, it is Capitalisms fault; but hey, i can't expect a bourgeois lawyer to take any responsibility.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 29, 2007 12:31 am





Capitalism and the Common Man

There are some arguments so illogical that only an intellectual or politician can believe them. One of those arguments is: capitalism benefits the rich more than it benefits the common man.

Let's look at it.

Let's.



The rich have always had access to entertainment, and some times in the comfort of their palaces and mansions. The rich have never had to experience the drudgery of having to beat out carpets, iron their clothing or slave over a hot stove all day in order to have a decent dinner; they could afford to hire people. Today, the common man has the power to enjoy much of what only the rich could yesteryear. Capitalism's mass production have made radios and televisions, vacuum cleaners, wash-and-wear clothing and microwave ovens available and well within the reach of the common man; thus, sparing him of the drudgery of the past.

Oh, so the 'common man' works less now then he did 50 years ago? People have it so much easier now? Do you even believe that yourself?



What about those who became wealthy making comforts available to the common man? Henry Ford benefitted immensely from mass producing automobiles but the benefit for the common man, from being able to buy a car, dwarfs anything Ford received. Individual discovers and companies who produced penicillin, polio and typhoid vaccines may have become wealthy but again it was the common man who was the major beneficiary. In more recent times, computers and software products have impacted our health, safety and life quality in a way that dwarfs the wealth received by their creators.


So people are happier now, on average? Computers make people happy and fulfilled? Really?



Here's a little test. Stand on the corner and watch people walk or drive by. Then, based on their appearances, identify which persons are wealthy. Years ago, it wouldn't have been that hard.


Yeah, it would be hard because someone could have a Lexus because he's rich or he could have it because he's in debt up to his balls.

And that's a good thing for the common man?



The ordinary person wouldn't be dressed as well, surely not wearing designer clothing, nor would they have nice looking jewellery plus, they wouldn't be driving by.

So the common man walks around in Gucci slacks, with a 15k rock on his hand?


Compare the income status of today's airline passengers with those of yesterday; you'll find a greater percentage of ordinary people.

Amazing analysis.




That's one of the great benefits of capitalism; it has made it possible for common people to enjoy at least some of what wealthy people enjoy. You say, "Williams, common people don't have access to Rolls Royces and yachts!" You're wrong. Microsoft's Bill Gates is super-rich and can afford to ride in a Rolls Royce and go yachting sailing; so can Williams - just not as long. I can rent a Rolls or a yacht for a day, half-day or an hour.

...



Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man. Capitalists seek to find what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible.

And they don't seek to create and inflate wants and use manufactured obsolesnce to force people to upgrade?

I don't want to upgrade from XP to Vista, yet I don't actually have much of a choice, because XP, which works perfectly well, is coming off the market and will not be receiving updates soon. I don't want to upgrade, but I'll be obliged to. How is that fair?


Here's a question for us: are people who by their actions create unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and more fun available to the ordinary person, and become wealthy in the process, deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals and politicians?

Are all questions you pose as fatuous as this?


Are the wealthy obliged to "give something back?" For example, what more do the wealthy discoverers and producers of life-saving antibiotics owe us? They've already saved lives and made us healthier.


Yes, I'm sure it was the rich guy at the top who made all these discoveries in between golf outings and lines of cocaine under his desk in the board room.

Huzzah for him.



Despite the miracles of capitalism, it doesn't do well in popularity polls. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias. But for the ordinary person, capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about capitalism is that someone will pay you to write inane hatchet-job articles like this one.

What a system.

[Tungsten]

Who are you and what have you done with Publius?

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:19 pm
Who are you and what have you done with Publius?
i was thinking that :P

[red team]

Oh, so the 'common man' works less now then he did 50 years ago? People have it so much easier now? Do you even believe that yourself?

That's what you get for living in a system which measures "economic" activity by GDP which itself is nothing more than a measure of the number of exchanges for something else which inherently is subjective, ephemeral and ultimately immeasureable.

How do you measure "value" for example?

If you say because you desire it then if I'm running a business to sell merchandise I could just as well make you just miserable enough because I carefully crafted a message that psychologically goes right to you're insecurities about yourself about not being able to afford that shiny trinklet I'm selling to you. In short, your psychological insecurities and misery is good for the economy because it keeps the money circulating and thus inflating the GDP numbers.

Likewise, war is also a big money maker for the same reason. Do you know how much money circulates from this process of arming for war, destruction, "peace" and reconstruction?

Keep in mind: circulation of money = economic health

There's jobs for everybody: weapons makers, soldiers, construction workers, scientists, engineers, psychologists, nurses, doctors... this list is endless. :lol:

[Rawthentic]

Who are you and what have you done with Publius?
We all have to see the light and wake up at one time or another.

He still has a ways to go....

[RedStarOverChina]

That is strange...Is Publius switching side?

[Tungsten]

How do you measure "value" for example?
I thought we were supposed to measure it with "energy tokens" or some similar nonsense.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:17 pm

How do you measure "value" for example?
I thought we were supposed to measure it with "energy tokens" or some similar nonsense.
You know I'm rather ambivalent because I know that as long as I live under a debt circulatory system then anything is valuable given enough cleverness in manipulating the psychology of other people. Unfortunately I'm not a sociopath.

Otherwise, I could pay some psychopath to kidnap children, beat them up, drug them and brainwash them into being their child soldiers for the international trade in hard shiny stones.

Besides, it's all supply and demand isn't it? The same people who pay for these shiny diamonds are the same people who want that storybook wedding read from stories in glamour magazines. The armed psychos that make an entire country homeless are simply performing a service for these want-to-be princesses and these psychopaths and the Capitalists are in business together to satisfy this demand.

[Tungsten]

Unfortunately I'm not a sociopath.
That's debateable.

Besides, it's all supply and demand isn't it?
As if supply and demand was something exclsive to capitalism. :rolleyes: What a waste of time is it talking to you.

[luxemburg89]

What a waste of time is it talking to you.

I thought you weren't gonna lower yourself to insults...

TWAT

[Lark]

I dont think what's being discussed there is synonymous with capitalism, that's just the economy, demand and supply.

I'm sure that similar arguments were made by fuedalists in their stand off with capitalists, the kings, priests and lords care the most about the common man, not the factory owners or shop keepers.

This is a pretty over simplification of arguments about capitalism if you ask me and I would say that far from doing badly in polls because its compared unfavourably with perfect non-existant utopias that the opposite is the case.

Capitalism has survived and goes from strength to strength because its far more utopian than socialism, its got all the answers and critical thinking is just something you got to grow out of, capitalism's got the appeal of a day at the casino ("anyone can be the next Bill Gates") and a day in church ("those lazy rat bastards can sweat it out"), the myriad ways its going to satisfy fantasy and ego needs of very different personality or character structures is astonishing.

Market populism is the most appealing and most utopian ideology that's EVER seen the light of day, its the rebel sixties hitched to the greedy eighties, but then you can sure bet the party animals on the Titanic were having a great time right up until they hit that ice berg.

Marx was only the latest of the economists to study the contradictions in the economy threatening its continuity, Ricardo, Mill, Smith, they all had in view contradictions themselves, diminishing rates of return on investment, diminishing rates of profit, over specialisation, monopoly powers, bottle necks in supply or demand. The difference was that Marx dared to say that economics had stopped being objective and started being an ideology of the business interest groups.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:41 pm


Capitalism has survived and goes from strength to strength because its far more utopian than socialism, its got all the answers and critical thinking is just something you got to grow out of, capitalism's got the appeal of a day at the casino ("anyone can be the next Bill Gates") and a day in church ("those lazy rat bastards can sweat it out"), the myriad ways its going to satisfy fantasy and ego needs of very different personality or character structures is astonishing.


right enough, these people seem to be enjoying '' all the appeal of a casino''
http://humanconcern.org/storemaker/images/Famine_Somalia1.gif
http://www.everyculture.com/images/ctc_04_img0996.jpg

[Lark]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+June 01, 2007 11:48 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ June 01, 2007 11:48 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 11:41 pm


Capitalism has survived and goes from strength to strength because its far more utopian than socialism, its got all the answers and critical thinking is just something you got to grow out of, capitalism's got the appeal of a day at the casino ("anyone can be the next Bill Gates") and a day in church ("those lazy rat bastards can sweat it out"), the myriad ways its going to satisfy fantasy and ego needs of very different personality or character structures is astonishing.


right enough, these people seem to be enjoying '' all the appeal of a casino''
http://humanconcern.org/storemaker/images/Famine_Somalia1.gif
http://www.everyculture.com/images/ctc_04_img0996.jpg [/b]
I'm curious as to what purpose that post serves at all other than a very, very cheap effort to point score. Seriously poor show.

The poster was talking in a first world context, or so I was lead to believe, I was thinking less of the impoverished peoples of the global south than the working people who elected Thatcher and Reagan and remained supporters of those ideologies.

But by all means carry on with your cheap shots if you like, if its the extant of your reasoning.

[Dr Mindbender]

There is the weakness of the capitalist argument therein, unable to see past the national borders he has created in order to seal off the worker from his fellow worker.

[luxemburg89]

or so I was lead to believe

Ah, my friend, you are seemingly merely the product of bourgeois indoctrination.

[Lark]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 02, 2007 12:13 am
There is the weakness of the capitalist argument therein, unable to see past the national borders he has created in order to seal off the worker from his fellow worker.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I studied developmental economics at one point and the guy teaching it, an economist from sub-saharan africa was very critical of a lot of economic and developmental theories originated in the northern hemisphere or first world, marxist or otherwise.

He would have posited that the famine and hardship were created first and foremost by the treachery of local elites who robbed their treasuries, secondly by a lack of law and order and finally by trade barriers.

[luxemburg89]

yes but that's under capitalism as it is now. We're talking about under in a Communist society, we have to be hypothetical at the moment.

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:15 am

or so I was lead to believe

Ah, my friend, you are seemingly merely the product of bourgeois indoctrination.
Real people dont speak like that, you should make more friends, you're inability to really develop any sort of group living skills, evidenced by something like this, are bound to make you miserable.

Besides, I find it hard to see how you could reach that conclusion other than very deliberately misquoting me there, I was contextualising the thread and you've just totally misconstrued what I said.

That's lying and its just plain wrong.

[luxemburg89]

Real people dont speak like that, you should make more friends, you're inability to really develop any sort of group living skills, evidenced by something like this, are bound to make you miserable.


I have plenty of friends. Like I said in another post, many of us on this site are friends. Besides, I have a large number of friends outside of this site too, some slightly-capitalist and some not, I like them on a personal, not a political level. My living skills are fine, I am, in fact, an extremely happy person with myself and where my life is going...just not with the current political climate.

Real people do speak like that - I have heard them with my ears and read it on this site - unless we're all a creation of your imagination...

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:49 am

Real people dont speak like that, you should make more friends, you're inability to really develop any sort of group living skills, evidenced by something like this, are bound to make you miserable.


I have plenty of friends. Like I said in another post, many of us on this site are friends. Besides, I have a large number of friends outside of this site too, some slightly-capitalist and some not, I like them on a personal, not a political level. My living skills are fine, I am, in fact, an extremely happy person with myself and where my life is going...just not with the current political climate.

Real people do speak like that - I have heard them with my ears and read it on this site - unless we're all a creation of your imagination...
Could well be a creation of your imagination, I dont know about your problems :D

I havent heard anyone use the word Bourgousie in conversation in almost seven years, I've not heard anyone talk about bourgousie indoctrination, ever, its much more likely that people will talk about political correctness.

I'm not sure what you mean by slightly capitalist either, anyway, lots of young people and ideologues use language like that wihtout barely knowing its meaning, it all amounts to little more than name calling and doesnt sure much of a purpose in any sort of conversation or discussion anyway.

Orwell wrote at length about it and thought it was a sign of decline in good writing, especially on politics.

[luxemburg89]

Actually - I was referring to a specific point. That was you 'had been led to believe' at which point i made a joke about 'bourgeois indoctrination'. So it is entirely related. George Orwell, as much as I love him, is not the definitive authority on literacy. I think you need to get a sense of humour.

[Lark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:00 am
Actually - I was referring to a specific point. That was you 'had been led to believe' at which point i made a joke about 'bourgeois indoctrination'. So it is entirely related. George Orwell, as much as I love him, is not the definitive authority on literacy. I think you need to get a sense of humour.
Maybe if there was any indication of humour at all, a smiley, I'd give that some credience but since there wasnt I wont, I dont think that you were talking in humour anyway, unless it was a joke among your friend on me, which is fine, I find socialist groups and the people involved in them are very clichey and objectively unsocial a lot of time.

Like I said before "had been lead to believe" was about contextualising the thread, simple as, you cut and paste it and totally misconstrued what'd been said, that's not even honest.

I wasnt suggesting Orwell was an authority, just saying he'd written on that topic, its pretty good, you could check it out if you can find one of his older collected writings and stuff.

[luxemburg89]

For fucks sake I was joking about the indoctrination - get over it. :D


I dont think that you were talking in humour anyway

Well I was, ok?


I find socialist groups and the people involved in them are very clichey and objectively unsocial a lot of time.


Would you please, at least, consider the point that you might infuriate them?

[Lark]

Would you please, at least, consider the point that you might infuriate them?

Well a lot of them are socially incompetent and compensate by attachment to ideology or becoming power crazed so there's every chance that someone like myself would infuriate them.

BTW it's maybe implicit in what you're saying that you think of yourself as part of an enlightened elect and everyone else part of a mass of either ignorant or capitalist outsiders, that's seriously wrong.

[luxemburg89]

BTW it's maybe implicit in what you're saying that you think of yourself as part of an enlightened elect and everyone else part of a mass of either ignorant or capitalist outsiders, that's seriously wrong.

No I don't think that Lark. I think that Capitalism is a bad system, and I've thrown my lot in with the communists, I am, myself, a Communist, my critique of Capitalism is against the system, not always the personalities of individual Capitalists - like I said I get on with many Capitalists, just when it's outside of the political arena. Inside this arena they are my political enemies.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Besides, it's all supply and demand isn't it? The same people who pay for these shiny diamonds are the same people who want that storybook wedding read from stories in glamour magazines. The armed psychos that make an entire country homeless are simply performing a service for these want-to-be princesses and these psychopaths and the Capitalists are in business together to satisfy this demand.

I agree with you but I'm not too familiar with the idea that people who hold weddings are killing people.

There's was an essay in the New York Times about weddings. I learned that the cost of weddings, much like housing, education and healthcare, has been rising faster than the rate of inflation...to the tune of about 28k.

That is a huge chunk of money for an average couple, probably equivalent to one year's worth of their take home pay.

Weddings seem like a scam designed to keep the poor people poor. The huge cost of weddings prevents them from amassing any capital. After you add in the cost of an engagement ring, the newlywed couple starts out life significantly in debt. Or if all the money came from their parents, surely they would have been better off with a significant downpayment on a house instead of a wedding and a fancy ring.

[People's Councillor]

Not to mention that people are having more weddings...

[Tungsten]

A fool and his money etc.

[People's Councillor]

Implication of that statement: the poor are stupid.

[Tungsten]

If the shoe fits etc.

[red team]

A fool and his money etc.

And the solution would be to make more fools by privatizing schools so only the rich could attend. If the poor want schooling it should be provided as a charity from church groups. That way they can believe in the fairy sky wizard and be the army of foolish sheeple for you to make money off of and to send to war as cannon fodder. And if they kill enough "enemy" fools on the other side they can be rewarded with a parade and a shiny medal.

Of course, what a brilliant idea! :lol:

Yes indeed. You are quite the genius. Evil genius. But, nonetheless a genius.

[MarcX]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 29, 2007 12:54 am

This has indeed been answered. Standards of living often improve in monstrous and totalitarian countries like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the United States

How is the USA totalitarian? Are you calling the capitalist class (this includes the owner of Farmer Joe's market and Walmart) the tyrants? Instead of "one big tyrant" we have hundreds and thousands of them? Is that your argument?


things seem to be getting worse for a great deal of people in the Third World.

Unless you have evidence to back this up.

I've read things have gotten better and worse for some countries.

How is this capitalism's fault?


the minimum wage is less now than it was in the 70s and people and the people at the bottom are starting to have less gain.

How many people even make the minimum wage?


Too many people are starving around the world while consumes by far the most amount of resources despite only having about 5% of the world's population if that.

Don't blame their totalitarian governments or their corrupt legal system...blame the USA!
I make minimum wage >:@

and its not enough

[CornetJoyce]

How is the USA totalitarian?

"Totalitarian" is a neologism used to describe forms of despotism in the 20th century thought to be unique. The more definable term "police state" may be more palatable to you. As Marxist Czechoslovakia veered toward collapse, the Washington Post- long known as Pravda by the locals- explained that it was a police state and proved this by quoting the number of prisoners. The Czech prisoner to population ratio was almost exactly the same as the American ratio. So according to the Post, the usa was a police state then, and the ratio has grown.

We need not expand upon the demise of the Bill of Rights or the power awarded your little ginsoaked caligula to order secret arrest, torture and murder at his whim, or the quite totalitarian surveillance of the citizenry. But of course, you are "free" to grab what you can grab unless a bigger fish gets there at the same time, eh?