The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Is Capitalism What is Wrong with the World? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=342657)

Saki January 18th, 2015 5:01 AM

Is Capitalism What is Wrong with the World?
 
Preamble and Definitions

Quote:

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour and, in many models, competitive markets. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

It's easy to villainize capitalism. I do it everyday, actually. When I see people at the grocery store who are unable to purchase expensive foods (like fresh cuts of meats) and instead purchase cheap carb meals I think about capitalism and how it works and I blame it and its current system today. American is said to be the land of the free, a place where you can go and work 75 hours a week and earn (potentially) more money than an individual who is working only 40. You make your own wealth. But what if we all just lived within our means under a smaller working week that provided us with the necessities of life for our given families. Maybe we won't be able to afford a vacation, a new car, an expensive puppy, and a designer jacket all in the same year, but we could probably afford one or two of them and earn the rest at a later date. Under the realm of capitalism we are enduring companies attempting to get the biggest profit margin as possible to adhere to their brand. This means that some brands represent quality, and other represent a lower quality, but all are still aiming for the biggest profit. This results in various marketing schemes, and the quest for profit often harms us more than we know.

DDT was a result of searching for the biggest profit (it was an answer to wide scale crop pest management, therefore more crop output, and there for more money) and the majority of us know how that ended up. If not then read up on it!
Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

Countries sending their garbage to other countries is the result of capitalism. In North America we make a lot of garbage, so we send it to another country and pay them what we are able to. The garbage is created mostly by our over consumption and our manufacturing industry that meets the demands of this over consumption, and the garbage goes to the country that is in need of money and has the space for it. Consequently marginalizing any people that have to live by it, or endure ground water and/or water bodies affected by it.

There are many many more examples, in fact I relate things back to the negative side of capitalism everyday. The bottom line is this: Capitalism at its base is the biggest output for the smallest input, yet this does not abide by the Laws of Thermodynamics. We cannot create energy, we have a finite amount of resources. A capitalistic model cannot succeed over a long period of time. So why does it continue?

Questions/Comments/Opinions:

Should we continue with capitalism until we reach a true problem? It will most likely be out of our lifetimes so it won't have a true impact on us. Do you think capitalism will actually reach a problem state? Is it there now?

Should we stop blaming capitalism and instead blame people? We can attribute many factors to overall greed of an individual (possibly a company owner) or to the consumers (we pay for and therefore "vote" for the products that are cheaper)?

Kanzler January 18th, 2015 8:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saki (Post 8584636)
There are many many more examples, in fact I relate things back to the negative side of capitalism everyday. The bottom line is this: Capitalism at its base is the biggest output for the smallest income, yet this does not abide by the Laws of Thermodynamics. We cannot create energy, we have a finite amount of resources. A capitalistic model cannot succeed over a long period of time. So why does it continue?

I don't get this. How does not abiding by the laws of thermodynamics (the first one, mind you) affect the sustainability of capitalism? Besides, I think that statement is mischaracterized in the first place: it would be unsustainable if it did abide by the first law of thermodynamics (if it didn't then I'm presuming that non-conservation of energy would be a thing and then the amount of resources available would not be a limiting factor).

But anyways, people are people and it doesn't take capitalism to have us consuming more and more, if that's the relationship you're trying to draw. Industrial communism was all about consumption, even if they talked more about production. It was the people who would reap the benefits of production by seeing a rapidly increasing standard of living. I don't think it's unique to capitalism as an economic system to use more and more resources.

Furthermore, there are many other problematic statements in your post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saki (Post 8584636)
Countries sending their garbage to other countries is the result of capitalism. In North America we make a lot of garbage, so we send it to another country and pay them what we are able to. The garbage is created mostly by our over consumption and our manufacturing industry that meets the demands of this over consumption, and the garbage goes to the country that is in need of money and has the space for it.

If you want to state that sending garbage to other countries is the result of capitalism, then you must demonstrate it. It's not capitalism per se that creates absurd amounts of garbage, it's high levels of consumption - which again is not unique to capitalism. To put it in another way, do you think people would consume less if they operated in an alternate economic system?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saki (Post 8584636)
The bottom line is this: [B]Capitalism at its base is the biggest output for the smallest income

This, yet again, is something that is both mischaracterized and not unique to capitalism. Firstly, about it being mischaracterized: I presume you mean "input" and not "income", because if that were true, then Louis Vuitton and Apple are not examples of capitalism since they have relatively high incomes for their output (which I assume to be based on their products' luxury or high-end status).

And secondly, that one should desire the biggest output for the smallest input is by no means unique to capitalism. I'd imagine every economic system possible is to some extent about giving you the best bang for your buck. What is unique about capitalism is the idea of private ownership and market-determined prices. I think those ideas have negative or immoral implications, but I'll leave that for you to figure out.

I think your original post is ideologically based and lacks intellectual rigour because it conflates many issues together, many less relevant than others, to criticize capitalism. Like you said, "it's easy to villainize capitalism".

Saki January 18th, 2015 9:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 8584840)
I don't get this. How does not abiding by the laws of thermodynamics (the first one, mind you) affect the sustainability of capitalism? Besides, I think that statement is mischaracterized in the first place: it would be unsustainable if it did abide by the first law of thermodynamics (if it didn't then I'm presuming that non-conservation of energy would be a thing and then the amount of resources available would not be a limiting factor).

But anyways, people are people and it doesn't take capitalism to have us consuming more and more, if that's the relationship you're trying to draw. Industrial communism was all about consumption, even if they talked more about production. It was the people who would reap the benefits of production by seeing a rapidly increasing standard of living. I don't think it's unique to capitalism as an economic system to use more and more resources.

Furthermore, there are many other problematic statements in your post.



If you want to state that sending garbage to other countries is the result of capitalism, then you must demonstrate it. It's not capitalism per se that creates absurd amounts of garbage, it's high levels of consumption - which again is not unique to capitalism. To put it in another way, do you think people would consume less if they operated in an alternate economic system?



This, yet again, is something that is both mischaracterized and not unique to capitalism. Firstly, about it being mischaracterized: I presume you mean "input" and not "income", because if that were true, then Louis Vuitton and Apple are not examples of capitalism since they have relatively high incomes for their output (which I assume to be based on their products' luxury or high-end status).

And secondly, that one should desire the biggest output for the smallest input is by no means unique to capitalism. I'd imagine every economic system possible is to some extent about giving you the best bang for your buck. What is unique about capitalism is the idea of private ownership and market-determined prices. I think those ideas have negative or immoral implications, but I'll leave that for you to figure out.

I think your original post is ideologically based and lacks intellectual rigour because it conflates many issues together, many less relevant than others, to criticize capitalism. Like you said, "it's easy to villainize capitalism".

I was really trying to get a discussion going and not so much take a side at this point ^_^ I don't think capitalism is the reason for every issue but I do think we can link a lot of things to capitalism. I keep my openings relatively short, and don't go into much detail in order to start conversation and not take a stance.

I did mean "input" and not "income", thanks for point out my typo. I shall fix that up in the OP~

I'm going to try and keep this sort in order to explain why capitalism doesn't follow the first law of thermodynamics. Capitalism (under our current system) hopes to achieve "the biggest bang for its buck". So this train of thought takes one dollar (for example) and hopes to get 100 dollars back. In this instance dollars can be replaced with the word "resource" as well. So in our small system we are assuming we can "create matter" instead of recognizing that it is simply just moved about. Someone is getting the "waste" end of it and our "resource" is being transferred. Capitalism (as we know today) views resources as infinite, and operates under that system as opposed to one of conservation. If this point in my post is still unclear then I can definitely explain further! It's a complex topic and takes a while to teach. In fact it took up almost a third of my political ecology class haha. Anyway, I am happy to expand upon it further if need be.

And you are correct in saying that these things may not be unique to capitalism, but they are apart of the system we have adopted today in North America under capitalism and often can be attributed towards it. Over consumption in the west has a correlation with our capitalistic model, and as a result we do send garbage to other parts of the world. I can locate some more information on the case study if you'd like (most of which I learned in a classroom setting but I am sure there are things online ^_^). It was just a quick example anyway.

I'd like to hear your personal thoughts on capitalism though. What is your thought on "Should we stop blaming capitalism and instead blame people?"

Kanzler January 18th, 2015 9:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saki (Post 8584873)
I was really trying to get a discussion going and not so much take a side at this point ^_^ I don't think capitalism is the reason for every issue but I do think we can link a lot of things to capitalism. I keep my openings relatively short, and don't go into much detail in order to start conversation and not take a stance.

I did mean "input" and not "income", thanks for point out my typo. I shall fix that up in the OP~

I'm going to try and keep this sort in order to explain why capitalism doesn't follow the first law of thermodynamics. Capitalism (under our current system) hopes to achieve "the biggest bang for its buck". So this train of thought takes one dollar (for example) and hopes to get 100 dollars back. In this instance dollars can be replaced with the word "resource" as well. So in our small system we are assuming we can "create matter" instead of recognizing that it is simply just moved about. Someone is getting the "waste" end of it and our "resource" is being transferred. Capitalism (as we know today) views resources as infinite, and operates under that system as opposed to one of conservation. If this point in my post is still unclear then I can definitely explain further! It's a complex topic and takes a while to teach. In fact it took up almost a third of my political ecology class haha. Anyway, I am happy to expand upon it further if need be.

And you are correct in saying that these things may not be unique to capitalism, but they are apart of the system we have adopted today in North America under capitalism and often can be attributed towards it. Over consumption in the west has a correlation with our capitalistic model, and as a result we do send garbage to other parts of the world. I can locate some more information on the case study if you'd like (most of which I learned in a classroom setting but I am sure there are things online ^_^). It was just a quick example anyway.

I'd like to hear your personal thoughts on capitalism though. What is your thought on "Should we stop blaming capitalism and instead blame people?"

The #1 pet peeve of mine is when people conflate scientific concepts with, well, not-so-scientific concepts. The first law of thermodynamic states that the total energy of an isolated system stays constant. That's it.

Dollars are not material resources. They are abstract concepts. Matter is things we see objectively: they have a place in space and time. Money isn't like that. Also, the earth isn't an isolated system but a closed system, because we have a source of infinite energy (until it runs out) called the sun. Recall that an isolated system is one in which neither matter or energy can move through it, and that a closed system is one in which only energy can pass through. And the earth isn't really a closed system (even though that's how 99% of people experience it 99% of the time), but an open system because we can have meteors come in and rockets go out. People have proposed sending our waste to outer space once we develop mass acceleration capabilities, so creating massive amounts of waste isn't a dead end either.

The point is, money is not logically equivalent to resources in the example you have given because abstract ideas, such as money, are not constrained by time and space and physical laws.

And as you might've realized by now, yeah we should stop "blaming capitalism" and instead blame people. I don't think private ownership and market-determined prices are anything to be blamed, they're efficient ways of allocating resources. It's not like they can't co-exist with environmental protection. Linking things to capitalism doesn't mean we should blame capitalism - if the same problems occurred under another economic system, would we just simply blame that economic system?

Saki January 18th, 2015 9:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 8584897)
The #1 pet peeve of mine is when people conflate scientific concepts with, well, not-so-scientific concepts. The first law of thermodynamic states that the total energy of an isolated system stays constant. That's it.

Dollars are not material resources. They are abstract concepts. Matter is things we see objectively: they have a place in space and time. Money isn't like that. Also, the earth isn't an isolated system but a closed system, because we have a source of infinite energy (until it runs out) called the sun. Recall that an isolated system is one in which neither matter or energy can move through it, and that a closed system is one in which only energy can pass through. And the earth isn't really a closed system (even though that's how 99% of people experience it 99% of the time), but an open system because we can have meteors come in and rockets go out. People have proposed sending our waste to outer space once we develop mass acceleration capabilities, so creating massive amounts of waste isn't a dead end either.

The point is, money is not logically equivalent to resources in the example you have given because abstract ideas, such as money, are not constrained by time and space and physical laws.

And as you might've realized by now, yeah we should stop "blaming capitalism" and instead blame people. I don't think private ownership and market-determined prices are anything to be blamed, they're efficient ways of allocating resources. It's not like they can't co-exist with environmental protection. Linking things to capitalism doesn't mean we should blame capitalism - if the same problems occurred under another economic system, would we just simply blame that economic system?

Political ecology is a science and it does take a real understanding of the first law of thermodynamics/second and third/other scientific theories and laws and applies it/them. The sun does give Earth energy but it isn't infinite and neither are resources that take time to build. Yes, you are correct that the total energy of an isolated system stays constant, but if you take a holistic approach then the Earth and insolation are finite. I understand the concept may seem like a stretch to you, but it's just complicated. I've done my best to simplify it, regardless I will narrow it down a bit more and use resources as an example. If we take a reductionist look at a resource we can see the issue. Coal is a finite resource as it takes time to develop. We have witnessed an big move from coal to other resources since the industrial revolution. Coal is a finite resource, and although the energy is being moved around it's being moved from useable resource to waste. And also depleting our resource. A basic "biggest output for the smallest input" does not consider the depletion of resources into its model. Currently we have people recognizing this with the resources we use today, but often times these issues are past our life time and not as much of a worry. We also have people who believe that there will always be a replacement (much like there was a replacement of coal). Simply put how we use capitalism in modern day ignores all of this. We cannot "create" more energy in the form we want to use it in. The energy overall is constant but resources are not. Regardless, your conclusion on this idea doesn't need to be the same as mine. I'm really unsure of exactly where I stand as is, but I think it's a good thing to explore. :)

I hope that clarifies a bit more ! I'd encourage you to look up some political ecology resources if you can/haven't read much about it. It's pretty interesting (imo at least haha, I am sure some people don't enjoy it).

What people do you "blame", the consumers or the producers?

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire January 18th, 2015 9:32 PM

Capitalism certainly does have it's issues. However, none of the other known and tried economic systems are without their issues. Socialism has limited resources too, in that it works until those providing the money for the services run dry. Fascism requires the conquest of other's lands and creates a sense of unending war to keep the machine going. Communism tends to fall to hypocrisy as the leaders of such system become the new elites, also they are unable to manage their resources properly...look at the famines all of the communist nations faced from the Soviet Union to China (which is why the Soviet Union and Chinese governments (as well as most of the others) tried to move away from communist forms of production and only kept their new found status as elites). Now Capitalism has it's faults in that it often results in over consumption and depreciation of resources can result (even though it does have better management than communism does) over time. Then there's older forms of economic systems which covered small areas and were limited to providing resources for a limited number of people which doesn't make it attractive for large cities.

In the end I think that a mix of Capitalism with the local economies will be best. It'll take the ability of capitalism to manage and distribute resources and by it being local it'll allow those who benefit from the system be those who put in the work and the money at home. Sadly this form seems against the globalist economy we live in today.

CoffeeDrink January 21st, 2015 9:24 PM

My answer to the question: No. Capitalism is not the issue. It simply is a concept put into practice by the real issue, humans. Every system itself is a perfect ideal, but put into practice they always fall short by the ones who put the idea into practice in the first place. It never is the system, or the idea. People fear the ideas backed by some of the governmental systems but they don't realize they aren't fearful of the system, just the people behind the system.

Cerberus87 January 21st, 2015 11:53 PM

Capitalism will never be able to explain why Bill Gates has a fortune of billions of dollars while African populations starve every day and rely on humanitarian aid. And please, don't tell me it's because of Mr. Gates' "hard work"... {XD}

Sir Codin January 22nd, 2015 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerberus87 (Post 8589520)
Capitalism will never be able to explain why Bill Gates has a fortune of billions of dollars while African populations starve every day and rely on humanitarian aid. And please, don't tell me it's because of Mr. Gates' "hard work"... {XD}

Here's the main website for the global philanthropy foundation that Bill Gates and his wife run.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Foundation-Factsheet

How much money have you donated to Africa?

Cerberus87 January 22nd, 2015 3:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 8589562)
Here's the main website for the global philanthropy foundation that Bill Gates and his wife run.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Foundation-Factsheet

How much money have you donated to Africa?

Donate money means something but it's not as significant as you think. Most celebrities do it. It helps, but the people there would probably be more welcome to actual help like doctors, infrastructure... Besides, it's unfair to tell me to donate as much money as Mr. Gates because I obviously can't, the money I have is a very small fraction of what he has.

Besides, you've sidestepped my question. I asked how the hard work by an African who spends his life in poverty is worth less than what Bill Gates does. People on the weaker end of capitalism work much harder than capitalist moguls, yet they're paid infinitely less.

ShinyUmbreon189 January 25th, 2015 9:34 AM

Greed and government corruption as well plays a major role in why the world is so jacked up. It's not just capitalism. I just wanted to keep it simple, too lazy to go into details right now.

Rogue planet January 26th, 2015 7:07 PM

The short answer; yes, capitalism is the reason.

The long answer. Capitalism is merely the inevitable result because we have a social elite controlling us. Capitalism is the finest tool of our masters. Society as a whole has been indoctrinated into believing that A) what we have is a good thing. B) there are no alternatives.

Politics, economic structure and societal structure is all a human construct. Socialism is not the only alternative. Society's structure can (and will) be changed. The government has been bought by corporations a long time ago and everything is controlled by them. What you see on television, the newspapers, government policies, war, poverty; it is all decided upon by rich businesses. There is no illuminati. if you take a few hours to read about it you will realise that there is no secrecy behind how we're being fucked; they are screwing you in plain sight because they are confident that most people will not bother to research on how they are being fucked.

It's why racism, islamophobia and the war on drugs is so actively encouraged. Every government wants everyone to think that immigrants and poor people are the reason the economy is a shambles. every single country has it's own form of government endorsed racism; because they want the underclass to fight amongst themselves and blame each other whilst the rich fuck every normal person over without being questioned about it.

Sir Codin January 26th, 2015 7:39 PM

You know, it's funny. Every time I see someone on this forum say "Capitalism is what's wrong with this world" I always feel this urge to ask them: "then why the fuck are you buying Pokemon games? Or any video games for that matter?" seeing as how the video game industry is an example of basic capitalism at work and possession of video games is materialistic in nature.

@Gold Warehouse: You just perfectly described "cronyism." Which, I agree, is shit.

Rogue planet January 26th, 2015 9:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 8595555)
You know, it's funny. Every time I see someone on this forum say "Capitalism is what's wrong with this world" I always feel this urge to ask them: "then why the fuck are you buying Pokemon games? Or any video games for that matter?" seeing as how the video game industry is an example of basic capitalism at work and possession of video games is materialistic in nature.

@Gold Warehouse: You just perfectly described "cronyism." Which, I agree, is shit.

The easiest solution to evade society? Escapism. Why are video games so successful? It's because of disenchantment; they are a prime form of escapism. Because there is no sense of community anymore, we play video games or come to forums like this because it's so hard to find solidarity in "real life" settings.

All of this is a side effect of capitalism. Business men are not stupid. They have studied psychology extensively and they know exactly what to do to make us feel isolated; and that the the cure to that isolation is to buy shit such as video games. or to wear the right clothes so we fit in, or to watch sports and support a team so we can feel the sense of community that we all need.

Sir Codin January 26th, 2015 9:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gold warehouse (Post 8595659)
The easiest solution to evade society? Escapism. Why are video games so successful? It's because of disenchantment; they are a prime form of escapism. Because there is no sense of community anymore, we play video games or come to forums like this because it's so hard to find solidarity in "real life" settings.

All of this is a side effect of capitalism. Business men are not stupid. They have studied psychology extensively and they know exactly what to do to make us feel isolated; and that the the cure to that isolation is to buy shit such as video games. or to wear the right clothes so we fit in, or to watch sports and support a team so we can feel the sense of community that we all need.

You make it sound like running any kind of business or pursuing any sort of wealth whatsoever is a mortal sin. It's not and if you think it is, I really don't know how to help you.

"No sense of community anymore?" What does that even mean? Communities are formed based on common interest. Do you like books? Find people who also like books and hang out with them. Agriculture? Farming communities. Like a certain kind of music? Hang out with others who like that form of music.

It's basic human nature to find people of similar interests because you feel you click best with them. It's been around long before capitalism ever gained a foothold in the world.

Capitalism is merely private ownership and mutual free trade agreements between two parties. I feel that if we really lived in a capitalistic society, racism, homophobia, all that wouldn't be much of a problem because any decent businessmen who wants to be successful would know the honest truth that money is money, no matter who it comes from.

twocows January 27th, 2015 4:51 AM

No economic system devised by man is perfect and no implementation of any economic system devised by man is perfect.

Capitalism in its ideal form isn't perfect, but it is a good idea and it can feasibly work. Our major problem is that our implementation doesn't match the ideal, not even in spirit. The core principle of capitalism is, as I understand it, vertical mobility. Those who work hard should be able to advance and those who slack off should be able to fail.

Now ask yourself, is that the kind of system we have running right now?

Rogue planet January 27th, 2015 3:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 8595680)
You make it sound like running any kind of business or pursuing any sort of wealth whatsoever is a mortal sin. It's not and if you think it is, I really don't know how to help you.

"No sense of community anymore?" What does that even mean? Communities are formed based on common interest. Do you like books? Find people who also like books and hang out with them. Agriculture? Farming communities. Like a certain kind of music? Hang out with others who like that form of music.

It's basic human nature to find people of similar interests because you feel you click best with them. It's been around long before capitalism ever gained a foothold in the world.

Capitalism is merely private ownership and mutual free trade agreements between two parties. I feel that if we really lived in a capitalistic society, racism, homophobia, all that wouldn't be much of a problem because any decent businessmen who wants to be successful would know the honest truth that money is money, no matter who it comes from.

Isn't greed a sin?

The priorities of our capitalist society is money > people. Profit > employees. Big business > small business. Defenders always try and say that the current state is "not how it should be", but this is how it's turned out. Capitalism is inherently flawed and the result is right in front of us.

No sense of community anymore. It's not a complicated sentence and I don't know how to make it clearer for you, sorry. I'm not talking about making mates. I'm talking about feeling compassion for your fellow man and the fact that working class solidarity has slowly been whittled away.

Kanzler January 27th, 2015 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gold warehouse (Post 8596552)
No sense of community anymore. It's not a complicated sentence and I don't know how to make it clearer for you, sorry. I'm not talking about making mates. I'm talking about feeling compassion for your fellow man and the fact that working class solidarity has slowly been whittled away.

I think you should explain yourself because not everybody sees it the same way you do. For one, I'm not sure if there has been a decrease in compassion for the fellow man. Since what time have those negative trends you're talking about happened? In any case, those are highly abstract and bold claims, especially the one about no sense of community (which I feel Carcharodin rightly objected to because of many "nontraditional" conceptions of community). Maybe some examples would be helpful?

Sir Codin January 28th, 2015 12:09 AM

Also, noting the whole "greed is a sin" BS.

I'm Atheist. I don't buy into religious concepts such as "sin."

Rogue planet January 28th, 2015 7:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 8597080)
I think you should explain yourself because not everybody sees it the same way you do. For one, I'm not sure if there has been a decrease in compassion for the fellow man. Since what time have those negative trends you're talking about happened? In any case, those are highly abstract and bold claims, especially the one about no sense of community (which I feel Carcharodin rightly objected to because of many "nontraditional" conceptions of community). Maybe some examples would be helpful?

Abstract? Hardly.

I'm talking about the past few decades. Our 80s yuppie friends did a real good job.

Homelessness has been on a constant rise. It's a criminal offence in the UK to be homeless, and we're seeing a massive increase in numbers in recent years. the USA is becoming increasingly hostile towards the homeless. Do I even need to mention homeless vetaran statistics?

I'm talking about many western capitalist societies having severe wealth inequality despite (generally speaking) being the richest countries on the planet. In the UK it's no better than the USA

I'm talking about an increase in drug use, a classic form of escapism. Although I guess someone's gonna come back and say "its just coz they like it" can't argue with that one, but i dont agree.

I'm talking about trade union membership constantly decreasing What was once an empowering organisation for lower class workers is now just a bureaucracy. We have our yuppie friends to thank for that too. The US doesn't fare much better.

All of these things are a result of our lovely capitalist economy. Governments care more about increasing wealth than the wellbeing of their citizens. We're developing an "every man for himself" attitude because it's difficult enough to keep your family's head above the water, let alone concern yourself with anybody else.

This is probably more relevant to the UK, but the sharp decline in manual labour jobs since the 80s definitely had a big impact on breaking apart communities. Entire towns were left barren as docks and factories were closed, destroying the economy and breaking apart communities. Finding new work which will more often than not be in the nearest city rather than anywhere local. London, our crowning glory, drains all the wealth and all the jobs to it's lovely center. Many London workers commute from towns and villages, even outside of it's radius. I used to commute 60 miles to London. The result? I barely know a single person in my local area; and I'm not an exception, I'm one of many.

Looks like some great community values we've got there guys. Were the 1970s actually good? Hell no. But if you think it's getting better or that capitalism is improving itself then you're not paying attention.

Do I suggest we return to feudalism? No, but the serfs were probably pretty tight with one another. I think we need localism, decentralization of power, maybe tweak around a bit more on distributism. But that's just uh my opinion man, obviously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 8597187)
Also, noting the whole "greed is a sin" BS.

I'm Atheist. I don't buy into religious concepts such as "sin."

Mate i'm not religious, chill, i just figured i'd role with it when you started using the word sin.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:03 PM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.