Is Capitalism just a huge pyramid scheme?

I mean, think about it, the more time goes on, there are fewer and fewer people hold most of the money.
Us poor working folk will be left with nothing when it all comes crashing down,

:dem: :dem: :dem: :dem:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Unbridled greed does make it one big Ponzi scheme.

The way it is here, today. In years past it was a little better, with those at the top not getting the astronomical salaries of today; there was less of a great distance between the rich and the poor. Companies offered insurance and long-term contracts. Now, however, things are so bad that it really does benefit only the small percent at the top. It's a shame, because it could be done better. It was.

Not that he was perfect, nafta was a huge mistake, but now the barbarians have busted down the gates and are raping the land and plundering the treasury and I think it won't be too much longer till the levees break...........:nuke:

What we have in this country is corporatism rather than capitalism. And yes, it's a giant Ponzi scheme that's made even worse by the facts that a) the schemers are never punished and b) the government SUPPORTS and encourages them.

and yes, for those of us on the bottom, it seems more and more like a vanishing mirage each day

Yes, yes, yes!

Otherwise it devolves into feudalism. All economic structures are pyramid schemes. Socialism is short and squat, but it's still a pyramid.

Capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum. This is where conservatives fail. Capitalism is a construct based on a government control of money and laws to create the proper amount of competition and protection for businesses. Without government regulation, it becomes feudalism, where the strongest become the law, and strip the weakest until the strong have everything, and the weak nothing. The role of government is to prevent capitalism from becoming feudalism, thus we have laws against monopolies, collusion, unfair business practices, etc.

Of course, right now those laws are not being enforced, and many are being done away with. That's why it looks like a pyramid scheme--the rich are getting richer, the poor are sinking, and no one is regulating it.

The good thing about a democracy is that eventually the poor get so poor that they vote for new leaders who will fight the rich. The trick is tomake that happen before the whole economy collapses. Clinton came just in time to save us from Reaganomics. Hopefully we'll make the change this time, too.

Just my thoughts. Probably not worth a nickel, but I like to type. :-)

We have to get the lobbyists and corporations out of our government, they are just writing their own laws , and They are insane and greedy!!!

very much a part of the problem -- not the solution -- he also worked hard to hand the poor their ass with the ''welfare to work'' reform.

To answer this question, you really have to give some thought to what capitalism is, what would be left if you removed all laws and protections, who would be left running everything, and what structures are currently in place that are actually not capitalism but an opposition to it, that would no longer be there under a purely totalitarian capitalism. I agree with jobycom on this thread, that it would not merely be a pyramid scheme--although it would be that--but it would be a horrific, hopeless, Medieval-level poverty and slavery the like of which you cannot even imagine in the modern democratic world.

First of all, the claim that capitalism has "given" people an unprecedented, high standard of living is just false. It is not capitalism, but the people fighting against capitalism--unions, consumer groups, equal pay and civil rights lawyers, worker safety crusaders, and of course, whistleblowers--who gave a share of the wealth that, after all, the employees created, to the employees. The other part of the claim you always hear nowadays--that any government restriction on corporate profit-making is "socialism"--is so ridiculous and absurd, so extremist, that you never would have heard such a claim before the 1980s. NOBODY used to talk like that, to be so cut off from society, but so in touch with the corporate media. This type tends to think of corporations at the center of things, and people, the government, everything else, just nuisances off to the side.

Capitalism only works at all because it is regulated, and as soon as it is deregulated, they start slitting each other's throats. As a matter of fact, a quick rule of thumb to use when trying to find which industries are deregulated or almost so, is to ask yourself, which industries no longer exist or are dying. From the trucking industry to the airlines, from steel to the garment industry--from raw materials to the clothes-making stage--every time an area has been deregulated, and therefore totally capitalist with no government at all, it is either killed off by other capitalists, or it moves where it can get slave labor. After all, as you mentioned, "Capitalism is a construct" and "doesn't exist in a vaccuum." If you remove laws and restrictions, you do not have some "pristine nature" or some silliness, but a system whereby only those who own property would have any control over anything that ever happened again, (there would be no "rights"). No one would stop anything they do.

If their only interest is making the highest profit for the least production, then what would they do? They do not pay a higher service/entry level wage than is ordered as a minimum by law, so what would it become, and what would you have to do to get it? With no laws against what they could profit by, (and with "morality" considered a quaint old mindset held no doubt by "socialists" who just do not want rich people making money), what would they not produce? This argument would have seemed silly a few years ago, but study what they try to do now, and are stopped at.

Republicans just passed a defense reauthorization with a section that Democrats could not stop, a part that kills your ability to sue manufacturers of drugs or medical devices that injured you, because of negligence or shoddy quality, fraud, etc., no matter what. Is that capitalism? Remember a few years ago, the Great Northeastern Blackout that ripped modern social civization away from tens of millions of people for a couple of weeks, when there was a total failure of the electrical grid for a huge section of the U.S. and Canada--all because of utility deregulation that allowed a corporation to sell off the "unprofitable" maintenance and upkeep part of its business, and so they just didn't keep it up! Recall the "blue milk" scandals of the late 1800s, where capitalists sold tainted milk, and people died from it; stopped only because of Progressive legislation, not capitalism. If there were only capitalism--the profit motive and the "bottom line"--theoretically, these things would never have been solved, as they go against profits. There is no profit to responding to and rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, and there was no profit to reinforcing the levees rather than capitalists getting tax cuts and subsidies....

So much of what you have been taught (by the anti-government, anti-democratic corporate media) to think of as the "benefits" of capitalism, are actually the benefits of a system of laws, checks-and-balances, a court system, and an educated public, regulating those things that exist in their society.

I need the post count...........:hi:

the "pie" should get bigger. When when the corruption sets in, it is as faulty as communism.

regulations and governance. Capitalism is just one tool. USA, today even, is a mixed market economy.

Nobody will ever get rid of mixed market economies cause they would have to get rid of property laws and armies. Or education and help for the needy.

Plus pharmaceutical companies would have no intellectual property laws & monopolies on the products they produce.

....but when I financially look to either side of me, I see millions and millions of people struggling....when I gradually look upwards, I only see a few at the very top in the billie and bush crowd trickling down on me....

....I'm not sure what geometric shape that is but it don't think it's a shallow rectangular solid....

since it is regulated by big capital for big capital, for the most part.

and laissez-faire capitalism is pyramid totalitarism!

Perhaps capitalism at its basic level of merchants and artisans is different. Perhaps the business person who seeks an honest profit for providing goods or services is a different kettle of fish also.

I read a figure once that in the year 1970--90% of the values of invested wealth in America was in real property, goods and services. 10% was speculative. By 1990 that figure had completely reversed.

Remember when (pre 70's) people bought houses to live in? The housing market is now one big rampant pyramid scheme; and that's just one example. The whole economy has gone that way. And just like a pyramid scheme, it cannot last forever.

I've often dared to characterize the housing market as a big pyramid scheme, and people totally freak out at the suggestion -- but, it's true. It meets the classic pyramid scheme charcteristics.

Speculation in residential housing, particularly, is a very bad thing, from a societal perspective. It screws people who wait to get into the system (or eliminates their chances entirely), and outrageously high housing prices create a great deal of family tension and worry.

at least a poor family could afford to rent or possibly even buy a big dumpy old house...now speculation has driven that beyond the means of low income people. People bought house to live in or for a moderate investment. It is make believe not to see how much of the housing market and so much of the rest of the economy is pure speculative pyramid.

my poor immigrant grandparents owned their own homes, working class families with only the father employed owned their own homes, etc.

many areas since the 50's, 60, and early 70's in human rights. It's just so unfortunate that one of the most fundamental matters or life, a roof over our head and the ability to afford it, has actually gotten worse.

I know that lots of people have made fortunes off of real estate speculation; but at the cost of causing so much harm to society as a whole and making life so much harsher for everyone and future generations.

I wonder if any major political force will address this issue before the whole thing collapses.

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
Build a fence around the lake, he feeds you for a lifetime.

That, in a nutshell, is how capitalism works.
It's a highly organized extortion racket, based on forced dependency, allowing a resource-controlling class to live off the labor of those whom they have forcibly dispossessed.

MDN

It is not bad in itself, only if it is combined with government instead of being separate. It should be separate such as separation of church and state. Works great as long as it is separate and the government works for equity and protection for the people while allowing capitalism to operate. Government produces policy such as environmental laws, equal protection laws, living wage issues, anti-trust laws, etc. When large corporations gain control of government is where you run into problems. That is the danger we are encountering.

Unless all workers for a company made a financial investment into the creation of the corporation.

has been replaced by: Greed vs. Need

name any economic system that is better. Capitalism has lifted more people from poverty and created more prosperity than any other by a mile. Look around the world now or historically.

But capitalism, like democracy, has many flaws. Principal among these is that lots of people are cheats and scoundrels. Without strong laws and their enforcement capitalism would be a rigged game indeed. As it is people are always looking, and with considerable success, to tilt the game in their favor. Markets have limited power to resist this. Only government can supply the rulemaking and discipline for capitalism to work for the greatest good for the greatest number, can make it fair.

As a political comment I find independents and conservatives to be extremely suspicious that liberals favor socialism over capitalism and they translate that to mean everybody's increase will be put in a pot and doled out not just to the needy but to the lazy. As a hard-working liberal who believes in ethical capitalism and only enough socialism to supply social justice, such as to the unavoidably poor, the impoverished sick, etc., and forgetting the conservatives, I think we have a long way to go to win the confidence of middle of the roaders that we stand for personal independence, personal responsibility and personal enterprise, some very American foundational ideas.

This thread does not encourage me and it's the kind of thing I hope does not get noticed and disseminated.

OOPS, sorry caps lock, but yeah its on our dollar bill, so its kind of a subliminal message from the treasury department. Hey you could even go as far as finding the connection between alan GREENspan and the dollar bill which happens to be GREEN.

been extended to include the vast majority of ordinary people without a significant socialist influence and movement pushing it to behave morally and responsibly? Are there ANY examples?

In America the New Deal, the Great Society, the civil rights movement and every other great movement all occurred with a strong socialist influence pushing the more establishment movements to adopt at least some of their principles. Social security, workers compensation, the 40 hour week, and the basic humane conditions were never even seriously considered until socialist agitation forced the agenda.

In Europe and Asia wealth was also concentrated in perhaps even few hands and the benefits of capital seldom extended to the masses of working people until the socialist and even communist movements forced the hand of capitalism to such an extent that it had no choice but to behave morally and responsibly.

I agree that capitalism has an unparalleled wealth creations mechanism. The problems is in how far the benefits of the system are democratized to the benefit of society as a whole. Unless a new socialist influence emerges--humanity faces a sad and dark future. The evidence for that is all around.

...done so nicely, but I acknowledge them and agree completely. Capitalism is strong medicine but left alone it is predatory and one form of the law of the jungle. Social justice from the economic system has to be achieved by bending it to society's will.

I emphasized the wealth-building power of capitalism because it is otherwise taking a total beating in this thread. The challenge to cite a better system lies unanswered. One is tempted to quote a parallel from Churchill who of democracy said something like "It is the worst system of government ever devised, excpet for all the others that have been tried."

of alternative purely non-capitalist systems at least so far in modern history. Even Sweden's form of social democracy was created entirely with a thriving private sector and an essentially capitalist (although somewhat modified) economy.

It is hard to say if other examples of clearly non-capitalist/non-authoratarian economies (ie: the cooperatives of the Spanish revolution, Allende's Chile or the pre-coup/pre-invasion cooperatives of Haiti )would have succeeded if they not been destroyed by force. Nor do we know what social/economic evolution holds for the future.

I am convinced though that without at least what some might term "the threat of socialism"--capitalism invariably runs amok and becomes quite amorally inhumane.

Thank you for your answer. I do indeed see your point.

it is always good to see that

recommended

Communism does not eliminate a "privileged class", either.

If that's what they were getting at--it certainly went way over my head

...whether it's "communism" or "capitalism".

in capitalist USA more then a few do.
Not to mention health care.

that no one dies of hunger? We don't trust our government to give us the truth but Cuba, hey they have integrety? They have hardly any freedoms and not near the prosperity that even the poor here enjoy.

Poor people (even like my family) enjoy 2 cars, a TV, enough food, warm houses etc. And top notch healthcare, even if it costs money.

then you are not poor.

Have you not noticed reports in DU GD about doubling of energy bills and quadrupling of health care cost?

The working poor in the US typically can not afford a car and/or enough food and/or a warm house and/or decent health care.


In Cuba very few people are wealthy, but everyone has a home, food, health care and good education.

Cuba is poor, so housing and food for most is minimalistic, though sufficient. Education and in particular health care however is amongst the best in the world. People from all over the world go to Cuba to get medical treatment that is not even available elsewhere.




BBC News
Cuba sells its medical expertise
By Tom Fawthrop
reporting from Havana, Cuba
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3284995.stm

Cuba's struggling economy has been boosted by the successful export of its medical technology abroad, and by health tourism within the country.

Cuba's position in the developing world has always been something of a paradox.

A US delegation explores Havana to look for tourist destinations
Not all tourists to Cuba want sun and sand
Its low material living standards and crisis-ridden economy leads to a low per capita income, but President Fidel Castro's Caribbean blend of socialism has developed a public health system that places Cuba in another league altogether on human development indexes.

<more>

It just needs some checks and balances.

Like good education and health care for all, so everyone can compete and be productive.

And enough taxes collected to provide a safety net for the bottom 15% or so.

The problem is the lobbyists, because they bring in so much money.

But the real problem is the Voters, who nearly always vote for the person who advertises the most.

Just imagine what would happen to Govt. if people voted on how a politician performed, and not how much he or she advertised.

Suddenly, lobbyists would have no power.

that is why it is all going to hell in a handbasket,.............

and we aint seen nuthin yet........

A then all of the insiders get out and into treasury bills, guaranteed by taxpayers.
Bush promised a recession when he came in. He hyped the weakness. That is why he needed a tax cut. There was a shortage of treasuries to be bought when there was a surplus from Clinton's deficit reduction. The tax cut meant new treasuries had to be issued to pay the tax refunds. Bush had to borrow from us to pay our refunds. Those treasuries provided a safe place for insiders to park money when the promised recession arrived. In the fear of a coming recession everyone pulled back on their vulnerabilities, stopped hiring and stopped buying and the recession arrived as promised.