To think that capitalism is a load of old shite?

[malificent7]

Most of us are not in the top 1% . We work for those that are and work damn hard. In turn we spend most of our lives slaving away to line the pockets of fat cats.
Yes, the money we earn can buy us a better standard of living in some ways but in the past a lot of my money has gone on shit i don't really need in order to make myself feel better as advertising told me it would make me more beautiful, successful, glamorous or a better mum.
Also, it is run on fossil fuels which cause so much pollution, war etc.
And the modern workplace is mental...so stressful,competitive and target driven, so focussed on producing more shite for us to consume causing anxiety, depression, heart disease and repetitive strain injury. Even the " caring" professions are about making a profit nowadays. An increasing reliance on AI has added to our workload rather than giving us more leisure.
I'm not saying communism is the answer but capitalism is shite. Just having a rant really as feeling very trapoed by it all.

@Wintersonata I never promoted communism though I accept the problem with that idea is human nature

@Flyonawalk the elements you are saying people benefit from in the uk are NOT capitalist elements they're socially democratic ones

Capitalists don't believe in welfare state, nhs etc

I’d be interested to know where you found that information and what is your measure of “what you put in”.

Me too

The wealthy are already taxed..

The truly wealthy pay very little tax in comparison to what they have. They avoid and evade as much as possible

Inheritance tax is huge

It's really not! Plus as above!

…and the problem with extreme capitalism is that the richest and most powerful take everyone else’s money. And assets, and the possibility of assets, and the possibility of change.

Exactly

Read some Marx and learn about the differences between those who do the producing and those who mostly benefit from it!

I said nothing about extreme capitalism and that would be more akin to communism wouldn’t it?

Do you even know what communism is? Social democracy? Liberal democracy? Fascism is closer to extreme capitalism with some differences

How about we tax investments at a much higher rate than income? I know in the USA, income is taxed must higher than dividends etc. and that's partially to blame
for the widening wealth gap.

I don't think that solves the underlying problems through.

Are people really claiming digitalisation doesn't require natural resources?

It really isn’t - not with an inheritance tax rate at 40% that is going to increasingly include anyone who saved anything from that’s right, taxed income as it will increasingly include bills for family homes passed down. It was originally started to raise money for a war chest - how far we have come huh?

My parents worked for their money through businesses that employed a lot of people and took up a lot of their time and why should they have bothered if any benefit their family can get on the other side (family who put up with endless moves, and times when they were away) is taken by the tax man. In turn, why should I bother working if it won’t benefit my kids. Maybe I should live what they left and end up reliant on the state.

Excessive tax just drives stagnation as no one bothers. People just assume other people will take care of them as it’s ‘their’ responsibility. It’s not ‘their’ responsibility. It’s your responsibility.

Extreme capitalism is when companies and very rich people raise too much money for themselves and don’t leave enough for society. The opposite would be when the state owns the assets leaving nothing for individual man. Communism.

Fascism is the establishment of a dictatorship and an economic model that allows profit as long as it benefits the state

There was a hell of a gap between the worker and the top of the food chain in Soviet Russia too.

We do tax the rich. Quite a lot of it. As it happens, with the amount of other people's money some of you want to spend, we could do with a few more people like Denise Coates.

But let's "TAX THE RICH!!". 98% sounds good. How many of the super rich just upped sticks the last time that was tried? In pre internet days...

Would any of you honestly work harder if that effort went unrewarded? Easy to type but I'd give pretty good odds when push came to shove you wouldn't.

We do live in a society with a mix of capitalism and socialism. Last time I checked we have a public health care system, education for all, welfare. All very capitalist I'm sure.

Yes, the money we earn can buy us a better standard of living in some ways but in the past a lot of my money has gone on shit i don't really need in order to make myself feel better as advertising told me it would make me more beautiful, successful, glamorous or a better mum

I agree that pure capitalism leads to a hugely divided society/massive wealth disparity.

But your sentence above...eh? You have a choice not to buy this stuff you know, lots of people dont bother.

I think we have become so disconnected from what we need and are. I grow a lot of our food and spend most my time outdoors and with my plants and animals, and am happy and content. I don't buy random crap or need holidays or booze etc to anesthetise me to life. It has taken me time and sacrifices to reach this stage and I appreciate the foresight my mental health issues have given me, forcing me to create a relatively stressfree life.

You’re going to think capitalism is shit if it doesn’t work for you

It works just fine for me. So I absolutely don’t think it’s shit.

I don't think capitalism works and yes it is better than other systems, but it still causes a lot of suffering. It is far from perfect.

Not sure what the alternative is going to be though.

@AuxArmesCitoyens

Are people really claiming digitalisation doesn't require natural resources?

Yes there is a lot of this about, and I wonder why? Paper has been an environmentally sustainable product for centuries. It has been possible to distribute it and hold the contents on it in common trust for centuries - the best quality paper lasts perhaps a couple of hundred years (outside), preserving its contents for all that time.

Digitisation is itself greedy on power and trace elements. It requires a lot of very specialist and detailed knowledge to create and use. It has been used to enable the change from a more distributed culture that allows all to build asssets if they work for them into the modern rentier economy of inheriting elites that we know and enjoy today.

Yes @implantreplace. That is why it is not acceptable to an increasing percentage of people. It creates division, resentment, crime: “love cools, friendship falls off, brothers divide. In cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in palaces, treason; and the bond cracked twixt son and father”. This really is part of our common human stock of knowledge, which the short termism of consumerism in a rentier economy is directly working against. This is why civilisations fall. They have done so many many times before.

What we have at the moment is rampant capitalism . The choice is not rampant capitalism Vs communism. Properly regulated capitalism would at least be a start.

Digitisation also gives rise to more easily changed and manipulated information, I meant to add. That can be used for people and against them, hence all the concern about fake news and now even deep fakes. It matters and people need to be much more aware of these basic principles of information management, which have been known for centuries, in a world where everyone is expected to be their own expert and look after their own interests. Rant ends. (For the moment).

I quite like the system we bad when i was younger, where most things were capitalist but some essential things that were the fabric of society were state owned. But a lot of the state owned things have been privatised now or that strange thing of private companies bidding to run public services.

I also think that workers rights have been eroded - in germany for instance the unions are stronger so employees have much better terms and conditions than here - but its still a capitalist society.
Now we have more globalisation and some companies are so large and dominant I dont think the choice bit of capitlism exists

Digitisation also requires massive amounts of energy. Cryptocurrency and data centres are an environmental catastrophe.

Capitalism = unhappiness for some

Try the below

Gross Domestic Happiness (GDH), is a philosophy that guides the government of Bhutan. It includes an index which is used to measure the collective happiness and well-being of a population. Gross National Happiness Index is instituted as the goal of the government of Bhutan in the Constitution of Bhutan, enacted on 18 July 2008.[1]

Cuba also creates the most doctors in the world & sends them out to other countries to do good work.

This is such an interesting thread. Agree with so much being said on here.

The distribution of wealth is too far skewed, the top CEO’s getting an enormous package of salary and shares and bonus’ - way too much for anyone to ‘spend’ in their lifetime let alone a year and plough back into other goods and services which employ people to earn a living who in turn buy ‘stuff’ etc. While workers get a relatively tiny proportion of the pot, hence can barely afford to buy ‘stuff’ (which funds other people jobs etc). I don’t despise the notion of ‘work hard, do well, get paid (more) but it needs to be fair and reasonable. The packages of the Group Exec in all the blue chips are not proportionate to the workers who helped drive that growth/ profit which is bad for all of us. I don’t think increasing PAYE for the ‘higher earners’ is the answer though as these guys are more like top middle and the real top is all hidden wealth. The media likes to stir people up to hate anyone that earns over £50k while carefully glossing over the actual billionaires.
The PAYE people already pay loads from what I can tell.

I am literally gobsmacked at the obvious corruption in the government - but I don’t think labour would be any better. I would imagine proportional representation would possibly give more checks and measures to boot out the corrupt but I might be dreaming, as it seems to be a certain type of person that goes into politics.

I don’t have the answers, but I do think something will change within my kids lifetime (if not mine) as I cannot see how it can continue.

@bumblingbovine49

What we have at the moment is rampant capitalism . The choice is not rampant capitalism Vs communism. Properly regulated capitalism would at least be a start.

The one thing we absolutely DON’T have right now is rampant capitalism. We have state sanctioned socialism dressed up free market. In true free markets, failure is a consequence of being crap at what you do. Results matter and true merit counts.

In western societies at the moment, a man made virus can cause government to lock us down for no good reason and spend billions of our money on shady procurement deals. Unviable businesses are allowed to keep operating because government uses our money to subsidize their workers’ pay. We have an inefficient, dysfunctional healthcare system which is a bottomless money pit for which another tax rise is coming next month. We are leaving gas under our feet untouched and importing gas from thousands of miles away and paying 5 times more for that privilege. Adam Smith would be turning in his grave, if he knew what was being done in the name of capitalism.

Any nation state that moved from an alternate system to freer markets and capitalist means of private ownership only made its people richer and more prosperous. Somehow doesn’t seem to work the the other way. Not a single example of that - ever. We need to remember that before allowing our establishment to con us further.

@adagio

This is such an interesting thread. Agree with so much being said on here.

The distribution of wealth is too far skewed, the top CEO’s getting an enormous package of salary and shares and bonus’ - way too much for anyone to ‘spend’ in their lifetime let alone a year and plough back into other goods and services which employ people to earn a living who in turn buy ‘stuff’ etc. While workers get a relatively tiny proportion of the pot, hence can barely afford to buy ‘stuff’ (which funds other people jobs etc). I don’t despise the notion of ‘work hard, do well, get paid (more) but it needs to be fair and reasonable. The packages of the Group Exec in all the blue chips are not proportionate to the workers who helped drive that growth/ profit which is bad for all of us. I don’t think increasing PAYE for the ‘higher earners’ is the answer though as these guys are more like top middle and the real top is all hidden wealth. The media likes to stir people up to hate anyone that earns over £50k while carefully glossing over the actual billionaires.
The PAYE people already pay loads from what I can tell.

I am literally gobsmacked at the obvious corruption in the government - but I don’t think labour would be any better. I would imagine proportional representation would possibly give more checks and measures to boot out the corrupt but I might be dreaming, as it seems to be a certain type of person that goes into politics.

I don’t have the answers, but I do think something will change within my kids lifetime (if not mine) as I cannot see how it can continue.

The answer is quite simple. It’s not the CEO’s fault that they can pay the workers’ so little. They work for the shareholder. It’s the government’s fault for subsidizing low pay. It’s the public’s fault for calling for infinite amount of state support aka welfare for the low paid. Raise minimum wage to £12, cut top up benefits, and don’t tax anyone earning under £25k. And watch what happens.

Two things will happen - businesses will be forced to pay and unviable ones wil go under, because they shouldn’t exist in the first place. Businesses will invest more in automation and skilled workforce to produce/operate/maintain that machinery to increase productivity.

That’s true capitalism and a free market. You don’t subsidize crappy businesses and create mediocrity. And you certainly don’t support inefficient public services with poor outcomes likes our heat are services. Results matter - in our current system, results don’t seem to count.

The government didn't spend billions of 'Our' money, it created the money. Now whether that money will be inflated away who knows, what we do know is the government response to the public health issue saved some lives. So the money created at least had some intrinsic value.
The other debate is, does taxpayer monies in the form of redistributing via the benefits system also have an intrinsic value.
What is the ROI on wealth distribution, or does it in fact enable poverty?

@Hrpuffnstuff1

The government didn't spend billions of 'Our' money, it created the money. Now whether that money will be inflated away who knows, what we do know is the government response to the public health issue saved some lives. So the money created at least had some intrinsic value. The other debate is, does taxpayer monies in the form of redistributing via the benefits system also have an intrinsic value. What is the ROI on wealth distribution, or does it in fact enable poverty?

Sorry I whose name was it created? Lifeform from outer space? When quantitative easing happen or government bonds are issued, it’s backed by the government i.e the taxpayer being able to foot the bill. Even if the infinite money printing goes on, who does it impact? The population of that country as they have to bear the effects of inflation as we are experiencing now. Your comment about re distribution completely misses the point. When we don’t follow free market principles and subsidize low pay, you are deliberately creating a need for re distribution. Because it supports inefficient government machinery as they ‘know better’ and it keep unviable organizations going at our expense. Pay people properly, tax them less and give business an incentive to increase productivity. The latter being a major problem in this country for about 25 years now. If you start out with the regressive aims to will end up with regressive results.

Less of the sarcasm, please.
The definition of government money and what the public believes are two separate concepts. Bank of England’s creation of money is calibrated to be consistent with its inflation target. In effect, the BOE can inflate away this new money.
Comparative to the GDP, or the output of the people, the covid response money is a drop in the ocean.
What we do know is due to throttling of the economy during covid there is inflation in the tangible goods market, raw materials haven't disappeared they just cannot keep up with the unraveling post covid.

It'll be tricky for at least 5 yrs, then it'll settle again.
Demand is high atm, we just cannot get the supply side moving quickly enough.

What does paying people properly mean for the costs of goods and services, if you wish to pay £8 for chicken then we can drop the subsidy and pay the workers more, and voila.
This issue with pay isn't discussed correctly, the average salary worker is given a series of specific tasks with limited information and limited parameters. A person like me who owns the business also oversees all the worker's tasks and has all the information, they are the raison d'etre for the business.
That's why the owners are paid more. No owner, no ideas, and no business.

@Hrpuffnstuff1

Less of the sarcasm, please. The definition of government money and what the public believes are two separate concepts. Bank of England’s creation of money is calibrated to be consistent with its inflation target. In effect, the BOE can inflate away this new money. Comparative to the GDP, or the output of the people, the covid response money is a drop in the ocean. What we do know is due to throttling of the economy during covid there is inflation in the tangible goods market, raw materials haven't disappeared they just cannot keep up with the unraveling post covid.

It'll be tricky for at least 5 yrs, then it'll settle again.
Demand is high atm, we just cannot get the supply side moving quickly enough.

What does paying people properly mean for the costs of goods and services, if you wish to pay £8 for chicken then we can drop the subsidy and pay the workers more, and voila.
This issue with pay isn't discussed correctly, the average salary worker is given a series of specific tasks with limited information and limited parameters. A person like me who owns the business also oversees all the worker's tasks and has all the information, they are the raison d'etre for the business.
That's why the owners are paid more. No owner, no ideas, and no business.

To be honest, I have no idea what you’re arguing for. It’s all very confused. More money printing? Not paying people more? Subsidizing low wages? That quantitative easing doesn’t cause inflation? That printing money has no bearing on public finances, because if perception?