CAPITALISTISM STUPID, OR STUPID AND PSYCHOTIC?

Take that socialism!

And it tries to. As stated above the US government does provide a decent amount of free money and special loans for low income students. (I just finished filling out the forms for these.) But sometimes college might just have to be put aside.

I guess(even though we're still mostly capitalist...)

Free money?!
Well mabye you're right, but I still think our system is more fair and that it ultimately pays off with a better education and thus a higher taxable income.

Edit: Going to bed so don't get all mad if I don't answer you

That's cool. So someone is entitled to dress in expensive cloths and eat expensive food and have 7 cars by virtue of being born into a rich family alone? Yet, those who are born into a poor family that cannot afford to eat, that cannot afford clothing of any standing, they deserve that fate?

By being born, and by pure chance, getting born into a poor family, you deserve to starve so that the rich can eat for you? Can spend your money for you?

You thank Capitalism? What did Capitalism ever do for you? Did it help you when your mother was widowed? Did anyone bat an eye when your family became poor by simple chance of having lost your father? You said it yourself, your mother had to raise 4 children and herself on 1.5k every 2 weeks.

Tell me, what could you have ever done differently to prevent poverty? Nothing. Capitalism let you fall. It never gave a shit about you, or anyone you loved. Meanwhile, while you grew up through terrible poverty, so of the most undeserving, sinister people are lighting cigars on the back of hundred dollar bills.

Why is it that some people must be so miserably poor so that others can be excessively wealthy?

No Shaw, that's the beauty of brodend opportunity won through human gain. Go us.

Blame scarcity. (Though I will admit seven fucking cars is excessive.)

No he's just saying that it is no great sin for a man to be born.

You can get benefits for that.

Again, you can get benefits.

If I did my math correctly that was about $42,000 a year, which is a bit less then the median salary of the US. So poverty is a slightly melodramatic image, though four kids would put a strain on the situation.

Note: I know that I said that I would not discuss Capitalism on this thread but this post forced my hand [or hands, rather, since I have to type].

Capitalism is based on a certain principle of human behavior: the necessity to survive. While some Captialists hold that as a justification of Capitalism, it really isn't. One doesn't have to be greedy, which Capitalism promotes, to survive. In fact, the human species, more than any other in our knowledge, has the capacity to be the most productive as a group.
As a social species, Capitalism, which promotes greed and selfishness, is actually capible of being extremely toxic and destructive to society. Think of all the horrid acts committed for the sake of the accumulation of wealth. Or parhaps the horrid acts done because of it. Capitalism has been shown time and time again to make what are essencially empathetic creatures, apathetic.
Inhereitance, as it has been stated earlier, is in fact a factor in wealth. Having money when in education usually allows for greater education. Additionally, one can aquire an enourmous amount of wealth by inhereitance.
The 1% does have my respect. But only some of them. Others were made wealthy by terrible acts. Take the recent wars in the Middle East. Even though I don't usually put stock in conspiracy theories, the fact that the Bush family had such strong ties to the Military Industrial Complex, or that any family in power has such connections, is worrying, if nothing else.
To begin with, telling people who are poor that it is entirely their fault isn't a very good arguement, especially since you are talking about 99% of the population, particularly in the US. While, yes, individual drive and hard work are vital variables in the equation of wealth, one must recognize the inhereit lack of level playing feild. Notice how people cheered Buffet's name when he started the protests against the lower taxes that rich people like him pay. Those taxes are an example of how the system is not always fair.

Finally, I would like to ask you a question.
Why should the 'dumb' suffer and the 'smart' lord over them?

I'm not saying that Capitalism is essencially evil or bad, but rather that it has flaws in its application just like every other ideology.

It really isn't. It's just another case of cause and effect. Basic human nature crossed paths with circumstance and chance had it that capitalism was the result.
It's the same way with every other system that existed at some point or will exist at some point.

Define greed.

Are you expecting me to drive the same car two days in a week? Where is your sense of human decency? What's next do I have to chew my own food like some peon?

I think that you understood what I meant.
That Capitalism is attractive to people because it does not demand that the individual be held in any way accountable for their actions as far as the success of others is concerned. Not to an illegal reach, of course, but it does allow people to exercise a sort of self-centeredness that other ideologies do not.
So what I meant was not so much that human behavior was the founding cause of it, but more that it is prefered because of its own inhereit nature, which allows people to persue their own survival with less ethical reprecussions or protest from others than other ideologies.

At a basic level?
Taking excess to the point that it causes others unnecessary harm.
Capitalism tells people that being greedy is A OK since it absolves them of guilt by saying 'hey its all good. social darwinism and all that.' Essencially, it can be used as a selfishness-is-good card. That doesn't mesh well with alot of principals that people hold.
Some other systems tell people that they have obligations to how others fair in the long run.

That's the only level that matters.

Good. But has it ever occurred to you that by removing the " causes others unnecessary harm" part of the equation you suddenly change the context from the negative "greed" to the positive "economic security"?

Food for thought.

No one chooses where they're born. All the same, who supports this? Who thinks that by being born into the right family, you deserve more than someone born into another family?

If by benefits you mean pocket change that the government coughs up because they are practically forced too, then yes, your right. It's more like when you bring flowers to a hospitalized person, it really doesn't help.

4 kids and yourself on 42k a year is pretty hard to manage.
Again, while they struggle in poverty the rich have more money than they know what to do with. Some of them just horde hundreds of millions of dollars.

Yes, it did occur to me as I typed it.
But then again, it is kind of ... unnecessary to mention the second part. The way in which the system itself works is, like I stated before, not the flawed part. It is when it is taken to the length of damaging others in excess that the objections are declared.

I decided to be a Communist for many reasons. One of them was the I saw an excess in cases in which people were simply being greedy. I don't necessarily hold grudges against people for simply accumulating wealth.

On a side note: it is not unfamiliar to me to scrutinize my own posts carefully before posting and considering the implications of each individual word as much as the meaning as a whole. Nor is it unfamiliar to me to have... surprises and changes in position simply because of how something is worded. I don't make major changes, but I do sometimes take what I see into consideration.

You see others taking in excess. I see an overall lack of excess.

I don't see that. Please elaborate.
Unless you are refering the the theory that if the resources were shared, that there wouldn't be enough to go all the way around anyways.

We have plenty. Sure we can't conjure up pure matter and energy for our doing, but if not for the concentrated wealth at the top of the economic latter, we'd be fine.

I see it as more of a management issue.

'Management'?
The rich never meant to 'manage' anything for the greater good.

They mean to help themselves. With some rather sparce and obvious exceptions.
But this goes back to what I said before: the Captialist system, directly or indirectly, justifies the greed.

So like what did I miss, what has this debate boiled down to?

I didn't specifically say the rich did I? No, mismanagement extends further than that. Which is why I simply can't support something like communism, good intentions or not.

True, you never specified the rich, but it was... inferable.
In any case, I still misunderstand your argument.