A viewpoint about Capitalism and "The Game"
Nick Catalano
and countless others... People who played the game, and played it
well... Everyone has the oppertunity to play the game, and those who
cry when they get tripped are the ones that deserve to be left
behind... Of course, some of us get tripped more than others... Yet
you can make the decision to get back up, dust yourself, and play the
game again.....
Capitalism works because the rich sucueed and the poor fail...
Capitalism works because the middle class is really the "upper lower
class." Capitalism works because those who gain the power arn't
stupid...
Capitalism works because it is about as fair as you can get...
Capitalism works because it guarantees your rights....
Capitalism works because everything has value...
Capitalism works because it puts inteligence above all else..
Capitalism works because it makes us want to better ourselves..
Capitalism works because no matter how cruel the business world is,
there is always going to be a compassonate soul who played the game
and is willing to help you get back to the starting line to play
again...
Socialism happens when people are stupid and lazy... too stupid and
lazy to play the game...
Socialism happens when people cry... When people cry because they
can't eat tonight because they accepted a job that pays next to
nothing, because they didn't work their tail off to provide for
themselves and their families...
Socialism happens when a country taxes the rich so the rich cannot
inteligently spend their money...
Socialism happens when minimum wage laws cause unemployment...
Socialism happens when high tarrifs and limits on free trade make the
cost of Milk 25% more in California than in Nevada...
Socialism happens when those who want political power are willing to
give out money to those who vote for them...
Socialism happens when people think that they are entitled to
happyness and yet no matter what they are provided with are still not
happy...
Socialism happens when the youth of today think that it is up to
someone else to fix the problems.. like drugs.. so laws are enacted to
push the problem underground...
The USA happens when you spend more money in a day than what Spain
spends in a year...
The USA happens when you spend more money than the next 25 largest
industrialised countries COMBINED...
The USA happens when you have two parties.. one which is known for
providing economic oppertunities to the rich and calaiming to have
"less social services" and "more tax cuts" when in actuiality the
"upper lower class (middle class)" sees raises in prices on many
goods.. and another party that gives money and power to unions that
engage in abusive collective bargaining aided by the most powerful
state in the world...
The USA happens when you elect a president as a figurehead.. and when
you elect a figurehead to be president...
Bill Gates happens when you mix some luck with someone who is willing
to play the game harder and faster...
Bill Gates happens when you try to innovate..
Microsoft happens when a company finds out what their customers
wants...
Netscape happens when a company can no longer innovate fast enough...
Enron happens when investors don't analyze enough, big executives
don't play by the rules, and employees don't find a job that
diversifys the thing they are relying for their sole existance after
age 65
WorldCom happens when you hide numbers...
WorldCom and KMart happen when US Bankruptsy court gives "vital"
corporations a break.. on your tax dollars..
9.11 happens when you aid a country that doesn't want to recognise
their neighbors..
9.11 happens when you have a government where your top national
security organizations get FUNDING INCREASES when they FAIL big time..
9.11 happens when you have a government where you top security
organizations worry about FUNDING CUTS when they do their job WELL...
Osama Bin Laden happens when you have a socialist economy in an area
with large amounts of unemployment, substandard education, and a
religion that adapts itself much better to someone's political
objectives than even the Bible..
Osama Bin Laden happens when you censor and disguise what really
happened...
The Russian Theatre incident happens when you have a country a lot
like the US invade a country and do horrible.. horrible.. things.....
then cover it up and make yourself look good...
The Russian Theatre incident happens when people feel censored...
Fark happens when a bunch of people start flame wars about shiat that
doesn't matter.. and a lot of stuff that does...
Fark happens when a bunch of people feel they have this world figured
out... not willing to know that they will probably learn something
tomorrow that could topple their entire belief structure..
Nicholas Vincent Catalano (Nick4753, me) happens when a 15 year old
can only understand this world by asking questions..
-peace... posted because I want to see this in 10... 15... 30 years
from now and understand where I came from...
Robert Vienneau
commonality between these quoted views is interesting.
"For my own part, I believe that there is social and pyschological
justification for significant inequalities of incomes and wealth,
but not for such large disparities as exist to-day. There are
valuable human activities which require the motive of money-making
and the environment of private wealth-ownership for their full
fruition. Moreover, dangerous human proclivities can be
canalised into comparatively harmless channels by the existence
of opportunities for money-making and private wealth, which, if
they cannot be satisfied in this way, may find their outlet in
cruelety, the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority,
and other forms of self-aggrandisement. It is better that a man
should tyrannise over his bank balance than over his fellow
citizens; and whilst the former is sometimes denounced as being
but a means to the latter, sometimes at least it is an
alternative. But it is not necessary for the stimulation of these
activities and the satisfaction of these proclivities that the
game should be played for such high stakes as at present. Much
lower stakes will serve the purpose equally well, as soon as the
players are accustomed to them. The task of transmuting human
nature must not be confused with the task of managing it. Though
in the ideal commonwealth men may have been taught or inspired or
bred to take no interest in the stakes, it may still be wise and
prudent statemanship to allow the game to be played, subject to
rules and limitations, so long as the average man, or even a
significant section of the community, is in fact addicted to the
money-making passion."
-- John Maynard Keynes, _The General Theory of Employment,
Interest, and Money_.
"Like the spurious 'economic freedom,' and with more justice,
economic security is often represented as an indispensable condition
of real liberty. In a sense this is both true and important.
Independence of mind or strength of character is rarely found
among those who cannot be confident that they will make their way
by their own effort. Yet the idea of economic security is no less
vague and ambiguous than most other terms in this field; and
because of this the general approval given to the demand for
security may become a danger to liberty. Indeed, when security is
understood in too absolute a sense, the general striving for it,
far from increasing the chances of freedom, becomes the gravest
threat to it.
It will be well to contrast at the outset the two kinds of security:
the limited one, which can be achieved for all, and which is
therefore no privilege but a legimate object of desire; and absolute
security, which in a free society cannot be achieved for all and
which ought not to be given as a privilege - except in a few special
instances such as that of the judges, where complete independence is
of paramount importance. These two kinds of security are, first,
security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given
minimum of sustenance for all; and, second, the security of a given
standard of life, or of the relative position which one person or
group enjoys compared with others; or, as we may put it briefly, the
security of a minimum income and the security of the particular
income a person is thought to deserve. We shall presently see that
this distinction largely coincides with the distinction between
the security which can be provided for all outside of and
supplementary to the market system and the security which can be
provided only for some and only by controlling or abolishing the
market.
There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general
level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security
should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom.
There are difficult questions about the precise standard which
should thus be assured; there is particularly the important question
whether those who thus rely on the community should indefinitely
enjoy all the same liberties as the rest. An incautious handling of
these questions might well cause serious and perhaps even dangerous
political problems; but there can be no doubt that some minimum of
food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the
capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. Indeed, for a
considerable part of the population of England this sort of security
has long been achieved.
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the
individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against
which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make
adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident,
neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to
overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision
of assistance - where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable
risks - the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive
system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of
detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and
those wishing to supercede it by something different will disagree
on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of
social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make
competition more or less ineffective. But there is no
incompatibility in principle between the state's providing greater
security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. To
the same category belongs also the increase of security through the
state's rendering assistance to the victims of such 'acts of God'
as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate
disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard
himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal
action should undoubtably be taken."
-- Friedrich A. Hayek, _The Road to Serfdom_
Empirical data on how the stakes have gotton out of hand lately and
how there is not as much opportunity to play the game in the U.S.
as some might think can be found in a variety of papers. I believe
the following are on-line somewhere:
Rolf Aaberge et. al., "Income Inequality and Income Mobility in
the Scandinavian Countries Compared to the United States", 2002.
Abstract: This paper compares income inequality and income mobility
in the Scandinavian countries and the United States during 1980-90.
The results suggest that inequality is greater in the United States
than in the Scandinavian countries and that this inequality ranking
of countries remains unchanged when the accounting period of income
is extended from one to eleven years. The pattern of mobility turns
out to be remarkably similar, in the sense that the proportionate
reduction in inequality from extending the accounting period of
income is much the same. But we do find evidence of greater
dispersion of first differences of relative earnings and income in
the United States. Relative income changes are associated with
changes in labor market and marital status in all four countries,
but the magnitude of such changes are largest in the United States.
James K. Galbraith, "The Distribution of Income"
Abstract: Inequality has become perhaps the foremost preoccupation
of modern empirical economics. Yet the conventional theoretical
explanations of changing inequality rest on premises long ago
demolished on logical grounds. This paper summarizes a Keynesian
theory of income distribution. The theory integrates macroeconomic
and distributive phenomena and so accounts for the empirical
relationship between the changing shape of the distribution and
major macroeconomic events.
Peter Gottschalk and Sheldon Danziger, "Family Income Mobility--
How Much Is There and Has It Changed?", 1997.
Alan B. Krueger, "Inequality, Too Much of a Good Thing", 2002.
Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, "Income Inequality in the United
States, 1913-1998".
Abstract: This paper presents new homogeneous series on top
shares of income and wages from 1913 to 1998 in the United States
using individual tax returns data. Top income and wages shares
display a U-shaped pattern over the century. Our series suggest
that the large shocks that capital owners experienced during the
Great Depression and World War II have had a permanent effect on
top capital incomes. We argue that steep progressive income and
estate taxation may have prevented large fortunes from fully
recovering from these shocks. Top wage shares were flat before
World War II, dropped precipitously during the war, and did not
start to recover before the late 1960s but are now higher than
before World War II. As a result, the working rich have replaced
the rentiers at the top of the income distribution.
Timothy Smeeding, Lee Rainwater, and Gary Burtless, "United States
Poverty in a Cross-National Context", 2001.
Timothy M. Smeeding and Lee Rainwater, "Comparing Living Standards
across Nations: Real Incomes at the Top, the Bottom, and the Middle",
2002.
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
ActualGeek
vpol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2002 01:40:27 -0800, ni...@nozone.net (Nick Catalano) wrote:
>
> >Capitalism works because it is about as fair as you can get...
> >Capitalism works because it guarantees your rights....
>
> Snort.
Man, that wasn't even a complete sentence!
Michael L. Coburn
Lots of religious sentiment which I have discarded.
I at first was responding point by point, but the actual contradictions
and utter inantities inherent in his post were just too much. Capitalism
is not a religion. Nor is socialism. These are not even political
systems but are, in fact, economic systems. When we consider the field
of political economy we have room for both of these economic systems
when attempting to achieve the common good. The problem with Nick
Catalano's post is that he has already adopted capitalism as the
_definition_ of "common good". And therefore, everthing else is "bad".
I would suggest that Mr. Catalano first decide what "good" is and then,
perhaps he can tell us whether or not he is trying to maximize some
form of "common good" or whatever else he thinks he is trying to maximize.
Economics must have some goal.
"Which way do I go", asked Alice? And the Cat asked her "Where
do you want to be"? Alice thought for as long as most American
taxpayers and said "I don't know". With precision and accuracy
the cat then advised her "Then it does not matter which way you
go".
--
Mike Coburn
"It's the tax system, stupid. No, it's the ludicrous
banking system. Well, actually, its both. With proper
consideration we find these injustices are made
possible by the lack of representation of The People
in their government". -- http://GreaterVoice.org
Lance Ringquist
neptune3
>
>Capitalism works because the rich sucueed and the poor fail...
>Capitalism works because the middle class is really the "upper lower
>class." Capitalism works because those who gain the power arn't
>stupid...
Capitalism and Communism are both evil. The problem with
capitalism is that it is materialistic and puts no special value on
people. Capitalism is based on supply and demand. A capitalist company
that made potato chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y
amount of salt, and Z number of human beings for labor. The human
beings have no more value than the potatoes or the salt. And they
consider it good to pay they humans as little as they possibly can to
increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
We have many laws that make things better for people. There are
laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty hours. There
are laws that ensure people will have retirement. Capitalism is for
doing away with the laws so businesses can be free to be as greedy as
possible.
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.
We need to reject both Capitalism and Communism. They are both
materialistic and they are both evil.
http://stormfront.org http://www.kukluxklan.org
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
Mason Clark
This post totally mistakes "Capitalism" for "Republicanism."
Capitalism, always modified by regulation--as it always is and must
be--is not the evil. The anarchism of Republicanism as currently
practiced is the evil. Replace "Capital..." with "Republic..." in
neptune3's post and it will read correctly.
Mason C
Nick Catalano
it so, is that you can post things that will really come back and byte
you in the ass. I posted this message 2 years ago, I'm 17 Now, and most
of the points I still agree with. As I have grown and matured, I have
found that a more social democratic view makes sense, especially with
the republicans taking this country to a point where no competition is
available.
Someday this is going to hurt my chances if I decide to run for
congress.
BK Big Fish
are you left with?
Oh, sorry, there's no answer. That's like saying, I reject both men
and women. What are you left with? It's either one or the other;
either people run the economy, or the government does. Or maybe
you're thinking theocracy? God runs the economy?
Also, while capitalism surely ignores the value of people, as a silly
thought exercise, consider that democracy does not. In fact, the only
value in democracy is people -- votes. Hence, a democratic,
capitalist country might be able to strike just the right balance
between money and people.
Topaz
on December 10, 1940:
"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.
They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.
The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.
I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.
To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...
One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.
It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.
They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'
They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.
To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.
For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....
Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.
On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.
If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.
I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.
The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
ro...@telus.net
>Here's a quick joke: If you reject both Capitalism and Communism, what
>are you left with?
Everything else: socialism, feudalism, fascism, and of course freedom
and justice.
>Oh, sorry, there's no answer. That's like saying, I reject both men
>and women.
Stupidity.
>What are you left with? It's either one or the other;
>either people run the economy,
They always do. But _which_ people?
>or the government does.
You talking about fascism?
>Also, while capitalism surely ignores the value of people, as a silly
>thought exercise, consider that democracy does not. In fact, the only
>value in democracy is people -- votes. Hence, a democratic,
>capitalist country might be able to strike just the right balance
>between money and people.
You can't value people by sacrificing their rights on the altar of
property rights.
-- Roy L
rjbjr
> Here's a quick joke: If you reject both Capitalism and Communism, what
> are you left with?
>
Why not create something else? Why not create something better than
Capitalism? I'd like to get your opinion on the following:
One of the problems with our Capitalist system is that it doesn't give
the employee of a business the opportunity and benefits owners have in
our Capitalist system.
Can I use an example of a company making widgets?
Suppose you are a very bright person and hire on with the widget
company. Your job is to operate a machine that makes a model A
widget. After a week or two on the job you get and idea. Your idea
is to make a modification to the machine so that it is capable of
making twice as many widgets as before.
In the current Capitalist system, you get nothing for your idea -
(well maybe the boss might give you a free trip to the Bahamas). In
our Capitalist system the boss owns the property (ie. your machine).
Any profits gained from improvements made to that machine belong to
the boss. So the boss gets richer, not from his own creativity, but
from the creativity of the worker. If the improvement is patentable,
the boss reaps the benefits from licensing to others if he wants.
You, as the worker, get a trip to the Bahamas and then it's over - no
more profits for you.
Isn't this how Bill Gates got so rich?
Please consider an alternative to this system. Call it
post-Capitalism.
Don't you think it would be a more morally correct system for the
worker to get more benefit from his ideas and creativity? What if,
from his idea, the worker were issued property rights to his idea.
Suppose demand for widgets increases so that the machine you have made
improvements to needs to run to it's new capacity to meet the demand.
Who should get the profit from the additional sales? Shouldn't the
worker get some share of the profit from those additional sales? I
think he should get the lion's share of those additional profits.
Shouldn't the worker be granted ownership rights for his
contributions? Perhaps he should be granted the freedom to issue
stock on his portion of production. Up to the original designed
capacity of the machine the owner should reap the profits and the
worker should be paid normal wages. However, when the machine runs
above the original capacity the profit should go to the worker. Of
course, the worker would want to pay the labor, material and overhead
for his portion of the production. He'd also want to pay his
stockholders who invested in the changes made to the machine. Thus,
the original owner and the worker financially benefit from the
worker's idea in proportion to the value of their individual
contributions to the improvement in technology and contribution to the
society as a whole.
Works into the Republican idea of making ours and "ownership society"?
(I don't think this is what Bush had in mind, but perhaps it could
evolve into it.)
Under such a post-Capitalist system, the gap between the rich and the
poor would narrow. There would be quantum levels more owners
(entrepreneurs) out there. Workers would have the opportunity to
become capitalists too.
As the Capitalist system currently works millions of creative ideas
are lost. There is currently little or no incentive for workers
improve productivity for their bosses. I've worked in factories and
know most workers who withhold their very creative ideas.
Think about it a bit. I'd like to read what you think of such a
system.
RJBJR
Z
Whats to stop the employee from keeping his idea for himself, patenting it
himself, and manufacturing the improved widget maker?
Capitalism is a great system - we just have to get the western world to
actually USE capitalism instead of this bastardized
capitalist/monarchy/plutocracy that has been installed.
rjbu...@comcast.net (rjbjr) wrote in
news:98f44843.04120...@posting.google.com:
rjbjr
Z wrote:
> I can see your point but you're missing a big chunk of capitalism
here.
>
> Whats to stop the employee from keeping his idea for himself,
patenting it
> himself, and manufacturing the improved widget maker?
>
> Capitalism is a great system - we just have to get the western world
to
> actually USE capitalism instead of this bastardized
> capitalist/monarchy/plutocracy that has been installed.
>
>
You are correct. If the employee's idea is big enough, he should
patent it and market it himself. However, many important ideas are not
of that nature, they are more incremental improvements - not sufficient
to start up a new business.
These ideas are being lost in our current system. Companies ask their
employees for improvement ideas out of altruism, not because they might
actually profit from their ideas.
This system is inherently unfair and unproductive. People just don't
do things out of the kindness of their hearts and love for the
employer. Also, a worker can make more by slowing down or causing his
machine to break down in order to get time and a half or double time
working overtime to make up for loss of production.
The end result of the existing system is loss of productivity and
eventual outsourcing to the lowest cost worker. The gap between rich
and poor grows larger.
If the employee is given property rights to his idea to improve
productivity on his machine, you will have created a new way to own
property - the very essence of Capitalism. And, from my experience in
manufacturing, the number of incremental ideas available from factory
floor workers would result in quantum leaps in productiviy - making our
factories more than competitive with low wage countries.
Thanks for your comments.