Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

On Scholasticism in Christianity::

Cultural Dictionary
scholasticism definition
The philosophy and theology, marked by careful argumentation, that flourished among Christian thinkers in Europe during the Middle Ages.

Note : Central to scholastic thought is the idea that reason and faith are compatible. Scholastic thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas tried to show that ancient philosophy, especially that of Aristotle, supported and illuminated Christian faith.

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

Thank you for the definition.

You said:

That is why there was so much opposition to the Scholastic Movement in the history of Christianity. People wanted to feel their religion, not analyze it to death

.

The “Scholastic Movement” or “Scholastic Period” began in the fifth century and lasted until the beginning of the modern era, about 1450.

In those days there was no Monday Night Football, no Television or internet forums. Scholars sat around and thought deep thoughts while farmers and peasants worked in the fields.

Most of the “thinking scholars” of those days wrote down their “analysis” and we have that information today. If the farmers and peasants had a desire to “feel” their religion, that desire is lost to antiquity. They didn’t record their thoughts.

No method in philosophy has been more unjustly condemned than that of the Scholastics. No philosophy has been more grossly misrepresented. And this is true not only of the details, but also of the most essential elements of Scholasticism.

Two charges, especially, are made against the Scholars:

First, that they confounded philosophy with theology; and
Second, that they made reason subservient to authority.

As a matter of fact, the very essence of Scholasticism is, first, its clear delimitation of the respective domains of philosophy and theology, and, second, its advocacy of the use of reason.

I’m a big fan of Reason.

newadvent.org/cathen/13548a.htm (Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

[CrossofChrist]

The “Scholastic Movement” or “Scholastic Period” began in the ** fifth **century and lasted until the beginning of the modern era, about 1450.

Maybe more like the 11th century.

 

[CrossofChrist]

It’s pure esthetics.

That’s generally not true for more devout Catholics.

That is why there was so much opposition to the Scholastic Movement in the history of Christianity. People wanted to feel their religion, not analyze it to death.

Not true. The only reason Scholasticism has ever had a negative rep within Christianity (well, at least Catholicism) is because of misrepresentations.

Even your post implies a misunderstanding of Scholasticism. Scholasticism isn’t about logic chopping, and Scholastic theology isn’t just an intellectual exercise (analyzing). The inspiration behind all theology, including Scholasticism, is prayer and Jesus. Case in point being St. Bonaventure. Even Thomas Aquinas got his inspiration from the Eucharist.

Philosophy is a little different, but it’s purpose generally isn’t to analyze religion or to better understand religion.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I would argue it is part of their economic policy because it drives wages down and employees have no bargaining power. Meaning, they work all the hours God sends for next to nothing. I will be applying for jobs this year and I expect to earn a maximum of 10 000 (sterling) a year which to me is little more than slave labour, but that’s how it is. How would a free market cure that? Not sarcastic - genuine question.

A Free Market is based on freedom. Slavery cannot exist. People are free to choose for whom they will work for and what salary they will accept. A business is forced to pay a fair wage to attract the best workers. Otherwise they go elsewhere and that is more devastating to a business than a strike.

This freedom of employment is destroyed when government steps in and establishes wage and/or price controls. That is the start of slave labour. A business only has to pay what the law allows.

In your situation you are willing to accept a low paying job, not only because that’s all that is available, but also because it is temporary. You are enjoying the freedom to improve your worth to an employer (Law School). These are your “free choices”. In some societies, the government makes those choices for you.

He makes an argument against laws on discrimination in the book I read - can’t remember the name but I used it in an essay so I probably have the quote somewhere in the depths of my computer - if employing someone who is black puts people off coming into your store because they don’t want to be served by a black man then you are entitled not to employ them.

It also affect staff moral and it becomes harder to find good employees because people will leave.

OK, now I remember…

Freidman is…sort of…right. Sure the employer has the luxury to NOT hire some one for any reasonable reason. In this case, lost of business is a good reason.

However That “luxury” does not exist in every case.

Coming from a Military background, I am reminded of the insanity of racial prejudices.
Firstly, one does not get to pick and choose his crew. You get what they send you.
Secondly, The three handsome white all-American boys you get…are sometimes not as smart or capable as the black kid and the two Hispanics (who have trouble with English)
A leader learns very fast…that if you want an efficient hard working, DEPENDABLE crew…the “Archie Bunker” bigotry does not work.

 

[minkymurph]

A Free Market is based on freedom. Slavery cannot exist. People are free to choose for whom they will work for and what salary they will accept.

Slavery I agree and ideally people should be free to choose for whom they will work and what salary they will accept, but Utopian. It doesn’t happen in reality. In reality that freedom is restricted. There are many people working for someone they don’t want to and for a lower salary than they would like. Of course they don’t have to, but what if the alternative is not to have a job at all?

A business is forced to pay a fair wage to attract the best workers. Otherwise they go elsewhere and that is more devastating to a business than a strike.

Not if unemployment is high they have nowhere else to go. To me, what you are talking about only works if there are plenty of jobs.

This freedom of employment is destroyed when government steps in and establishes wage and/or price controls. That is the start of slave labour. A business only has to pay what the law allows.

But surely the minimum wage was established because most businesses would pay less than the recommended minimum if they thought they could get away with it?

In your situation you are willing to accept a low paying job, not only because that’s all that is available, but also because it is temporary. You are enjoying the freedom to improve your worth to an employer (Law School). These are your “free choices”. In some societies, the government makes those choices for you.

I don’t get paid for working at all. It’s a volunteer job. It’s true I don’t have to work there but if I had the option, which I don’t, I would choose to be paid.

 

[minkymurph]

Freidman is…sort of…right. Sure the employer has the luxury to NOT hire some one for any reasonable reason. In this case, lost of business is a good reason.

However That “luxury” does not exist in every case.

Coming from a Military background, I am reminded of the insanity of racial prejudices.
Firstly, one does not get to pick and choose his crew. You get what they send you.
Secondly, The three handsome white all-American boys you get…are sometimes not as smart or capable as the black kid and the two Hispanics (who have trouble with English)
A leader learns very fast…that if you want an efficient hard working, DEPENDABLE crew…the “Archie Bunker” bigotry does not work.

I’ll tell you why I agree with government restrictions. I can take your point up to a point. A good business doesn’t need the government to intervene because its a good business. The problem is many are not. Many are unscrupulous, greedy and self-interested. We all learn our economics/politics from the society we live in. If a certain system works well for us we will support it. If it does not we won’t irrespective of what that system is. So we all have a certain bias towards what benefits us as individuals to the greatest extent, but we cannot conclude what benefits us as an individual or society in general is good for everyone.

Is it fair to say a capitalist system needs competent and efficient businessmen? In my country the government had no choice but to step in because of incompetence and greed. When New Labour was elected they gave control of interest rates over to the Bank of England. After the experience of control of interest rates by the Thatcher government I thought this was a great idea as interest rates would not be intrinsically linked to government policies, or more significantly, elections. It didn’t work out that way. The banks lent people money they knew they could not pay back. They charged horrendous interest rates on unauthorized borrowing - some people being charged three times more than they actually owed. On one occasion I was charged 90 pounds for being 12 pounds overdrawn. It got to the stage where people were permanently in debt - which creates poverty. In the end the government had to take back control and use taxpayers money to bale the banks out and stop them from going under.

The Office of Fair Trading had to step in and cap bank charges. Now the Office of Fair Trading stated the banks are entitled to charge for unauthorized borrowing, but it had to be fair. Parliament also had to enact The Unfair Contract Terms Act because not only do most people not understand what the agreement, the contracts are designed not to read. I’m a final year Law student and I have difficulty with some of them, particularly the on-line ones in font size 0.000005. :hypno: The Office of Fair Trading took some businesses to court because their contracts were not only unfair, they were declared unlawful. I can tell you more about these cases but I don’t have the space here. Having said that the object of the UCTA was not commercial contracts as an equality of bargaining power exists in these contracts, specialist knowledge and equal access to legal advice. The rationale behind the UCTA was to target contracts were there is unequal bargaining power.

When peace broke out in the North were I live, the housing market went mad and people were paying phenomenal prices for houses. Guess what happened? Economists warned if it carried on the way it was going it would collapse. They were laughed at, but they were right. Many are now stuck in negative equity.

Don’t faint when I say this but there is also national economic interest to consider. By that I mean individuals are less interested in the national economy than governments so long as they are doing well.

Capitalism also invites materialism. Now I am as guilty as the next person in that I have a house full of stuff I don’t really need and I’m not sure why I wanted it in the first place. But capitalism tells us we have to have it. I hate the way children get targeted, particularly at Christmas, and everything you buy is rubbish so you have to buy more and dump more.

My last point is capitalism makes little room for fraternity which is why my position is it is less humanitarian than socialism. Fraternity is something that is important to me and I could put up with a small percentage of lazy layabouts, because society will always have its lazy layabouts as they are so good at making a career out of it, rather than sacrifice that. I grew up in Belfast during the ‘Troubles’ and fraternity was everything. Not that I want to see a return to violence but I miss that - a lot. A German friend of mine who asked me about growing up in Belfast during the ‘Troubles’ said he was amazed among all the mayhem there was all this normality. The reason is we had a great fraternity. Very insular, but great friends, neighbours and community. That’s all gone now and has been replaced with ‘things,’ ‘stuff’ and shopping, yet the economy has got so bad they are even painting people and windows on derelict shops in and attempt to cheer the place up. No local shops anymore - they all got squeezed out by the giants and the life of the community suffered.

So - this is my critique of capitalism.

On a positive note - we haven’t lost our sense of humour. :bounce::extrahappy::dancing:

If that goes I will resign from the world and find an island to live on.

 

[Robert_Sock]

If I did not know better, I might say that it looks as though my thread has been hijacked.

LOVE!

 

[minkymurph]

If I did not know better, I might say that it looks as though my thread has been hijacked.

LOVE!

If I did not know better, I might say that it looks as though my thread has been hijacked.

LOVE!

I don’t think anyone intentionally hijacked your thread. There are occasions when someone may think a thread is being hijacked if a couple of posters get a good dialogue or debate going, or if it deviates from the original post. That is not necessarily intentional, it just happens and your original post lends itself to intense debate between people with contrasting opinion who have strong feelings on the matter.

Your original post was Pope Francis may not be a Marxist, but the world will eventually be Socialistic. Capitalism is doomed as a fair and just economic system, and must be abandoned. Socialism is more ready to lend itself to true Humanitarian causes, which the vast number of people will support. Capitalism is inherently anti-humanitarian, and must not be allowed due to the human atrocities that it produce.

Capitalism focuses on the individual and socialism focuses on community. In a capitalist system the community looses out and in a socialist one the individual looses out. One thing that cannot be denied is socialism is more welfare orientated than capitalism so in that sense, it is more humanitarian. No one can argue capitalism is welfare orientated. People can argue against welfare provision but arguments capitalism is more humanitarian will not hold up under scrutiny as capitalism is not and not designed to be orientated towards welfare. It is profit driven.

This where I stand. Capitalism will not be abandoned while people want to make money. It is a more efficient economic system than a centralized one, so we keep reviving it. There are weaknesses in both capitalism and socialism. Neither is ‘it’ because they are of human orientation and humans will eventually make a mess of things no matter what system is in place. I favour a system that lets the pendulum swing as and when necessary. It is a huge mistake to persist with policy if it is obviously not working and detrimental to society because of some idealistic notion of it. Socialism and capitalism put a check on each other if the pendulum is permitted to swing between the two as when necessary to maintain equilibrium. This is one of the reasons why the ‘establishment’ in the UK are happy for the political pendulum to swing between Labour and Conservative as when Labour is in power people do well but the country suffers, and when the Conservatives are in power the country does well but people suffer.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I don’t think anyone intentionally hijacked your thread. There are occasions when someone may think a thread is being hijacked if a couple of posters get a good dialogue or debate going, or if it deviates from the original post. That is not necessarily intentional, it just happens and your original post lends itself to intense debate between people with contrasting opinion who have strong feelings on the matter.

Your original post was Pope Francis may not be a Marxist, but the world will eventually be Socialistic. Capitalism is doomed as a fair and just economic system, and must be abandoned. Socialism is more ready to lend itself to true Humanitarian causes, which the vast number of people will support. Capitalism is inherently anti-humanitarian, and must not be allowed due to the human atrocities that it produce.

Capitalism focuses on the individual and socialism focuses on community. In a capitalist system the community looses out and in a socialist one the individual looses out. One thing that cannot be denied is socialism is more welfare orientated than capitalism so in that sense, it is more humanitarian. No one can argue capitalism is welfare orientated. People can argue against welfare provision but arguments capitalism is more humanitarian will not hold up under scrutiny as capitalism is not and not designed to be orientated towards welfare. It is profit driven.

This where I stand. Capitalism will not be abandoned while people want to make money. It is a more efficient economic system than a centralized one, so we keep reviving it. There are weaknesses in both capitalism and socialism. Neither is ‘it’ because they are of human orientation and humans will eventually make a mess of things no matter what system is in place. I favour a system that lets the pendulum swing as and when necessary. It is a huge mistake to persist with policy if it is obviously not working and detrimental to society because of some idealistic notion of it. Socialism and capitalism put a check on each other if the pendulum is permitted to swing between the two as when necessary to maintain equilibrium. This is one of the reasons why the ‘establishment’ in the UK are happy for the political pendulum to swing between Labour and Conservative as when Labour is in power people do well but the country suffers, and when the Conservatives are in power the country does well but people suffer.

Everything is cool!!!

LOVE!

 

[Boatswain2PA]

If I did not know better, I might say that it looks as though my thread has been hijacked.

LOVE!

That’s okay Robert…you can always start ANOTHER thread about how evil capitalism enslaves everyone in the world but the uber-wealthy on their yachts.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Slavery I agree and ideally people should be free to choose for whom they will work and what salary they will accept, but Utopian. It doesn’t happen in reality. In reality that freedom is restricted. There are many people working for someone they don’t want to and for a lower salary than they would like. Of course they don’t have to, but what if the alternative is not to have a job at all?

But…they ARE WORKING.

There will always be good times and bad. As long as government restricts business to some degree…real Capitalism will not flourish.

Not if unemployment is high they have nowhere else to go. To me, what you are talking about only works if there are plenty of jobs.

Exactly!

During the Industrial Revolution Great Britain was extremely prosperous. There was close to full employment. Free Enterprise had fewer governmental controls.

But surely the minimum wage was established because most businesses would pay less than the recommended minimum if they thought they could get away with it?

True.

But…

It also prevented business from rewarding top employees with a higher salary.
Soon the top employees are asking themselves…why should I strive to be a top employee and work my butt off while the slackers earn as much as I do…???
In no time at all the business begins failing because no one is working and the unemployment lines grow longer.

During WWII the U.S.** government** established wage controls. (War time…necessity(?))
These remained in place after the war ended. At that time there was a surge in demand for products and services…the economy was building. Business had no way of attracting the best employees. There was no incentive to switch jobs. SO…companies began offering “BENEFITS”. Health plans, Insurance, perks. Even “big war-bucks” companies like Kaiser Industries offered employees a nationwide hospital system.

When the government, in its wisdom, ended wage controls…benefit packages remained because they were expected.

Now at a time of recession, business is struggling and the government MANDATES company provided health insurance…and the unemployment lines grow longer.

 

[Robert_Sock]

That’s okay Robert…you can always start ANOTHER thread about how evil capitalism enslaves everyone in the world but the uber-wealthy on their yachts.

Sounds like you’re bothered about something. Do you have a problem with views that go counter to your personal liking? No reason to!

LOVE!

 

[Tzimisce]

Although Socialism, Collectivism, whatever you want to call it has been around forever, it was first codified by Karl Marx.

Marx lived in the early to mid 1800s. His inspiration (whether he wanted to admit it or not) was the French Revolution. But at the same time, Marx lived there was a cultural revival going on. It was when all those fairy tales read to kids were becoming popular. And I believe this too had an impact on Marx.

The other thing going on was the Scientific Revolution.

Marx loved the French Revolution. He wanted it to spread all over Europe.

Karl Marx believed that he could corrupt the vote and have himself elected King. That’s Democratic right? The people voting? Of course, that would be the first and final vote that the people would get. But that’s beside the point.

And Kings are always good people with happy peasants - go read the fairy tales.

Now who stands in the way of this dream? Marx believed it was the middle class. These middle classers are the people who don’t want to live like peasants. They have the audacity to think that they are better than shacks and dirt farms.

So Marx wanted to kill these people. He talks about how evil the “bourgeoisie” as called them are. And he wanted to bring back the Great Terror to insure that the blood of the middle class ran in the streets.

Unfortunately, the middle class is a large group in a lot of places. It’s going to be very hard to round them up and kill them all. So he came up with another idea: get people into positions in the government and the media and the education system and begin pushing for laws and regulations that would get rid of the middle class.

Here are some of his suggestions (and they will all sound familiar):

1. Income tax. The higher the better. The more you make, the more they’ll take.
2. Government running the banks.
3. Open borders. The workers will be free to go from government to government to government where they will vote for Marxists and then move on.
4. End of inheritances. When you die, all your possessions go to the government.
5. Government seizure of all business.
6. Government seizure of all farms.

This is the tip of the iceberg, but you get the idea.

In a Marxist state, most people will live like peasants: you’ll be born, live and die as a part of the village.

The leaders of course, will be the aristocrats living far above the peasants.

Some would argue that Marx has some good ideas - they’re not going to use all of his ideas, just the better ones to help the middle class. Things like Social Security and Unemployment checks.

But that’s like arguing we can use Hitler’s ideas to help the Jews.
Hitler had NO ideas for helping the Jews.
And Marx had NO ideas for helping the middle class.

Now what’s happening in these states that are experimenting with Marx’s Socialism?

They’re withering.

The United States, England, Ireland, France, Spain, Greece, Italy - they’re all experimenting with Socialism and they’re all racking up debt at a scary level. Unemployment is out of control. Immigration - especially from nations where the people openly talk about hating their adopted homes, is out of control. In Venezuela right now there are shortages of milk and toilet paper. Detroit is now a wasteland of an urban setting. California is starting to look medieval with a new aristocracy forming at the top and giant peasant class taking root at the bottom (with nothing in between).

The great irony of the Marxist system is that it is tied to the health of the middle class - the same way parasites flourish in a healthy host. But if left unchecked, they will eventually kill their host.

Which is what is happening and will happen to any Socialist state given time.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’ll tell you why I agree with government restrictions. I can take your point up to a point. A good business doesn’t need the government to intervene because its a good business. The problem is many are not. Many are unscrupulous, greedy and self-interested.

Let’s stop right there and avoid the word “many”

The truth is that there are 'VERY FEW" unscrupulous, greedy and self-interested business out there. Even in our “Not really a Capitalist” society…these business fail very soon.

But…should government intervene??..Absolutely!

Unscrupulous business owners and corporate officers who commit crimes or violate individual rights should be charged and punished. Slapping government controls and restrictions on an entire honest industry because of the actions of a few crooks is …well…ludicrous.

Is it fair to say a capitalist system needs competent and efficient businessmen? In my country the government had no choice but to step in because of incompetence and greed.

In the end the government had to take back control and use taxpayers money to bale the banks out and stop them from going under.

What that amounts to is nothing more than** government** REWARDING incompetence.

I the real word, nothing is too big to fail. If major banks go under…smaller more efficient banks will pick up the business (and employees) in no time.

T The Office of Fair Trading took some businesses to court because their contracts were not only unfair, they were declared unlawful. I can tell you more about these cases but I don’t have the space here. Having said that the object of the UCTA was not commercial contracts as an equality of bargaining power exists in these contracts, specialist knowledge and equal access to legal advice. The rationale behind the UCTA was to target contracts were there is unequal bargaining power.

An excellent example of government doing what it should…go after the bad guys.

As a Law Student, I am sure you agree that a contract is nothing more than a promise to do, or not do something. You really do not need a Unfair Contract Terms Act. That invites government meddling. All you really need is an objective court judge who will rule on a contract dispute by having the lawyers who drew the original contract spend 15 minutes and reduce the contract to one page of English language understandable by a high school graduate. If the lawyers cannot meet the 15 minute deadline, they should be held in contempt of court for wasting the judge’s time.

When peace broke out in the North were I live, the housing market went mad and people were paying phenomenal prices for houses. Guess what happened? Economists warned if it carried on the way it was going it would collapse. They were laughed at, but they were right. Many are now stuck in negative equity.

People should have listened to the economists…the majority of them are Capitalists.

Capitalism also invites materialism. Now I am as guilty as the next person in that I have a house full of stuff I don’t really need and I’m not sure why I wanted it in the first place. But capitalism tells us we have to have it. I hate the way children get targeted, particularly at Christmas, and everything you buy is rubbish so you have to buy more and dump more.

Capitalism does not invite materialism.

Everyone wants the best for themselves and their family. Capitalism provides the means of obtaining MORE and better things that people need or want. You may call that materialism but in this sense it is not a negative.
Would you want the government to decide what you need and how much you can have?
Or perhaps limiting your Christmas shopping to one government approved toy per child…???

My last point is capitalism makes little room for fraternity which is why my position is it is less humanitarian than socialism.

You have mentioned this before and I am confused. I am a Capitalist and I have a pleasant social life (Fraternity?)
Perhaps if you could give me an example of socialism being humanitarian, I could understand.

I see socialism as a doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its collective good.

If I am missing something here please help me out.

So - this is my critique of capitalism.

On a positive note - we haven’t lost our sense of humour. :bounce::extrahappy::dancing:

If that goes I will resign from the world and find an island to live on.

Come on Murph…you live on an Island. One of the most beautiful Irelands in the world.

 

[minkymurph]

But…they ARE WORKING.

There will always be good times and bad. As long as government restricts business to some degree…real Capitalism will not flourish.

Yes, they are working but working, but working for nothing or next to nothing does not pay the bills or facilitate quality of life. It’s not just about having A job. It’s also about job satisfaction, feeling valued, your job benefits you and others, feeling there is a point to working aside from creating profits for a rich industrialist. There is more to life than work and humans are not merely a commodity, a means to make a profit. If you give your life to am employer just to make ends meet where is quality friendships and family time? These things are a basic human needs and lack of them causes social problems.

Also - what do you mean by ‘real’ capitalism? To me, what you have described so far as ‘real’ capitalism is a Utopian ideal and unrealistic. I can’t say I disagree with the ideal but it will never be realized.

Exactly!

During the Industrial Revolution Great Britain was extremely prosperous. There was close to full employment. Free Enterprise had fewer governmental controls.

Yes, but that is no longer the case. Should we follow the same policies irrespective of the fact they will not deliver under different circumstances? Policy should adapt to what is needed in certain circumstances. To me it is foolishness and economic suicide to persist with a failed or failing policy because we don’t want to change our ideals. Ideals are fine but they need to be realistic to be realized. Do you think the government in the UK should not have stepped in the manner they did? What do you think they should have done instead to address the issues I raised?

It’s all very well to say, ‘I’m a socialist or a capitalist,’ but address the issue. The issue in this case being, how does the free market benefit individuals and the nation in a recession? I argue a welfare approach is needed in a recession. I don’t mean hand-outs I mean facilitating autonomy in a way that is needed in the circumstances. You can blame government interference of the problem but blame is not a solution.

Talk you way out of that you capitalist! :nunchuk:

It also prevented business from rewarding top employees with a higher salary.
Soon the top employees are asking themselves…why should I strive to be a top employee and work my butt off while the slackers earn as much as I do…???
In no time at all the business begins failing because no one is working and the unemployment lines grow longer.

I don’t understand this. I will be the first to admit I do not know a lot about the economics in the US. I studied American history as a student but I would guess a lot of people in America would disagree with the takes on it, as I would disagree with certain takes on Irish history. But - I have to say in my experience top employees earn a lot more than slackers. They earn a lot more.

I don’t see why top employees should not be rewarded to a greater extent than the slackers. I have no problem with a business doing that. Like I said, I worked in the public sector and it maddened me there were people working their guts out and not rewarded because it was not ‘their turn,’ and slackers rewarded because it was. Like I said, I have no problem with people earn more when it is justified. What angers me is the sucker upper being rewarded for doing next to nothing. Perhaps that because I was never much good at sucking up.

One of the fairest systems of pay I ever worked under was as a ‘mystery shopper.’ Yes, we students do lots of strange things! Now I would not want to make a career out of it, but it was good for me as a student with young kids as a bit of extra cash, and I liked the autonomy of it and it fitted with study and family. I think we need a lot more of that kind of work. You sign up, go on your assignments board and pick the jobs you want. If you don’t want assignments you simply don’t sign up - your choice. You know the fee, some are good, some not, but you can choose. You know what you are expected to do, you get a brief, you do what you are asked and you get your money. If you don’t do what you are asked, you don’t get paid. I think that’s very fair. They should consider it in the public sector. This is what we want you to do, this is what we will pay you - no quibble, don’t do it and we won’t pay you, you know the score.

The one thing I do like about the American and European influence here in Ireland is it has resulted in a dramatic improvement in customer service. Americans and the larger European countries like France and Germany know what they are at when it comes to customer service. Business prospers, employees are happy and don’t leave. It’s nice to walk into a hotel or cafe and the staff have been there for years and know you. A problem we experienced here is people thought capitalism meant they were the boss, told others what to do, didn’t do any work and made vast amounts of money. You know, we had an opportunity here for an investment from Donald Trump. Now I don’t particularly like Donald Trump’s ethos but he wanted to build a golf course here and they should have been taking his hand off to get it. A man like him does not need the money, and they himmed, haad, gurned, messed about so he said forget it. Big mistake. That investment could have done a lot for our economy.

 

[minkymurph]

Let’s stop right there and avoid the word “many” The truth is that there are 'VERY FEW" unscrupulous, greedy and self-interested business out there. Even in our “Not really a Capitalist” society…these business fail very soon.

I disagree. I stand by the use of the word ‘many.’ It is the few that are just.
If you disagree with ‘many’ give me the evidence.

Another thing - sorry for messing quotes my computer is holding me to ransom and I couldn’t be bothered to fight with it. .:takethat:

Hope you can make sense of the post.

But…should government intervene??..Absolutely!

Unscrupulous business owners and corporate officers who commit crimes or violate individual rights should be charged and punished. Slapping government controls and restrictions on an entire honest industry because of the actions of a few crooks is …well…ludicrous.

On that point I would have to conceed. Yes, leave the good business alone. If they are doing a good job leave them alone and let them get on with it, hit the bad ones. I see no need for interference if it is not needed.

What that amounts to is nothing more than** government** REWARDING incompetence.

I the real word, nothing is too big to fail. If major banks go under…smaller more efficient banks will pick up the business (and employees) in no time.

I’ll give you that one as well. The government did reward incompetence and there was a lot of resentment when they used taxpayers money to bail them out. My argument is they should have give them the leeway in the first place.

An excellent example of government doing what it should…go after the bad guys.

Which means sometimes the government does need to intervene.

As a Law Student, I am sure you agree that a contract is nothing more than a promise to do, or not do something. You really do not need a Unfair Contract Terms Act. That invites government meddling. All you really need is an objective court judge who will rule on a contract dispute by having the lawyers who drew the original contract spend 15 minutes and reduce the contract to one page of English language understandable by a high school graduate. If the lawyers cannot meet the 15 minute deadline, they should be held in contempt of court for wasting the judge’s time.

No, I can’t say I agree with that - not when there is an inequality of bargaining power. Government meddling? Yes, but who else will meddle for the small guy who doesn’t have access to legal advice? By the time it gets to court it is too late, and justice is often only available to those who can afford it. But you have a point. It may be better to address the issue by providing the legal advice in the first place. Litigation costs the public money.

People should have listened to the economists…the majority of them are Capitalists.

Yep - they should and yes, most of them are capitalists but sensible and capitalism is ok.

Capitalism does not invite materialism.

I think that is a bit naive. Depends on the capitalism.

Everyone wants the best for themselves and their family. Capitalism provides the means of obtaining MORE and better things that people need or want. You may call that materialism but in this sense it is not a negative.
Would you want the government to decide what you need and how much you can have?
Or perhaps limiting your Christmas shopping to one government approved toy per child…???

Nope - got me.

You have mentioned this before and I am confused. I am a Capitalist and I have a pleasant social life (Fraternity?)
Perhaps if you could give me an example of socialism being humanitarian, I could understand.

I see socialism as a doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its collective good.

That’s not how I see socialism but I will get back to you as I am going MAD WITH THIS COMPUTER!

Come on Murph…you live on an Island. One of the most beautiful Irelands in the world.

Absolutely - I meant a smaller island on my island. Believe it or not there is one for sale.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Murph…it’s Ash Wednesday and my lovely wife, “Bernadette of Donegal” just returned from Mass and blasted me for being “on the computer”. According to her I was supposed to give it up for Lent. (Actually my new year’s resolution was to minimize internet usage to business…that didn’t last very long.) She is also concerned about me “carrying on” with a Belfast woman…
I explained to her that this was a CATHOLIC forum and everything was on the up & up and you were a Convert. So she will say a Rosary for you and let me be. So bear with me if I keep my statements brief.

Yes, they are working but working, but working for nothing or next to nothing does not pay the bills or facilitate quality of life. It’s not just about having A job. It’s also about job satisfaction, feeling valued, your job benefits you and others, feeling there is a point to working aside from creating profits for a rich industrialist. There is more to life than work and humans are not merely a commodity, a means to make a profit. If you give your life to am employer just to make ends meet where is quality friendships and family time? These things are a basic human needs and lack of them causes social problems.

Yes, job satisfaction, feeling valued, and benefits are important considerations. But I want you to see the other side.

A business is not created to give people jobs. It is not started to make employees feel valued. It is started to make a profit. The “rich industrialists” are few and far between. I know of many small business where, after expenses and payroll, the owner’s share of the profits are less than the employee.

It may sound hard, but an employer cannot be concerned with “basic human needs” or social problems". His concern is PROFIT…so he can pay his employees a fair wage so THEY can settle their basic needs and social problems…on their own.

Also - what do you mean by ‘real’ capitalism? To me, what you have described so far as ‘real’ capitalism is a Utopian ideal and unrealistic. I can’t say I disagree with the ideal but it will never be realized.

Yes, what I am talking about is, in fact, true, pure, Laissez-faire Capitalism… separate from governmental influence as the separation of Church and State. Sure it may be Utopian, but it has existed in history and produced the highest standard of living for all involved. Prosperity diminishes in proportion to government involvement.

Real Capitalism or Free Market does not exist anywhere today. What we have are “Mixed Economies”. For some reason, or other, that brings out the worst rather than the best of the mix.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes, but that is no longer the case. Should we follow the same policies irrespective of the fact they will not deliver under different circumstances? Policy should adapt to what is needed in certain circumstances. To me it is foolishness and economic suicide to persist with a failed or failing policy because we don’t want to change our ideals. Ideals are fine but they need to be realistic to be realized. Do you think the government in the UK should not have stepped in the manner they did? What do you think they should have done instead to address the issues I raised?

The current policies are not working now. You are not happy, I’m not happy. All I can do is point to history and a system that produced prosperity. Those insisting on change don’t seem to consider the past. Socialism never worked…Capitalism did.

It’s all very well to say, ‘I’m a socialist or a capitalist,’ but address the issue. The issue in this case being, how does the free market benefit individuals and the nation in a recession? I argue a welfare approach is needed in a recession. I don’t mean hand-outs I mean facilitating autonomy in a way that is needed in the circumstances. You can blame government interference of the problem but blame is not a solution.

Talk you way out of that you capitalist! :nunchuk:

LOL…Ok

Let’s take the obvious…

Who/what provides welfare (facilitates autonomy (?))?

Government

During a recession (or long term natural disaster) business produce less. people are unemployed, tax revenue is down.

Where does the government get the revenue to provide additional welfare???

Reducing government services would only add to unemployment and increase the welfare burden. So government borrows or begins deficit spending. A train on the way to a wreck.

Solution: Reduce taxes, eliminate all restrictions and regulations that limit or restrain business and allow the Free Market to thrive.

I don’t understand this. I will be the first to admit I do not know a lot about the economics in the US. I studied American history as a student but I would guess a lot of people in America would disagree with the takes on it, as I would disagree with certain takes on Irish history. But - I have to say in my experience top employees earn a lot more than slackers. They earn a lot more.

Yes, top employees (producers) do earn more and are worth it to employers. But when government mandates what a person can earn the good employees/producers lose incentive.

I don’t see why top employees should not be rewarded to a greater extent than the slackers. I have no problem with a business doing that. Like I said, I worked in the public sector and it maddened me there were people working their guts out and not rewarded because it was not ‘their turn,’ and slackers rewarded because it was. Like I said, I have no problem with people earn more when it is justified. What angers me is the sucker upper being rewarded for doing next to nothing. Perhaps that because I was never much good at sucking up.

Same with union wage demands. Sure, union members get a fair wage but, in my case…if I want to pay a really good employee extra (reward) I have to do the same for ALL union employees. I can’t afford that…so the really good employee goes un-rewarded. Of course that helps my bottom line…(greedy Capitalist that I am)… but I don’t think it is fair.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

One of the fairest systems of pay I ever worked under was as a ‘mystery shopper.’ Yes, we students do lots of strange things! Now I would not want to make a career out of it, but it was good for me as a student with young kids as a bit of extra cash, and I liked the autonomy of it and it fitted with study and family. I think we need a lot more of that kind of work. You sign up, go on your assignments board and pick the jobs you want. If you don’t want assignments you simply don’t sign up - your choice. You know the fee, some are good, some not, but you can choose. You know what you are expected to do, you get a brief, you do what you are asked and you get your money. If you don’t do what you are asked, you don’t get paid. I think that’s very fair. They should consider it in the public sector. This is what we want you to do, this is what we will pay you - no quibble, don’t do it and we won’t pay you, you know the score.

The fairest system of pay I ever worked at was straight commission sales. I nearly starved to death for three weeks until I built up my accounts and some $$$ began to trickle in. I was told from the start that the harder you work the more you make…so I worked like a dog. Five years later I bought that company.

The one thing I do like about the American and European influence here in Ireland is it has resulted in a dramatic improvement in customer service. Americans and the larger European countries like France and Germany know what they are at when it comes to customer service. Business prospers, employees are happy and don’t leave. It’s nice to walk into a hotel or cafe and the staff have been there for years and know you. A problem we experienced here is people thought capitalism meant they were the boss, told others what to do, didn’t do any work and made vast amounts of money. You know, we had an opportunity here for an investment from Donald Trump. Now I don’t particularly like Donald Trump’s ethos but he wanted to build a golf course here and they should have been taking his hand off to get it. A man like him does not need the money, and they himmed, haad, gurned, messed about so he said forget it. Big mistake. That investment could have done a lot for our economy.

I agree with you about Trump.

“Capital goes where it is wanted”. – Zoltan Cobalt

Your government really blew that one. Donald would have come in and built a world class course with a fantastic club house, restaurant, hotel, etc…employed hundreds of people.
Knowing Trump, he would have screwed up somewhere, broke a law or created a scandal and your government could have nationalized his holdings. WOW…think about it…could have reduced taxes for all of Ireland.

 

[minkymurph]

Murph…it’s Ash Wednesday and my lovely wife, “Bernadette of Donegal” just returned from Mass and blasted me for being “on the computer”. According to her I was supposed to give it up for Lent. (Actually my new year’s resolution was to minimize internet usage to business…that didn’t last very long.) She is also concerned about me “carrying on” with a Belfast woman…
I explained to her that this was a CATHOLIC forum and everything was on the up & up and you were a Convert. So she will say a Rosary for you and let me be. So bear with me if I keep my statements brief.

Thank you for the debate.