Reforming Capitalism

[Taosaur]

What steps need to be taken? Are current problems built into the system, or is it a matter of mismanagement? I would say a lot of the current issues with fraud, irresponsibility and environmental degradation are not 'necessary evils' of capitalism, but stem from a lack of ethical leadership in government and business: a failure to make values like craftsmanship, conservation, and good citizenship a priority, while championing profit, growth and status display above all else. Essentially, we've let capitalism overshadow democracy. The ultimate expression of capitalism, unchecked by democratic values and public oversight, is caste feudalism. Much as we like to talk about free markets, a market left to its own devices does not remain free: wealth attracts wealth and seeks more, exerting the least necessary effort while taking every possible measure to fix exchange in its favor. If the only rule is survival of the fittest, then might makes right. It's only through government oversight or periodic revolution that such an outcome is avoided. Our mistake since the Nixon era has been to take up capitalism as our value system and democracy as a means to promote it. The situation needs to be reversed. That's my $1.05, who wants to take up for unfettered capitalism? Outright socialism? Other?

[ninja9578]

The world needs both. Necessary functions should be handled by the government. This means the fire department, the schools, the police force, and the health care, but with private alternatives if people want. Competition with the government programs will prevent prices from getting out of control like they have with health care in the US, but will also provide free function for those of us who don't want to pay for it. The government run police and fire department, and health care are fine for me. I'll probably send my kids to a private school. The thing that this country needs is choice. Pure capitalism causes a runaway gap between rich and poor which will eventually destabilize and crash the economy (thanks Bush,) but pure socialism will cause people to be lazy and expect everything handed out for nothing. The best functioning economy is a delicate balance of both. The richest economy is pure capitalism, but it's disproportionally centred around the top 1%, the poorest economy is pure socialism, but everyone is equal. The best is an economy where the brightest and most ambitious get ahead, but not so far ahead that they destabilize the economy.

[Alric]

Well one of the biggest problem is the government giving money to people. If a business fails, its because its no longer profitable or was ran poorly. All the bailouts and stuff the government is always giving are horrible. They always go to help businesses that can't stand up on their own. It promotes bad business. Why not take high risks, if the government will bail you out if you fail?

[ninja9578]

Businesses should not get money, people should. If a business fails, fuck it, but if it has to lay people off when it goes down, that isn't the fault of the people. The government should provide a little bit of unemployment for a few weeks while they find another job. But it should only give money for a set period of time, depending on the state of the economy.

[Universal Mind]

Capitalism is not the problem. Crime is the problem. The government should tag criminals and punish them. That involves oversight and enforcement, which were lacking during the Bush years. Socialism is not the answer. Socialism is one huge crime itself, committed by the government. Virtually pure capitalism with the involvement of law enforcement is the answer.

[Descensus]

Capitalism is not the problem. Crime is the problem. The government should tag criminals and punish them. That involves oversight and enforcement, which were lacking during the Bush years. Socialism is not the answer. Socialism is one huge crime itself, committed by the government. Virtually pure capitalism with the involvement of law enforcement is the answer. This thread scared the shit out of me until this post.

[Invader]

I agree with the balance approach. I think the current state of health care helped me to reach that decision, particularly because it has reached the point where profit is valued over human life. I can't imagine not being able to pay for, say, fire coverage, and then all of a sudden have an inferno eating my home away just so that after the privatized fire department comes along and puts it out, they bill me for some $300,000. That, or they let my home burn to the ground and make sure protect the neighbouring homes from damage. In a completely capitalized society, there is no such thing as taxes. The military would be privatized. The police force would be privatized. Whoever controls law enforcement controls the law, period, and that means that the law gets sold to the highest bidder. Any service that runs off taxes is socialized. Theoretically, a capitalist state run by corporations could work, but the country would be just as much subject to the will of the richest corporate-heads as any real dictatorship.

[Taosaur]

Capitalism is not the problem. Crime is the problem. The government should tag criminals and punish them. That involves oversight and enforcement, which were lacking during the Bush years. The vast majority of irresponsible behavior that backed us into the present corner stopped well short of breaking the law. The more pervasive problem is the pedestal upon which we've placed the profit motive. The genuine work ethic that built our industrial society gave way long ago to simple greed. It's accepted as axiomatic that the purpose of business is profit: FALSE. The purpose of farming is to produce food. The purpose of automobile manufacture is machines that travel on roads. The purpose of carpentry is furniture and homes. People will not do this work if it doesn't provide them the means to live, but profit alone is not enough to convince them to do it well. We need to value, promote and respect a job well done ABOVE the number of zeros in one's bank account. We've reached a point where you rarely hear the word "service" without "customer" in front of it. Service is not the willingness to grovel for coin, it's a general attitude of working for one's fellows on equal footing, a recognition that if happiness is the goal, working for others' happiness is a surer way to get there than serving oneself.

[Universal Mind]

The vast majority of irresponsible behavior that backed us into the present corner stopped well short of breaking the law. The other variables were political pressure to lower loan standards and the screwiness of our business laws. The more pervasive problem is the pedestal upon which we've placed the profit motive. The genuine work ethic that built our industrial society gave way long ago to simple greed. It's accepted as axiomatic that the purpose of business is profit: FALSE. The purpose of farming is to produce food. The purpose of automobile manufacture is machines that travel on roads. The purpose of carpentry is furniture and homes. People will not do this work if it doesn't provide them the means to live, but profit alone is not enough to convince them to do it well. We need to value, promote and respect a job well done ABOVE the number of zeros in one's bank account. We've reached a point where you rarely hear the word "service" without "customer" in front of it. Service is not the willingness to grovel for coin, it's a general attitude of working for one's fellows on equal footing, a recognition that if happiness is the goal, working for others' happiness is a surer way to get there than serving oneself. It is human nature, and there is no way around that nature until we can find a way to scientifically restructure the human brain. What percentage of people do you think would still be going to work if they had enough money to not have to work any more? I bet it is less than 3%. Just about all of the people who would keep doing it are the crazed, money/power obsessed nut salads who are addicted to making more and more money and/or more and more power. They are crazy out of their minds, but they make the system happen. Everybody else presses the snooze button twenty times before getting out of bed and going to work and wishing it was Friday afternoon, looking at their watches all day while they long to get out of the office and drink martinis. Work is about making money and/or increasing power. Nothing else can drive it except petrifying fear of the government. That is why all of the communist governments had to scare the shit out of their people to make them work, and even that was extremely weak compared to the wonders of greed.

[Taosaur]

It is human nature, and there is no way around that nature until we can find a way to scientifically restructure the human brain. What percentage of people do you think would still be going to work if they had enough money to not have to work any more? I bet it is less than 3%. Just about all of the people who would keep doing it are the crazed, money/power obsessed nut salads who are addicted to making more and more money and/or more and more power. They are crazy out of their minds, but they make the system happen. Everybody else presses the snooze button twenty times before getting out of bed and going to work and wishing it was Friday afternoon, looking at their watches all day while they long to get out of the office and drink martinis. Work is about making money and/or increasing power. Nothing else can drive it except petrifying fear of the government. That is why all of the communist governments had to scare the shit out of their people to make them work, and even that was extremely weak compared to the wonders of greed. I don't dispute that greed/profit is part of human nature, to be accounted for and capitalized upon. As I said, people won't work without compensation, but profit alone will not move them to do their work well. Love is also human nature. Altruism. Cooperation. Pride. To promote one to the exclusion of all others skews our society, and to suggest greed is more powerful or more 'real' than love skews it toward cynicism and misanthropy until the prophecy is self-fulfilled in a mess like we have on our hands today. It's the refuge of the Republican who declares, "Government does not work!" and proceeds to govern badly. People will gladly fulfill your low expectations if you spread them far and wide enough; the solution is not to keep muttering obscenities about your fellow human beings, but to expect more of them and yourself.

[Universal Mind]

but profit alone will not move them to do their work well. It is the only thing that has any hope of doing it. You can talk to most people about love and commitment to society all day, show constant commercials about it, and have twenty songs in the top twenty about it, and people still want to just stay home and play X Box. Money (and for some people, power) is what gets people to go to work. Nothing else does, except (like I said) threats.

[ninja9578]

Funny you should mention the Xbox. Microsoft has more money than anyone, jeeze, they really put out good stuff huh?

[Universal Mind]

Funny you should mention the Xbox. Microsoft has more money than anyone, jeeze, they really put out good stuff huh? The world seems to like it. What software are you using right now? Whatever it is, Microsoft is definitely whipping all of their communist and socialist country competition, if there is any. Why do you think that is?

[Taosaur]

It is the only thing that has any hope of doing it. You can talk to most people about love and commitment to society all day, show constant commercials about it, and have twenty songs in the top twenty about it, and people still want to just stay home and play X Box. Money (and for some people, power) is what gets people to go to work. Nothing else does, except (like I said) threats. The title of the thread is "Reforming Capitalism," not "Chucking Capitalism and trying something else." The fact that money motivates people does not preclude other motivations, and you're well aware that a great many people would rather gouge out their eyes than stop doing anything productive and devote their lives to X Box. Money is necessary but not sufficient to a functioning society. Everyone has days where the promise of money or the threat of not having it are all that gets them out of bed, but over a longer span, I would say role-fulfillment and being seen as productive are stronger motivators than money, at least for people who have any satisfaction in living. My mom doesn't get up in the dark and walk six blocks to light a kiln because of what it earns her; she wouldn't do it if it didn't keep food on the table and beer in the fridge, but she couldn't produce the work she does if that's all she got out of it. You can tell the difference between a worker who's only in it for the paycheck and someone who's invested in what they're doing in five seconds flat, whether it's a lawyer, a sales rep, or a convenience store clerk. The profit motive isn't going away, but all you get out of holding it up like it's some kind of transcendent truth is a nation of shiftless ghouls. As for promoting other values, I'm not talking about a propaganda campaign. Act: serve and honor service. Lead: whether you're in business or government, reach out and cooperate with your community. Expect better from people: in a culture where the expectation is that greed will run rampant over good sense, guess what's going to happen?

[Universal Mind]

The title of the thread is "Reforming Capitalism," not "Chucking Capitalism and trying something else." The fact that money motivates people does not preclude other motivations, and you're well aware that a great many people would rather gouge out their eyes than stop doing anything productive and devote their lives to X Box. Money is necessary but not sufficient to a functioning society. Something productive, yeah. Like, gardening or getting some exercise or going to a Lion's Club meeting, sure. But money is what makes the work force do its thing. You never hear anybody say, "Dammit, it's 5:00 on Friday. We have to stay away from work for a few days starting now. Shit." They are there to generate income. That is what does the trick. Everyone has days where the promise of money or the threat of not having it are all that gets them out of bed, but over a longer span, I would say role-fulfillment and being seen as productive are stronger motivators than money, at least for people who have any satisfaction in living. My mom doesn't get up in the dark and walk six blocks to light a kiln because of what it earns her; she wouldn't do it if it didn't keep food on the table and beer in the fridge, but she couldn't produce the work she does if that's all she got out of it. You can tell the difference between a worker who's only in it for the paycheck and someone who's invested in what they're doing in five seconds flat, whether it's a lawyer, a sales rep, or a convenience store clerk. Any one of those people who puts out extra effort is trying to increase revenue and move up the ladder. Close to zero of them are saying, "I need to work my ass off so I can fill my role in society," unless they have political reasons for saying it. How many volunteer convenience store workers do you think there would be if all of those jobs were non-profit?" Those people just want to earn pay check credit, go home, and pop pills. The profit motive isn't going away, but all you get out of holding it up like it's some kind of transcendent truth is a nation of shiftless ghouls. Welcome to reality. As for promoting other values, I'm not talking about a propaganda campaign. Act: serve and honor service. Lead: whether you're in business or government, reach out and cooperate with your community. Expect better from people: in a culture where the expectation is that greed will run rampant over good sense, guess what's going to happen? In a culture where you expect people to work just because it is the moral thing to do, your culture is pathetic. Why is the United States the richest nation of all time? Why does the Soviet Union no longer exist? The answer to both questions: Success is fueled by greed.

[ninja9578]

The world seems to like it. What software are you using right now? Whatever it is, Microsoft is definitely whipping all of their communist and socialist country competition, if there is any. Why do you think that is? Because people are by in large, stupid, which is what's wrong with capitalism. Most people buy clothes at Walmart, it doesn't make them better than Ralph Lauren. I wouldn't be caught dead in a Walmart shirt. Most people think Windows or Xbox are fine. I'm a software engineer, they aren't. Windows is a complete disaster from a software perspective, and because of that Microsoft has started the same downward spiral that IBM suffered in the 90s. Bill Gates (who happened to be one of Obama's biggest supporter) got out at the best time. Companies that grow monsterously huge start putting out shitty products because people will still buy them. That's not good for society. It's supposed to be quality, not quantity, capitalism by itself turns that around. That's why people will shell out $300 dollars for Vista when OSX costs $129 and Linux is free. Technical people know the benefits of both, most companies now use Mac and every server and cell phone in the world is running Linux because they are technically superior. It's not because people want Windows programs or Windows games, both will run under both Linux and OSX with Wine and Dawine respectively. Many companies in the US are guilty of this from Walmart to Microsoft to the automotive industries. Why do Rednecks think that driving an American made truck makes them cool? It makes them stupid, they don't last as long, they're not as fuel efficient, and they cost more than foreign cars. And when people do start wising up that other places sell superiour products, the companies bitch to the government and the idiot Republicans give them money with no strings attached and the idiot Democrats give them money with string attached. If a company fails, fuck them, give the employees it lays off some unemployment pay and let the companies crumble.

[grasshoppa]

The World needs to download and install a laissez-faire capitalist system. Anarchy is pure capitalism.

[Taosaur]

In a culture where you expect people to work just because it is the moral thing to do, your culture is pathetic. How can I say it differently? NO ONE IS ARGUING THIS POSITION. Should I make the text bigger? Red? You haven't even built a strawman, you're just tilting at windmills. Welcome to reality. Here's where we differ: we have fundamentally different notions of what's going on here, both at the foundations of reality and out here on the surface. Your reality sounds to me a lot like 28 Days Later; I'll take a pass on it, thank you. While you can't touch my foundations nor I yours, we're collaborating on the meso scale of society and politics, and that doesn't smell like chocolate that you're getting in my peanut butter. Your conviction that greed is god and all else is vanity is precisely the pathogen I'm calling out as responsible for the present collapse. Declaring that the bankers, short-sellers and unqualified home-buyers are 'bad people' for acting on that conviction gets us nowhere. Removing these people doesn't solve the problem any more than killing terrorists eliminates terrorism; it's just mowing down weeds and leaving the roots. Your point of view is not reality. It's an idea: a construction, a meme-complex. You share it with the cynics and misanthropes on the Left who decry humanity for being incapable of the Socialist utopias you argue against. Where you and I differ, and where I think the country was divided last fall, is not politics Right vs. Left, but cynical fatalism vs. hopeful pragmatism. The pragmatic assessment of your construct, "greed moves the world," is not just whether it's true, but whether it's useful. What future do you expect, based on your belief? Regardless of whether you think it's inevitable, is it desirable? If it's not desirable, then whether or not it's inevitable, does it make sense to pursue it?

[Universal Mind]

How can I say it differently? NO ONE IS ARGUING THIS POSITION. Should I make the text bigger? Red? You haven't even built a strawman, you're just tilting at windmills. Okay, go have sex and then meditate for an hour. Then come back here and attempt to comprehend this conversation. Are you ready? What I argued against is a pure system inolving only an element that you keep arguing for. I am putting a magnifying glass on your element to show you how worthless it is. Greed makes the system happen. Nothing else does other than fear of the government. You have not suggested a third alternative, in terms of elements, except for your idea about people working because it is the kind and good team work thing to do. I am telling you that practically nobody is willing to work hard based on that. So the only third alternative element you are talking about is a total crock of shit. Get it? Here's where we differ: we have fundamentally different notions of what's going on here, both at the foundations of reality and out here on the surface. Your reality sounds to me a lot like 28 Days Later; I'll take a pass on it, thank you. While you can't touch my foundations nor I yours, we're collaborating on the meso scale of society and politics, and that doesn't smell like chocolate that you're getting in my peanut butter. It is not just my reality. It is the one you are in right this second. We are all in it. Would you like to deal with it accordingly or for me and you to put on Batman and Spiderman suits and run around the mall pretending we live on Fantasy Island? Your conviction that greed is god and all else is vanity is precisely the pathogen I'm calling out as responsible for the present collapse. Declaring that the bankers, short-sellers and unqualified home-buyers are 'bad people' for acting on that conviction gets us nowhere. Removing these people doesn't solve the problem any more than killing terrorists eliminates terrorism; it's just mowing down weeds and leaving the roots. God? No, it is just there, and it is the principle of nature that makes people work. Is oxygen God? No, but we better keep breathing it if we want to live. What would be a realistic substitute for the greed you think you can magically make go away somehow? You are being greedy by trying to win this debate. There is no escape from it. It is in our blood. Every last person on Earth has it. Even the hippies who go live in the woods to act like they are above greed are ironically being greedy by getting in a position that makes them feel superior. If you tell them they are not superior for it, they get pissed because they greedily want their illusion of superiority. Greed floods our veins and makes us tic. There is no way out of it. Let's allow it to create jobs and result in success, which benefits the entire economy. Your point of view is not reality. It's an idea: a construction, a meme-complex. You share it with the cynics and misanthropes on the Left who decry humanity for being incapable of the Socialist utopias you argue against. Where you and I differ, and where I think the country was divided last fall, is not politics Right vs. Left, but cynical fatalism vs. hopeful pragmatism. Hope away, but you are living in a dream world. Your hope is not going to save our economy. Major tax reductions would, but our insane country elected a mother fucking socialist at the worst possible time. Great. Yeah, Republicans suck too. They say the stuff I am saying but walk around with their heads up their asses instead of actually doing things. The pragmatic assessment of your construct, "greed moves the world," is not just whether it's true, but whether it's useful. What future do you expect, based on your belief? Regardless of whether you think it's inevitable, is it desirable? If it's not desirable, then whether or not it's inevitable, does it make sense to pursue it? I expect real capitalism with a few necessary laws (that are enforced) and minimal taxation. Not desirable? What do you mean? It would turn the economy around in a hurry. That is extremely desirable. Our country is about to go down the drain otherwise. I know people have been saying it for ages, but now it really is true. It is high time to do stuff that actually works instead of just hoping and dreaming about magic. This is no time for pretending. We have a tidal wave coming right at us. That is the truth. People need to take off their fun fun "I'm a liberal. I'm a rebel! :yumdumdoodledum:" costumes and get serious about the nature of humanity and the nature of economics. If you want to be creative and have a cool self image, be an artist.

[Taosaur]

What I argued against is a pure system inolving only an element that you keep arguing for. I am putting a magnifying glass on your element to show you how worthless it is. Greed makes the system happen. Nothing else does other than fear of the government. You have not suggested a third alternative, in terms of elements, except for your idea about people working because it is the kind and good team work thing to do. I am telling you that practically nobody is willing to work hard based on that. So the only third alternative element you are talking about is a total crock of shit. Get it? I'm not talking about "alternatives." I'm not arguing for one "element" or another; I'm arguing against elevating any one human motivation or societal value above all others. You're simply scanning for recognizable keywords and giving canned responses which are non sequiturs to the discussion. It is not just my reality. It is the one you are in right this second. We are all in it. We do share a reality, but your ideas about it are not synonymous with the thing itself. From my perspective, your ideas have walled you into a rather small, dark corner of reality at large, but you're welcome to stay there and insist nothing outside is real if that's what floats your boat. Further debate seems pointless: I think we can each agree that the other person's basic worldview is delusional and dangerous, so let's move on. You've actually posted one sentence on topic: I expect real capitalism with a few necessary laws (that are enforced) and minimal taxation. Are you willing to expand on it? At what point is capitalism "real" enough? I'm guessing you would do away with all benefits: unemployment, social security, disability, and school lunch programs, for instance. What about non-military, non-police services, like schools, clinics, roads, utilities and mental health services? Disaster relief? If communities, counties or states decide democratically to provide such services or benefits, should federal law prevent them from doing so? Should the Constitution be amended to prohibit any federal funding of non-defense, non-enforcement activities? If no one organizes essential services privately, what's the appropriate response? Is it ever appropriate to use general revenues to assist individuals in any way? It is high time to do stuff that actually works instead of just hoping and dreaming about magic. That's what I'm saying.

[Universal Mind]

No, I have not posted just one sentence that is on topic. You are trying to make this out to be so much more complicated than it actually is. You keep saying greed is not the only way and that it is dangerous to think so, and I keep saying the other considerations are bogus, and then you tell me I am making strawman arguments and going off on tangents. No I am not. I am explaining that there are no viable other alternatives. It is like me saying you are limited in thinking we need to breathe oxygen to make our bodies work right and you responding with how the other considerations are worthless. You would not be changing the subject by saying that. What do you suggest as an alternative? You said we should "promote" the Boy Scout mentality, which I argued is worthless. What else do you suggest? Anything? Until you can come up with something, let's not ruine the effectiveness of greed. We do need a few social programs, but a small percentage of what we have. For one thing, I think the public school system should be completely privatized. If the people who ran schools actually came out behind financially for having their heads up their asses, they would pull their heads out of their asses. As it is right now, the consequences are pretty minimal. Greed would work wonders. Don't blame me for that. Blame nature. We should have a voucher system for those who really cannot afford school, though.

[Taosaur]

This thread has been good for me at work, getting me focused on serving my customers, and the incidental result has been more money in my pocket. It's one of the first things you learn in any decent sales program: focus on money and you won't get any; focus on service and you'll get plenty. It is like me saying you are limited in thinking we need to breathe oxygen to make our bodies work right and you responding with how the other considerations are worthless. You would not be changing the subject by saying that. That's a great analogy, but if our objective is a healthy air supply and you point out that oxygen is a vital but minority component, I would be beside the point arguing that we'd die in an all-nitrogen atmosphere. I'd be correct, but neither on topic nor terribly in touch with reality. What do you suggest as an alternative? You said we should "promote" the Boy Scout mentality, which I argued is worthless. What else do you suggest? Anything? Until you can come up with something, let's not ruine the effectiveness of greed. Again, I'm not suggesting any "alternative" to the profit motive, just checks and balances. Our behavior in the marketplace is influenced by many factors other than greed. A few that can check or inflame greed: 1) Examples from leadership. Whether it's the PotUSA or middle management, if the guys above you compromise ethics, cut corners, and take foolish risks, either from sloth or for personal enrichment, you're more likely to do so yourself. Conversely, if your superiors and/or public servants are mission-focused, helpful, and service-minded, you're more likely to act accordingly. 2) Status quo. Most people want to be normal and will act or restrain themselves based partly on "what anybody would do." If the prevailing view says we only respond to the carrot or the stick, then we're more likely to do the minimum and take the maximum. Where we take the humanist approach that our prosperity is built on cooperation and that competition works best when complimented by some sense of the common good, we're more likely to focus on out task and let the wealth come. 3) Self image. Most people don't want to be a schmuck. They'll sacrifice wealth to preserve their self image, and they'll certainly pursue wealth in ways that bolster their self regard. These elements interrelate with each other and with the profit motive to maintain a healthy marketplace. Their inability to serve as the sole or prime mover does not equate to being "worthless." Every reductio ad absurdum you attempt just backs up my point: trying to build our economy and society around any single motivating force is foolish, an artificial distortion of human nature. Our expectations don't just reflect reality, they shape it, particularly the complex social reality of the marketplace. We do need a few social programs, but a small percentage of what we have. It sounds like you're cedeing that "real Capitalism" is a mirage, that a completely market based society is untenable, even if you would prefer a freer market. I'm with you on introducing more competition into the school system, but I wouldn't go so far as to eliminate public schools and/or hand out vouchers; I'd just promote private and charter schools and make funds available to the schools to grant scholarships.

[Universal Mind]

This thread has been good for me at work, getting me focused on serving my customers, and the incidental result has been more money in my pocket. It's one of the first things you learn in any decent sales program: focus on money and you won't get any; focus on service and you'll get plenty. I'm sure you would keep up the good work if they stopped paying you. That's a great analogy, but if our objective is a healthy air supply and you point out that oxygen is a vital but minority component, I would be beside the point arguing that we'd die in an all-nitrogen atmosphere. I'd be correct, but neither on topic nor terribly in touch with reality. That is not a parallel analogy. The parallel one involves you saying that oxygen sucks and that placing importance on it creates self-fulfilling prophecies. No matter what you say about oxygen, we need it to live. It is by far the most important atmospheric gas we inhale. Again, I'm not suggesting any "alternative" to the profit motive, just checks and balances. Our behavior in the marketplace is influenced by many factors other than greed. A few that can check or inflame greed: 1) Examples from leadership. Whether it's the PotUSA or middle management, if the guys above you compromise ethics, cut corners, and take foolish risks, either from sloth or for personal enrichment, you're more likely to do so yourself. Conversely, if your superiors and/or public servants are mission-focused, helpful, and service-minded, you're more likely to act accordingly. 2) Status quo. Most people want to be normal and will act or restrain themselves based partly on "what anybody would do." If the prevailing view says we only respond to the carrot or the stick, then we're more likely to do the minimum and take the maximum. Where we take the humanist approach that our prosperity is built on cooperation and that competition works best when complimented by some sense of the common good, we're more likely to focus on out task and let the wealth come. 3) Self image. Most people don't want to be a schmuck. They'll sacrifice wealth to preserve their self image, and they'll certainly pursue wealth in ways that bolster their self regard. These elements interrelate with each other and with the profit motive to maintain a healthy marketplace. Their inability to serve as the sole or prime mover does not equate to being "worthless." Every reductio ad absurdum you attempt just backs up my point: trying to build our economy and society around any single motivating force is foolish, an artificial distortion of human nature. Our expectations don't just reflect reality, they shape it, particularly the complex social reality of the marketplace. Those are all part of the territory, and they should be. What exactly are you saying with all of that? I have not been talking about mere morals people should have. I have been talking about they type of economic system the government should have for us to use. I don't see how what you just said gets to that issue. It sounds like you're cedeing that "real Capitalism" is a mirage, that a completely market based society is untenable, even if you would prefer a freer market. I believe in real capitalism as well as laws concerning it. I am not an anarchist. We need the government to do a tad bit of poking, but not much at all. I'm with you on introducing more competition into the school system, but I wouldn't go so far as to eliminate public schools and/or hand out vouchers; I'd just promote private and charter schools and make funds available to the schools to grant scholarships. That would only cover a few kids. I think all kids should go to schools that are run by people who care whether their school fails or succeeds. Financial incentive has a way of handling that problem. What other principles could the government use to really make a difference on that?

[Taosaur]

Those are all part of the territory, and they should be. What exactly are you saying with all of that? I have not been talking about mere morals people should have. I have been talking about they type of economic system the government should have for us to use. I don't see how what you just said gets to that issue. That is not a parallel analogy. The parallel one involves you saying that oxygen sucks and that placing importance on it creates self-fulfilling prophecies. No matter what you say about oxygen, we need it to live. It is by far the most important atmospheric gas we inhale. I'm sure you would keep up the good work if they stopped paying you. See, we're having two different discussions here and, per my earlier warning, I'm forced to resort to red 3: NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT REMOVING THE PROFIT MOTIVE. We agree that capitalism is the way to go and the profit motive is a necessary element. My point here is that we have focused too narrowly on greed, elevating it beyond its utilitarian value to the status of a cultural ethos while minimizing other elements of the social contract. What happens when you pump too much oxygen into an environment? Everything burns. More fundamentally than the "type of economic system the government should have for us to use," we need to consider what we're promoting as the status quo and what we're asking of our leaders and ourselves. What we've been putting out there pretty much since Eisenhower is "Fuck thy neighbor if there's money in it." We need to recognize that sustained success--sustained profit--requires that our activity serve the organization, the community and the society as well as ourselves. These interests are not opposed. I'm not advocating new law or policy, but that we remove our head from our collective ass and consider the reality behind the artifice of exchanging green paper. I believe in real capitalism as well as laws concerning it. I am not an anarchist. We need the government to do a tad bit of poking, but not much at all. Now, as for what the government should do, I'm fine with taxes as they are, and in fact would support additional tax brackets for the very-rich, rising gradually for those who make more than, say, 4 million annually and reaching even 50%. It makes perfect sense that those who have leveraged the system for the greatest gain also put the most back in. So long as making more money means having more money, even if generating 2 billion means keeping 1, the motivation remains. However, I also support expanding deductibility of contributions to non-profits. So maybe you're required to put 50% of your millions to public use, but you can shop around; perhaps only half that amount goes to the government. This policy would put competition to work in areas currently confined to government agencies, ensuring that critical work gets done while reducing or removing the government's monopoly on doing it.

[Universal Mind]

See, we're having two different discussions here and, per my earlier warning, I'm forced to resort to red 3: NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT REMOVING THE PROFIT MOTIVE. No one is saying you are. You keep dogging greed, and I keep using nth degree examples to put a magnifying glass on the fact that it has no viable alternative. How many times do we have to go over this? We agree that capitalism is the way to go and the profit motive is a necessary element. My point here is that we have focused too narrowly on greed, elevating it beyond its utilitarian value to the status of a cultural ethos while minimizing other elements of the social contract. What happens when you pump too much oxygen into an environment? Everything burns. What do you suggest? Commercials and workshops? Good luck. While you are at it, promote alternatives for lions so they will stop focussing on eating meat. Now, as for what the government should do, I'm fine with taxes as they are, and in fact would support additional tax brackets for the very-rich, rising gradually for those who make more than, say, 4 million annually and reaching even 50%. It makes perfect sense that those who have leveraged the system for the greatest gain also put the most back in. So long as making more money means having more money, even if generating 2 billion means keeping 1, the motivation remains. However, I also support expanding deductibility of contributions to non-profits. So maybe you're required to put 50% of your millions to public use, but you can shop around; perhaps only half that amount goes to the government. This policy would put competition to work in areas currently confined to government agencies, ensuring that critical work gets done while reducing or removing the government's monopoly on doing it. I consider that thievery. The rich put the most back because they buy the most stuff. That stimulates the economy, and the rich do it more than anybody. Also, punishing their success with a 50% tax rate, which is about what they pay now, does take a certain degree of drive out of what they do, and they spend a lot less, which goes against economic stimulation.