Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here what some important people thought of it.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of the United States democratic system, said "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's [sic] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."Franklin D. Roosevelt, in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress, warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism:
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private pow
[...] Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: "Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them."
Dwight D. Eisenhower criticized the notion of the confluence of corporate power and de facto fascism, but nevertheless brought attention to the "conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry"[8] in his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation, and stressed "the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage."
I think I found a better definition but we are on the same page when I goggled "Corporatism" which I think gives even a more accurate view of the U S.
Quote:
Today, corporatism or neo-corporatism is used in reference to tendencies in politics for legislators and administrations to be influenced or dominated by the interests of business enterprises (limited liability corporations). The influence by other types of corporations, such as those representing organized labor, is relatively minor. In this view, government decisions are seen as being influenced strongly by which sorts of policies will lead to greater profits for favored companies. In this sense of the word, corporatism is also termed corporatocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex.
Corporatism is also used to describe a condition of corporate-dominated globalization. Points enumerated by users of the term in this sense include the prevalence of very large, multinational corporations that freely move operations around the world in response to corporate, rather than public, needs; the push by the corporate world to introduce legislation and treaties which would restrict the abilities of individual nations to restrict corporate activity; and similar measures to allow corporations to sue nations over "restrictive" policies, such as a nation's environmental regulations that would restrict corporate activities.
I found it interesting from the source That Orwell thought corporatism was a natural result of free market capitalism. I think he could be right and it is such a force that democracy can't stop it since the corporations can pretty much decide our elections.
I still think both definitions are just nice created phrases for fascism I think Mussolini would agree :
I was wondering if you have seen the movie Zeitgeist? I think maybe that movie betrayed the resource based economy. For example if you needed a shovel you would go to the store and it would be checked out like a book at a library. After you were done you would return the shovel.
I am not sure how a resource based economy would work for food? I would guess each individual would have a allotted amount. I can see this being pulled off where it could be easily regulated such as the use of a food card. Anyways the movie has some interesting ideas that I think might work on a small scale where the population would be divided up.
Capitalism is merely economic commerce without government interference. All govt does is enforce contracts (agreements people voluntarily made), and prosecute people who practice threats, fraud, coercion etc.
Capitalism lets people's needs drive their productivity (unlike any of the other systems mentioned). That's why it is better suited to the human race than the others.
I am glad that you are ok with destroying the middle class.
The size of the average middle class home has increased by 240% over the last 50 years. The amount of spending the middle class does on leisure has increased six times over in the last 40 years. The number of cars the average family owns has doubled over the last 40 years. The average number of hours worked per week is the lowest it has ever been in the history of this country.
So to summarize, the middle class is working less than ever before, living in better homes than ever before and spending more money having fun than ever before. How exactly is the middle class being destroyed? The exact opposite is happening.
The size of the average middle class home has increased by 240% over the last 50 years. The amount of spending the middle class does on leisure has increased six times over in the last 40 years. The number of cars the average family owns has doubled over the last 40 years. The average number of hours worked per week is the lowest it has ever been in the history of this country.
So to summarize, the middle class is working less than ever before, living in better homes than ever before and spending more money having fun than ever before. How exactly is the middle class being destroyed? The exact opposite is happening.
Can i get a link. Also much of does increases was do to people going into more debt.
A free market economy can't run well in a lawless state, any more than it can under a dictatorship. Capitalism simply means people freely agreeing to exchange goods and services without coercion. I certainly don't want to downplay the suffering of some people under the capitalist system, but if their suffering is brought about by a business owner's negligence, that person at least has some legal recourse.
As far as the figures showing the massive difference in wealth, why is that an issue? I understand it's designed to provoke and outrage ("WHO IN GOD'S NAME NEEDS $500 MILLION !!!!"), but why? If the poorest people on the planet were able to live like the average American, but the richest were able to fly to Mars, would that really be important? The biggest question, I believe, should be "What existing system has the best chance of helping the poor rise out of poverty?"
As I say, I don't want to make light of the actual suffering of desperately poor people, but in the States at least I see even people of moderate incomes living with cell phones, microwaves, cars --- things which can only be considered luxuries.
A free market economy can't run well in a lawless state, any more than it can under a dictatorship. Capitalism simply means people freely agreeing to exchange goods and services without coercion. I certainly don't want to downplay the suffering of some people under the capitalist system, but if their suffering is brought about by a business owner's negligence, that person at least has some legal recourse.
As far as the figures showing the massive difference in wealth, why is that an issue? I understand it's designed to provoke and outrage ("WHO IN GOD'S NAME NEEDS $500 MILLION !!!!"), but why? If the poorest people on the planet were able to live like the average American, but the richest were able to fly to Mars, would that really be important? The biggest question, I believe, should be "What existing system has the best chance of helping the poor rise out of poverty?"
As I say, I don't want to make light of the actual suffering of desperately poor people, but in the States at least I see even people of moderate incomes living with cell phones, microwaves, cars --- things which can only be considered luxuries.
Remove the debt the public and private sector has then thoses luxuries are gone. Credit was made popularity because wages where stagnating.
You guys are going to be made when you find out the bailouts on a global scale will cause the next depression.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
