The Failure of Capitalism in the West

Political Philosophy
41

One of the most power methods of control is by offering false choices. If you blind a consumer with choices, convincing him/her that he/she needs those products, be they music/films or cosmetics, you are intentionally making it harder for them to choose an other way. In order to sell, some try to blind people from thinking through in an objective way.

Whilst I agree that it is a sad state of affairs for people to refuse to think, I would argue many are unconsiously and intentionally being duped into not doing so, in the interests of profit. Slaving peoples minds as a means to increasing ones means is a sure abuse of a the capitalist system that coulld otherwise be used to great ends.

42

If they refuse to think, they justly deserve the consequences, even should they be choices being made for them poorly. Do you agree or disagree?

43

If you blind a consumer with choices,

Why are we even having this conversation?

The premise is entirely false as capitalism has never failed.

And if people have rubbish taste in your view, then that’s their hard cheese.

End of story.

And how on earth do you blind a consumer with choices?

And if you think this is wrong, Charles, then suggest a solution and stop the nihilistic carping.

44

If you actually read the beyond the thread, not just the title, you might understand what was meant by it.

The solution lies in companies taking more responsibilty for their products - realizing their long term effects on society, which in the end come back at them when they got a nation of senseless gorping fools trying to decide which logo will keep’em happy rather than actually trying to do something worthwhile with their lives.

Oh, and y_feldbum, has it ever occured to you that by encouraging, even demonstrating how to think it may actually be better of for you in the long term??

What would the products be like in a world where people were self-aware enough to know that gorging yourself on alcohol, fags and colesterol is not conducive to living, where people were self-respecting enough to not waste away their lives in front of a tv screen? - That world isnt here, and the opposite is being encouraged - cos it turns a quick profit.

45

The solution lies in companies taking more responsibilty for their products - realizing their long term effects on society, which in the end come back at them when they got a nation of senseless gorping fools trying to decide which logo will keep’em happy rather than actually trying to do something worthwhile with their lives.

What would the products be like in a world where people were self-aware enough to know that gorging yourself on alcohol, fags and colesterol is not conducive to living, where people were self-respecting enough to not waste away their lives in front of a tv screen?  - That world isnt here, and the opposite is being encouraged - cos it turns a quick profit.

Companies sell us things like Tobacco and Alcohol because people enjoy them and there is a legitimate demand for them.

And so what if they are bad for you? Some people think the enjoyment gained is worth the risk to health.

This whole thread is an exercise in beating the air.

It is not the responsibility of companies to do anything other than make the best products they can and it is up to individuals to decide what is best for them.

The opposite of healthy living is being encouraged? By whom? That’s another choice for the individual.

And Capitalism has still never failed.

46

There are many types of individual, but one thing any rational individual has in common with another is an appreciation of life - as they understand their body is as much part of them as their mind.

There is more than one understanding of Capitalism; as Rand herself explains, the moral understanding of it is quite different to the typical acceptance of it as common sense and practical. Capitalism in her sense is a philosophy, and philosophies are about how you approach life - and that Capitalism has never breathed a breath. Even in the most practical sense Capitalism has never, as many here keep reminding, had a full run - and those who say it is here, and is working have a warped understanding indeed.

I think you need to check your premises; life is at the base of reason. Without life it has no purpose, and without reason life has a misguided understanding of itself, blacksabbath.

47

I think you need to check your premises; life is at the base of reason. Without life it has no purpose, and without reason life has a misguided understanding of itself, blacksabbath.

No I don’t.

As I’ve said before, this thread is based on a false premise.

And even if a few people act immorally or irrationally in your view like buying the wrong music or drinking too much or eating too much fat and sugar then that is their personal failure and not the fault of the system,

48

While I certainly would not be in the cigarette business for moral reasons, I don’t think you ought to focus your angst against such companies in a political context.

Product companies are *not* the cause of the present bankrupt culture. The primary question for you to ask is: who is?

49

Fair point. That many companies make money by encouraging other peoples failings through the selling of dubious products isn’t the worst example of twisted capitalism there is…

…perhaps the fact that such a large percentage of the extremely rich are so as a result of their ‘work’ in corporations that merely sell complex financial products that take advantage of the discrepancies in value systems is a better example. I am talking about the fact that by all accounts a huge percentage of wealth is contingent on certain theoretical figures on wall street, how ‘playing’ the stock market and interest rates are causing a massive, and unjustified shift in wealth. Its causes a sort of lava lamp effect - with the bubble rising and getting small as colder elements sink to the bottom until eventually the strand holding it to the bottom breaks… It cant go on forever, can it? Im not a qualified economist, but with banks collecting the interest they collect, and not investing it back into other enterprises - merely paying off there board members and securing there continued existence…

In fact, theres a good essay in ‘Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal’ by Rand I recommend, which discusses how the Gold Standard is crucial to the preservation of true capitalism.

50

Where is the Capitalism of which you speak?

There is plenty of twisted interventionism out there and you have been describing the anti-capitalist federal reserve which is a nationalization of the money supply and a step towards Socialism.

51

perhaps the fact that such a large percentage of the extremely rich are so as a result of their ‘work’ in corporations that merely sell complex financial products that take advantage of the discrepancies in value systems is a better example. I am talking about the fact that by all accounts a huge percentage of wealth is contingent on certain theoretical figures on wall street, how ‘playing’ the stock market and interest rates are causing a massive, and unjustified shift in wealth.

I think you first had better get your facts straight. Hollywood isn’t a good place to learn about who gets wealthy or how. I am guessing that your statement is based on the (false) assumption that wealth is a static quantity, that can be mooched or looted or distributed or redistributed, but not created. Check your premises!

While arbitrage certain exists, your a priori assumption that it is “unjustified” is incorrect. Tell that to the guy who sells the arbitrager a security. If the arbitrager wasn’t there, the price he would receive would be lower.

While you’re at it, I’d recommend a little reading about Say’s Law. The richest men are the ones who understand best how to *create* value. In the grand scheme of things, the arbitragers are not

52

Most Republicrats and Demoblicans have an even sloppier notion that capitalism is a system of rich people looting poor people.

An outstanding, spot-on observation! :smiley:

53

The solution lies in companies taking more responsibilty for their products - realizing their long term effects on society, which in the end come back at them when they got a nation of senseless gorping fools trying to decide which logo will keep’em happy rather than actually trying to do something worthwhile with their lives.

Yet nowhere is this scenario more possible than in a capitalist system!

For example:

If my company were to market a product that a private testing organiztion, such as Underwriter’s Laboratories, found to be unsafe, I would have the ominous choice of fighting such decision AND my company failing due to competitive pressure, OR I can right such wrong AND put out a safer, higher quality product.

Therefore, given the two scenarios of 1)my competitors putting out better products and/or 2)A third party giving me bad press due to my product being slipshod, my company is either going to take such responsibility for my products or perish in a maelstrom of bad publicity and courtroom litigation.

All of this is very possible in a capitalist system without the need for government regulation.

Charles wrote:

What would the products be like in a world where people were self-aware enough to know that gorging yourself on alcohol, fags and colesterol is not conducive to living, where people were self-respecting enough to not waste away their lives in front of a tv screen?  - That world isnt here, and the opposite is being encouraged - cos it turns a quick profit.

Charles, you are assuming that individuals are devoid of choice, operate by emotion rather than reason, and cannot think beyond their sensory level of enjoyment of life.

Just like the Government does when they regulate products the way they do.

Granted, there exist those who are content to gorge themselves on alcohol, cigarettes, and cholesterol and sit in front of television sets and whine about Oprah and the like.

But please ask yourself- what is the responsibility of the corporation towards such an individual and his chosen lifestyle?

Examples:

If in my watching TV, I get electrocuted (and survive) for watching a TV due to a defect in such TV, the TV manufacturer is at fault.

But now I decide to smoke cigarettes, knowing full well that smoking may be hazardous to my health. I can make the choice NOT to smoke.

I can also choose to make my own sandwiches rather than eat the nutrition-poor, Cholesterol rich food McDonald’s sells. Or I can eat McDonalds in wsuch a manner as nOT to affect my health adversely.

Your argument is weakened by the fact that humans can make choices and take responsibility for their own welfare.

54

To make a choice you must have possibilities. To create false possibilities, or to offer something in the knowledge of its harm, and appeal to the irrational side of mans nature in order to sell it, is exploitation.

55

Charles , do you consider the claim, “I couldn’t help it” - ie, “nobody forced me to do anything, but I couldn’t help acting on whim” -, to be valid?

56

Charles is making generalized swipes at human actions, declaring them wrong or immoral. Yet no one is asking him for specifics (ie how someone ‘slaved’ because they are offered numerous choices in music etc, or how wealth is ‘unjustifiably’ shifted on the stock market, or through arbitrage, etc).

Someone should try to actually pin him down if you want to RATIONALLY continue the discussion with him.

57

Exploitation. When someone accepts terms and conditions that I would not accept.

Cigaratte makers are “exploiting” their customers.

58

On the same principle a magician can trick/trap a subject into making a false choice by framing his question, or controlling his surroundings - i.e. offering false premises (these cards have been shuffled randomly) or hiding true ones (there’s more than two ace of spades in this pack); it is possible for one to control consumer choice by convincing of the necessity for young skin, colored hair, to be uptodate on the latest scandal etc etc.

Now I dont argue that the weak minded arent to blamed for allowing themselves to be duped…but is it rational for a businessman to profit from lowering the awareness and rationality in the populus? Is it not in ones self interest to live in a society of intelligent people?

I hope this gives a more specific picture of what im getting at RadCap.

59

Charles:

On the same principle a magician can trick/trap a subject into making a false choice by framing his question, or controlling his surroundings - i.e. offering false premises (these cards have been shuffled randomly) or hiding true ones (there’s more than two ace of spades in this pack); it is possible for one to control consumer choice by convincing of the necessity for young skin, colored hair, to be uptodate on the latest scandal etc etc.

You are equating fraud and persuasion. Misrepresenting a product’s nature for purposes of making a sale is fraud. There is no such misrepresentation in the marketing of the products you mention. You may see no value in having young skin or colored hair – and you are free not to purchase those products.

But having young skin and colored hair is of great value to millions of people around the world – and it is totally proper to make money by creating and selling that value.

Now I dont argue that the weak minded arent to blamed for allowing themselves to be duped…but is it rational for a businessman to profit from lowering the awareness and rationality in the populus?

Only an individual’s volition can raise or lower their awareness and rationality. Business has no power to do so.

60

I’d have to disagree.