(01-20-2014 07:20 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: (01-20-2014 06:54 PM)JMUDunk Wrote: (01-20-2014 06:42 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: (01-20-2014 06:26 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: (01-20-2014 06:19 PM)Artifice Wrote: It is ridiculous to suggest that there are no ill effects of unfettered capitalism. History is replete with horrific examples of such.
The current tract for this unfettered philosophy in this country is new fuedalism. We are well on the path.
There is nothing wrong with an innovator developing new products tech or services that enrich our lives. There is nothing wrong with that person enjoying financial success. But there is a problem when that success is the end all be all justification for any decision; it is not okay to take advantage of people to achieve it. And when your product (eg financial derivatives, or spec futures contracts trading when you will never take delivery, etc) does no discernible good for society, you are taxing society and providing nothing in return, and your actions are therefore morally reprehensible. Trying to rationalize otherwise is the exact point of ridiculous hubris the author was discussing.
Unfettered capitalism.
Where? 
Spoken like a true wealth disparity disciple that wants redistribution.
So, you take the examples of the extremely wealthy, greedy opportunists to tar capitalism. Par for the course.
I don't know about him, but unfettered capitalism will advance into something else. It's like when Marx said that socialism ultimately leads into communism.
I won't tar capitalism, but I would say that there are some of the very wealthy that don't mind using their power to keep the disparity. And they have that power.
That power to do what? Make more money than you and I? Of course. They have an expertise, obviously, a skillset, advisors, access and whatever else you want to throw in the basket.
BUT, what they don't have is the power to do is dictate what you can make. Not here, not yet anyway. If you do read the article, set the self-serving navel gazing aside about grocerytrip.com or whatever he's pimping, and read how he achieved that which he had always wanted.
Did he have a hand up by somehow going to Columbia on a Willy Loman parents salary? Perhaps. But he was also given a number of breaks and help along the way by the very people he chastises. He wasn't born into wealth, he worked with no prior knowledge or even a college degree to start, and made whatever money he wanted.
That he became disillusioned would seem more of a guilty complex of one individual than some ringing indictment of people making an honest living in an honest trade.
I don't think you get what I'm saying. Making more money isn't a bad thing at all, but tell me that a lot of them aren't in the government's ear in an attempt to capture the market with their intervention. That's what they can use their power to do: create regulations and other things that can completely cut others out of their industry and take all the jobs with them. That's not capitalism, but it is what it can become and what I'm afraid it will become in our lifetimes.
Making an honest living in an honest trade is very subjective here. You wouldn't be able to find anyone on Wall Street who would call themselves honest.
BTW, do you not think that love of money can be unhealthy?
Can be? Well, I guess it can be. Much like love of Ho-ho's, driving fast or Sherlock marathons or anything by Bon Iver can be unhealty.
But that's not to say what replaces it is any better. In fact, history has borne out pretty clearly by far and away, love of money, greed, capitalism is the best way to bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people.
Over time most things are self-correcting. OR, in the absence of that we do have man-made regulations and avenues to address those that may abuse their 'power". Remember the Microsoft lawsuits? So they were punished, but no one would argue (well some would, no doubt...) that Microsoft hasn't been a net good for the nation and world and that Bill Gates doesn't deserve the money and fame and yes, even the power that has come to him.
Now we will all hope those in these positions use their talents and station to continue to do good, altruistic things. But even if they don't, who cares? It's their money.
We've always had the Gates and Buffets, Rockefeller, Carnegies and Vanderbilts. We've also always had poor people. Neither will change much no matter what governmental policy our governing elite decide to guinea pig on us next.
As has been said countless times on here, we need to get people back to work in decent jobs and quit effing around with stupidity like trying to make a minimum wage job a suitable life's choice for a family. Good jobs, and a lot of the bitching and moaning disappears overnight.
We have to be smarter and much more aggressive in getting back to those things that have worked, in the not so distant past, and getting away (quickly) from these dumb things that haven't worked in the present.
They're only designed to be distractions anyway.
