Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > what is next?      Home login  
Joined: 9/12/2011
Msg: 1
what is next?Page 1 of 1    
I know through my study of the capitalist economic system , This system breaks down When workers can not Consumes their products , Because the abundance of production needs foreign markets , so we can say now " there is no capitalist systems in the world "
i mean real capitalist system , Therefore, the workers lost their jobs , And increased rates of unemployment
In other words, these countries lost a mass production, and replaced by service production, and the economy has become dependent on services, where services contribute 70% of national production , and i do know that such kind of production does not create property
Community living culture of consumption , until we still welfare states ,
so we can say :
we do not create money
we have no jobs
we consume more than we produce
We live a luxurious life, or trying to
government printing billions of dollars
so i need one to tell me what is the end , i do not want to wake up morning and find out that all my money in my pocket are no thing
Joined: 11/12/2011
Msg: 2
what is next?
Posted: 7/2/2012 5:16:36 PM
That morning has arrived, you just haven't
woken up yet !
....But good to see you have identified the
problem ! :)
Joined: 2/10/2007
Msg: 3
view profile
what is next?
Posted: 7/2/2012 6:37:24 PM
Any system where there is the trade of services or goods between people is Capitalist in nature. Until we reach a time when there is NO need to trade goods and services, OR the world decides to go with communism, it isn't changing.

Money is an illusion. It's just an agreed medium to exchange goods and services.

Wealth/poverty is irrelevant. Both are subjective and relative terms used to describe a non-equal distribution of resources.

Jobs will always exist until we are in a society that requires NO human input to function (robots that self-manufacture and self-program).

Luxury is meaningless. Luxury is by definition that which we do not need, and NO human being is going to settle for basic food/shelter when they can have luxuries like Entertainment, philosophy, etc.

Governments printing money/devaluing currency is nothing new. This is the nature of Government. As long as human beings can make decisions about a money supply, this will always happen. So the only way this changes is if you remove humans from the equation (computers).

Consumption is the normal state of Human affairs. We do nothing without the expenditure of resources, whether it's food, clothing, shelter, etc. That's not changing either.

Long story short, Capitalism isn't going anywhere (unless Communism makes a comeback). The only debate is how free/regulated that capitalism will/should be.

Any discussion of the demise of Capitalism is unrealistic and silly.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 4
view profile
what is next?
Posted: 7/2/2012 9:27:23 PM
Well I don't know if you are right or not, as I don't have a formal education in economics.

However, I have always thought that the modern "Services Based" American economy, has always been a purposeful effort to delude the nation that it's okay to have all our goods manufactured overseas. The folks who had the ability to choose to do things better and more efficiently, decided instead to get low wage workers the old fashioned way: by either sneaking them across the borders (illegal immigrants), or moving the factories over to where they know they can underpay them with impunity.

It all seems like a shell game to me, with everyone paying someone else to shuffle the money some more. Too much shuffling, and not enough actual production to my way of thinking, but then I'm old-fashioned, and uneducated about such things.
Joined: 9/12/2011
Msg: 5
what is next?
Posted: 7/3/2012 8:57:09 AM
i agree with most of ideas mentioned , but one thing still people believe , that is : we have capetalist system
unforcinitlly we do not have now , capetalist era is very important thing in history

How we say that we are a capitalist system and we have a very big debt we can not pay , and may be need several years for that?

Capitalist system, for those who do not know, this system is based on the center and sides and this model is no longer present in more than seventy years
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 6
view profile
what is next?
Posted: 7/3/2012 11:36:01 AM
I wish I knew who was counting the "debt," and HOW they were counting it, and WHY they were doing it as they do.

Since this mess was made into what it is by a small group of people PRETENDING that some real estate had way more real value than it did, it seems to me that the debt itself is also an illusion. A bunch of ultra-rich private individuals, and corporate "people" (per the Supreme Courts idiocy) played a game with a lot of fake money that never existed, and then when it was pointed out that it was play money, they demanded that it be replaced by the real thing. I think that the bulk of the "debt" should be erased, and the rich thieves and fools who played the game should forfeit both their entire holdings, and their right to "play" from now on.
Joined: 2/10/2007
Msg: 7
view profile
what is next?
Posted: 7/3/2012 12:14:22 PM

Since this mess was made into what it is by a small group of people PRETENDING that some real estate had way more real value than it did, it seems to me that the debt itself is also an illusion. A bunch of ultra-rich private individuals, and corporate "people" (per the Supreme Courts idiocy) played a game with a lot of fake money that never existed, and then when it was pointed out that it was play money, they demanded that it be replaced by the real thing. I think that the bulk of the "debt" should be erased, and the rich thieves and fools who played the game should forfeit both their entire holdings, and their right to "play" from now on.

The current situation in terms of debt is nothing new. It's one of the messy parts of a free market system.

If you're referring specifically to the melt down, in economic terms it's an economic correction. Ok, that's one of those words that people throw out there alot in economics, an easier way to think of an economic correction is when the percieved and actual value of something drastically diverges and then "corrects" back to the mean.

Think of it this way.

You buy a can of coke. It costs $1.

What is the real "value" of that can of coke? To you it's $1. If you have that can of coke in the desert, someone will pay alot more than $1. If you're sitting in your living room and your friend also has a can of coke that he's drinking and he's not thirsty, he may only pay $0.50.

In other words, valuation is relative. The worth of something changes depending on who's looking at it and relative to their particular need/desire.

Ok, so let's take this a bit further...

You're sitting on the porch and it's a warm day, but the weather report comes out and says it's going to be very hot. At this moment, the value of the coke is $1, but you Believe the future value will be higher, as when it's hot you want a cold drink more.

This is Percieved value.

Now, what has actually changed about that can of coke? In actuality, nothing. It hasn't gotten bigger, the materials and labor required to manufacture it hasn't changed, but the actual Input (stuff to make it) and the Percieved value have dramatically shifted away from eachother.

Just like that guy in a car at the last gas station for 300 miles will pay $2.50 for that Coke, the guy in town will only pay $1.00.

So what does a can of Coke have to do with the Financial Crisis? It's this simple. Wall Street sold a bunch of debt based upon the Percieved value of a bunch of houses. The percieved value was far out of whack with the Input/actual value. However, people tend to look only at what something is worth today, not what it "should" be worth, so they let Wall Street sell that Debt believing that the percieved value would hold.

When the economy started to slow, it suddenly became apparent that they wouldn't need so many houses, so the percieved value of those homes collapsed (projected need), which meant the assets backing that debt was worthless.

The percieved value was REAL at the time it was evaluated. Just because the percieved value of something is not in line with the input/actual value of something doesn't mean that someone won't pay for it. Just like looking at your house, You might say, "Wow, the neighbors house went for XXX, I wouldn't pay more than 1/2 of XXX!" In that case, your judgement is useful, but irrelevant in the sense that your neighbor already has a suitcase full of money.

Similary, the Debt was REAL when it was created. Those who bought that debt for a significant part of that time believed that the Percieved value of the underlying assest would hold.

So, the Debt was real, the Real estate Value was real, however perception shifted and suddenly it all came tumbling down.

Now, this is apart from the actual marketing of those instruments and the breakdown of the major lenders. The fundamental problem in that case wasn't the concept (debt backing assets), it was the breakdown in the process of HOW that debt was controlled and sold.

In a nutshell, the problem is that the Fox was guarding the Hen House. Basically, the guys who were selling the stuff, were paid based on Volume. Those same people were Also expected to safeguard the Quality Control. You had an inherent conflict of interest in the way it was done, and it resulted as expected... people getting greedy.

Here's an analogy. You're a car saleman. I pay you for every car you sell. The more you sell, the more you make. You're also in charge of inspecting every car that is sold. You're responsible for making sure you sell no lemons. How long before SOMEONE is tempted to cheat the system and let dodgy cars slip through? Not long. And that's what happened on Wall Street.

Finally, as for bail outs and such, it was a pretty ridiculous situation. The laws as they currently exist don't have laws that allow easy prosecution of many of those people. The regulations for the most part are actually civil based, which means you can *try* to go after them for money, but if they're broke already, you're pretty much out of luck. Laws by design can't be created retroactively. You can't make a law for a crime that's already been committed, only crimes that are committed in the future. So going after the bad people isn't only impractical, it's downright illegal.

As for whether the Gov't should have stepped in or not, it's not so simple. The international economy is incredibly intertwined, and the financial system (banks and insurance companies) are at the heart of it. If you allow a collapse in a disorderly fashion, the results would be catastrophic. On the other hand, if you don't allow it to collapse as well, it could still be catastrophic.

There was no manual for dealing with the situation, and politically it's a no win situation. If they do the bailout, some people will scream for their heads. And if the politicians did nothing, people would have screamed for their heads anyway.

Given the alternative of not acting and facing a guaranteed immediate disaster, they took the chance of acting, without any real way of knowing whether it would advert the disaster at all.

I'm sure there's some that will say "It would have been better to do XXX", however the reality is that it's just theory, and not even theory that everyone agrees on. If the solution was SO obvious to everyone, then they would have done it and nobody would be on different sides.

Economics is a truly imprecise science.
Joined: 6/8/2012
Msg: 8
what is next?
Posted: 7/4/2012 12:19:23 PM
It is a kingdom with too many lords and landowners who feel far too entitled to produce and no one wants to be a serf.

There are plenty of people who would be content being a Serf, as long as the Lords and Landowners pay them a fair wage to play that roll. Some Landowners are also Serfs. All Lords are Landowners. All Lords want other Landowners to be Serfs and they want all Serfs to remain Serfs. Also, most Lords want other Lords to be Landowners and eventually Serfs. Most Lords feel entitled and feel all others are entitled to nothing.
Joined: 9/12/2011
Msg: 9
what is next?
Posted: 7/5/2012 1:12:14 AM
If you step back and look at it, what we truly have is a feudal system.
Joined: 9/12/2011
Msg: 10
what is next?
Posted: 7/5/2012 1:14:54 AM
i wish we had a feudal system , that means too much , in this case we will use the feedback came
Joined: 9/12/2011
Msg: 11
what is next?
Posted: 7/5/2012 2:23:36 AM
the end of the market economy
It is known from the history of man begins his journey leaving the animal kingdom is that the production form is only his opportunity to be safe from the risk of extinction.
Barbarism that have been reported for humans from animal origins embodied with some specialists call "market economy". It is one of the worst forms of barbarism
Market now, in essence, is the arena where the class struggle
The international market today is mainly local markets in capitalist countries and dealing with about 70% of world production. But what are the ingredients of these markets!? 6070% of goods traded in these markets is one of the cheap goods imported from south East Asia and more than 90% of the services produced locally and the money in circulation in all these countries is the total, false and stolen cash, devoid of significant value.
Such market is of course fake, and any market economy is attributed to a false market is definitely a false economy
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > what is next?