What is the sound of capitalism

[zorro]

"IT" is not an agent. IT is not broken. IT is not damaged. IT cannot fix itself. It does not exist as a force of nature. IT is comprised of people and their relationships and interactions.
If you persist in turning this into some sort of thing with its own volition you are never going to understand the problem.
The financial crisis was caused by individuals that designed phoney financial products, enabled by deregulation, with the aim of making themselves very rich. To place the blame, responsibility and the cause into a marker called "capitalism" is missing the point. This is common enough though, and for sure the Machievellian schemers who are actually responsible are quite happy that people like you and I see the problem in terms of adjusting "capitalism" or pushing the myth that "capitalism will sort it self out". In reality we need to set aside the abstraction that is capitalism and focus on the real people that have engineered the recession for their own personal gain: Alan Greenspan is one such person. These monsters are still in control, and dear old Alan was the one that managed to get all that money for the bailout.

I am sorry, but this is just a big ad hominem rant, without substance. It goes off in every which way, with no true analysis or clarity. How can one respond to such aimless fury?

[chaz wyman]

"IT" is not an agent. IT is not broken. IT is not damaged. IT cannot fix itself. It does not exist as a force of nature. IT is comprised of people and their relationships and interactions.
If you persist in turning this into some sort of thing with its own volition you are never going to understand the problem.
The financial crisis was caused by individuals that designed phoney financial products, enabled by deregulation, with the aim of making themselves very rich. To place the blame, responsibility and the cause into a marker called "capitalism" is missing the point. This is common enough though, and for sure the Machievellian schemers who are actually responsible are quite happy that people like you and I see the problem in terms of adjusting "capitalism" or pushing the myth that "capitalism will sort it self out". In reality we need to set aside the abstraction that is capitalism and focus on the real people that have engineered the recession for their own personal gain: Alan Greenspan is one such person. These monsters are still in control, and dear old Alan was the one that managed to get all that money for the bailout.

I am sorry, but this is just a big ad hominem rant, without substance. It goes off in every which way, with no true analysis or clarity. How can one respond to such aimless fury?

There are no arguments based on persons. You simply do not understand the meaning of ad hominem.
THe statement does not go off in every which way.
The statement focuses exactly on the problem. It identifies exactly the main reason why there has been a financial crisis.
Your reflexive reaction tells me much! You are reacting psychologically.
You feel under attack because your cherish view has been challenged. You do not want to believe that real people are responsible.
You prefer to believe that the amorphous "capitalism" is the blame and that the amorphous 'capitalism' will sort itself out.
It will not. Because "it" has no will. It shall be fixed by people, hopefully, because people broke it.

[zorro]

ad hominem: "(of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic."

Chaz, I think you've been too emotional and irrational in your arguments. If you want to be philosophical about capitalism you have to detach yourself from your own personal feelings. I know that's hard to do.

[chaz wyman]

ad hominem: "(of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic."

Chaz, I think you've been too emotional and irrational in your arguments. If you want to be philosophical about capitalism you have to detach yourself from your own personal feelings. I know that's hard to do.

Rubbish.

Ad hominem - literally against the man.
Get a life!

Ad hominem is a fallacy.
What I offered was a passionate argument which is not a fallacy.
The remarks I made were true. Deal with them or don't. But do not avoid the issue with a false attribution of a fallacy.

[zorro]

Chaz, You must expand your scope if your going to have a realistic understand of things.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz, You must expand your scope if your going to have a realistic understand of things.

THAT is an ad hominem. That is exactly and ad hominem.
You are covering the fact that you can't deal with the issue of the thread by attacking me.

As for the comment...
That coming from a person who does not know the meaning of ad hominem??
I'm too old and too wise to be impressed with your comment.
You don't know the first thing about me.
Very disappointing.

If you had any depth at all you would be addressing the thread and not attacking me.

[zorro]

One sound of capitalism I am reminded of is the sound of velcro, the sound of it being pulled apart as one opens a wallet or a purse.

[chaz wyman]

One sound of capitalism I am reminded of is the sound of velcro, the sound of it being pulled apart as one opens a wallet or a purse.

How insightful of you!

[zorro]

How insightful of you!

At least I have eyes and the sense to see what is going on around me. I don't live in a micro-world or a bubble.

[chaz wyman]

How insightful of you!

At least I have eyes and the sense to see what is going on around me. I don't live in a micro-world or a bubble.

You are not to be the judge of that.

[Notvacka]

I tend to call the practice of provision of goods and sevices 'private enterprise', and the practice of making money out of money 'capitalism'.

A very useful distinction. Essential, even.

I believe that the political debate would look very different if people didn't fail to see the difference. Of course capitalists are eager to be mistaken for real entrepreneurs.

[chaz wyman]

I tend to call the practice of provision of goods and sevices 'private enterprise', and the practice of making money out of money 'capitalism'.

A very useful distinction. Essential, even.

I believe that the political debate would look very different if people didn't fail to see the difference. Of course capitalists are eager to be mistaken for real entrepreneurs.

Making money from money is parasitism.
It produces nothing to the benefit of the system.

[spike]

Making money from money is parasitism.
It produces nothing to the benefit of the system.

There goes Chaz shooting off his mouth again, talking about something he knows nothing about. Money is like labour. It can and should work. It generates investment capital from which additional things can be produced and built.

The majority of us just try to make some money from our invested money so we can live off it in our retirement, without depending on others.

In your retirement, where is your money coming from Chaz, strictly from the government?

[Notvacka]

Money is like labour. It can and should work. It generates investment capital from which additional things can be produced and built.

That is an illusion, which most of us believe in. Money has no value in itself and doesn't "work". It just seems that way because we live in a capitalist system. The real investment capital needed for additional things to be produced an built, is merely confidence in what will be produced and built. Money is just a practical metaphor for that confidence.

[Arising_uk]

...
The majority of us just try to make some money from our invested money so we can live off it in our retirement, without depending on others.

In your retirement, where is your money coming from Chaz, strictly from the government?

You live a myth or you are a fund manager, as the money that pays for ones pensions in old-age comes from the workers at that time, i.e. the young now. Its why we are worried about our pensions now as there are to many old and not enough young, hence we need immigrants to pay for our pensions in the future.

Your invested money is exactly dependent upon the backs of others.