Capitalism & Human Values

[chaz wyman]

... But they certainly weren't in the science of life and sustainability, with their medical experiments and eugenics.

The latter are exactly concerned with the former. Or do you mean some kind of eco-humanist view about what science is or should be concerned with?

I think he means an approach to the living world that was not around until the 1980s!

[zorro]

Jewish scientists constituted the backbone of German scientific research and learning. Hitler didn't seem bothered by their exodus or removal from teaching positions. He reportedly said that if that meant the "annihilation of contemporary German science, then we shall do without science for a few years".

Because of that attitude Germany didn't develop the atomic bomb or win the war.

[chaz wyman]

Jewish scientists constituted the backbone of German scientific research and learning. Hitler didn't seem bothered by their exodus or removal from teaching positions. He reportedly said that if that meant the "annihilation of contemporary German science, then we shall do without science for a few years".

Because of that attitude Germany didn't develop the atomic bomb or win the war.

They had the best weapons. The atomic bomb was a sideshow. It did not play a role in Germany's defeat.
They did not win because they decided to take on too many other countries.
Had they maintained their pact with Russia then they would have been unstoppable in N. Africa and Britain.

German science was still the best in many areas, despite the loss of many of their best Jews. That is why both the Russians and the Americans were so keen to get hold of Werner von Braun and many other German weapons technologists at the end of the war.

It was Von Braun that gave the US its first space-rocket.

[spike]

This index is about Capitalism & Human Values. We sort of gotten off topic as so often happens on the forum.

When Economics was coming of age it was in search of a venue. It eventually chose and settled on capitalism to do its bidding. It didn't pick mercantilism, traditionalism or communism. Those systems wouldn't do in serving the world's emerging complex, technological societies. However, there are those who believe that capitalism wasn't the natural, historical choice. They think it was forced on humankind by some kind of back room dealings. But I am of the mind that things evolve and capitalism evolved as the most viable economic system. It wasn't forced on humankind. It evolved as the best means to serve humankind's needs and aspiration. The other systems Economics might have considered weren't up to the task.

Communism was capitalism's last competitor in deciding which economic system was superior. That competition for top economic spot was similar to the competition that occurred between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens to see which human species was more durable and practical for survival and continuance.

[chaz wyman]

This index is about Capitalism & Human Values. We sort of gotten off topic as so often happens on the forum.

When Economics was coming of age it was in search of a venue. It eventually chose and settled on capitalism to do its bidding. It didn't pick mercantilism, traditionalism or communism. Those systems wouldn't do in serving the world's emerging complex, technological societies. However, there are those who believe that capitalism wasn't the natural, historical choice. They think it was forced on humankind by some kind of back room dealings. But I am of the mind that things evolve and capitalism evolved as the most viable economic system. It wasn't forced on humankind. It evolved as the best means to serve humankind's needs and aspiration. The other systems Economics might have considered weren't up to the task.

Communism was capitalism's last competitor in deciding which economic system was superior. That competition for top economic spot was similar to the competition that occurred between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens to see which human species was more durable and practical for survival and continuance.

You are an ignorant p****

[Arising_uk]

Whats point the expletive chaz? Why not just say, "You are ignorant." Even better, why not also explain or at least point to why he is.

[spike]

Whats point the expletive chaz? Why not just say, "You are ignorant." Even better, why not also explain or at least point to why he is.

That's the problem. Chaz can't prove I am ignorant. But he proves his own ignorance most times he makes a comment.

[chaz wyman]

Whats point the expletive chaz? Why not just say, "You are ignorant." Even better, why not also explain or at least point to why he is.

A p**** is a p****.
Some people you can't reason with

[chaz wyman]

Whats point the expletive chaz? Why not just say, "You are ignorant." Even better, why not also explain or at least point to why he is.

That's the problem. Chaz can't prove I am ignorant. But he proves his own ignorance most times he makes a comment.

I've demonstrated your ignorance again and again. You are just too stupid to have noticed.

[Walgekaaren]

Jewish scientists constituted the backbone of German scientific research and learning. Hitler didn't seem bothered by their exodus or removal from teaching positions. He reportedly said that if that meant the "annihilation of contemporary German science, then we shall do without science for a few years".

Because of that attitude Germany didn't develop the atomic bomb or win the war.

They had the best weapons. The atomic bomb was a sideshow. It did not play a role in Germany's defeat.
They did not win because they decided to take on too many other countries.
Had they maintained their pact with Russia then they would have been unstoppable in N. Africa and Britain.

German science was still the best in many areas, despite the loss of many of their best Jews. That is why both the Russians and the Americans were so keen to get hold of Werner von Braun and many other German weapons technologists at the end of the war.

It was Von Braun that gave the US its first space-rocket.

and the response to it by spike:

This index is about Capitalism & Human Values. We sort of gotten off topic as so often happens on the forum.

When Economics was coming of age it was in search of a venue. It eventually chose and settled on capitalism to do its bidding. It didn't pick mercantilism, traditionalism or communism. Those systems wouldn't do in serving the world's emerging complex, technological societies. However, there are those who believe that capitalism wasn't the natural, historical choice. They think it was forced on humankind by some kind of back room dealings. But I am of the mind that things evolve and capitalism evolved as the most viable economic system. It wasn't forced on humankind. It evolved as the best means to serve humankind's needs and aspiration. The other systems Economics might have considered weren't up to the task.

Communism was capitalism's last competitor in deciding which economic system was superior. That competition for top economic spot was similar to the competition that occurred between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens to see which human species was more durable and practical for survival and continuance.

You're both talking about the same topic but on a different asset. Please try to understand eachother...

[chaz wyman]

Jewish scientists constituted the backbone of German scientific research and learning. Hitler didn't seem bothered by their exodus or removal from teaching positions. He reportedly said that if that meant the "annihilation of contemporary German science, then we shall do without science for a few years".

Because of that attitude Germany didn't develop the atomic bomb or win the war.

They had the best weapons. The atomic bomb was a sideshow. It did not play a role in Germany's defeat.
They did not win because they decided to take on too many other countries.
Had they maintained their pact with Russia then they would have been unstoppable in N. Africa and Britain.

German science was still the best in many areas, despite the loss of many of their best Jews. That is why both the Russians and the Americans were so keen to get hold of Werner von Braun and many other German weapons technologists at the end of the war.

It was Von Braun that gave the US its first space-rocket.

and the response to it by spike:

This index is about Capitalism & Human Values. We sort of gotten off topic as so often happens on the forum.

When Economics was coming of age it was in search of a venue. It eventually chose and settled on capitalism to do its bidding. It didn't pick mercantilism, traditionalism or communism. Those systems wouldn't do in serving the world's emerging complex, technological societies. However, there are those who believe that capitalism wasn't the natural, historical choice. They think it was forced on humankind by some kind of back room dealings. But I am of the mind that things evolve and capitalism evolved as the most viable economic system. It wasn't forced on humankind. It evolved as the best means to serve humankind's needs and aspiration. The other systems Economics might have considered weren't up to the task.

Communism was capitalism's last competitor in deciding which economic system was superior. That competition for top economic spot was similar to the competition that occurred between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens to see which human species was more durable and practical for survival and continuance.

You're both talking about the same topic but on a different asset. Please try to understand eachother...

I was responding to Zorro. So Spike's response was irrelevant.

[SpheresOfBalance]

This index is about Capitalism & Human Values. We sort of gotten off topic as so often happens on the forum.

When Economics was coming of age it was in search of a venue. It eventually chose and settled on capitalism to do its bidding. It didn't pick mercantilism, traditionalism or communism. Those systems wouldn't do in serving the world's emerging complex, technological societies. However, there are those who believe that capitalism wasn't the natural, historical choice. They think it was forced on humankind by some kind of back room dealings. But I am of the mind that things evolve and capitalism evolved as the most viable economic system. It wasn't forced on humankind. It evolved as the best means to serve humankind's needs and aspiration. The other systems Economics might have considered weren't up to the task.

Communism was capitalism's last competitor in deciding which economic system was superior. That competition for top economic spot was similar to the competition that occurred between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens to see which human species was more durable and practical for survival and continuance.

My point is that economics was a flawed human construct originated by those neanderthals or pre-neanderthals that used wooden clubs to get what they wanted. Usually it was all the resources and domination! The only difference between then and now is that modern man made wooden clubbing illegal because those with bigger muscles always won in days of old, these days scrawny men in coke bottle glasses can win and hoard all the resources and dominate. Their method is just the same however, now the wooden clubs have been turned into paper pulp, but they still beat people over the head with it.

I'm just wondering if humankind will ever 'truly' grow and if I'll be fortunate enough to be it's witness.

[chaz wyman]

Capitalism has failed us by pretending that the financial sector can make money.
Wealth is created when useful things are made; either dig out of the earth, transformed into other things, or made into things which save work, provide a service and make life easier.
Making money is not making wealth. Money is not a commodity like any other. It is the means to exchange. This truth has been ignored and just like in the 1920s it has recently been ignored that borrowing to speculate is no better than gambling on the future prosperity of the nation. In a global economy continuing to cash in by moving money around, from debt to derivative to security and back again may have a multiplying effect, but all it does is to re-direct debt.
Manufacturing creates wealth.
Financial services create debt.
The behaviour of the market has been parasitic.
Lending money to gamble on asset prices; the money which has been given is that very thing that has caused those prices to increase. The illusion of wealth has what has fuelled the crash. The borrowing has funded the crash.This behaviour has taken over the system in the last forty years. This is parasitic.

The means to do this - the creation of the derivatives market has allowed individuals to leach money out of the system, whilst the bubble has grown. Like monkeys wanking themselves off in personal congratulation, thinking themselves clever, they have destroyed the ground under their feet.

What has been the solution? Bailouts. Governments have given money to banks in the hope that they would lend. But why would they lend to a broken economy whose cause was bad debt? Bailouts are the same as burning money.

Banks only make money by creating debt. This is not wealth. Banks are the antithesis of capitalism.

[spike]

The banks have behaved badly. However, it is governments and regulators that allowed them to get away with murder and being under capitalized. Unfortunately there was no choice but to bail them out because otherwise the industry would have totally collapse, bring down everything with it.

Banks could do much more in correcting the house market in the US. But they haven't. Until that happens and the surplus of housing that exists is dealt with the economy will remain under par and not growing.

I am thinking, it is amazing things aren't worse than they are.

[chaz wyman]

The banks have behaved badly. However, it is governments and regulators that allowed them to get away with murder and being under capitalized. Unfortunately there was no choice but to bail them out because otherwise the industry would have totally collapse, bring down everything with it.

Banks could do much more in correcting the house market in the US. But they haven't. Until that happens and the surplus of housing that exists is dealt with the economy will remain under par and not growing.

I am thinking, it is amazing things aren't worse than they are.

The 'bailout necessity' was a lie.

The bailouts were a disaster. Throwing money at banks in the hope that they would lend money was worse than stupid.
The better way to help the banks would have been to capitalise people. Not putting money in a big hole , but giving it to mortgage holders so that they could directly reduce their debt. In one stoke you would re-capitalise the financial systems by helping the people. The government could also have taken a stake in our homes saving us from taxes into the future.
Why did they not do that? Figure it out for yourself.

But the housing sector is only one part of the problem. It was the way the debt was financed by the lenders that is the problem; not only was the debt bad, but the cash that was gathered to fund the housing bubble was imaginary.
For that you have to understand the deregulation that allowed that 'cash' to be DERIVED from thin air.