Print

Liero v1.0 – 20lt
IP: 95.46.198.26
Game Mode: Death Match
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 15
Version: OpenLieroX 0.58 rc5

Players:

Unknown

Unknown – 0lt
IP: 80.186.170.22
Game Mode:
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 0
Version: LieroX 0.56b

Players:

Modern Warfare1.0 – 20lt
IP: 84.251.82.159
Game Mode: Death Match
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 12
Version: OpenLieroX 0.58 rc5

Players:

[Thor]

We live in difficult times: it is banking crises, state indebtedness, economic volatility. Take these are now out! Complex issues to familiarize themselves with easier it is to get excited about a conspiracy and magiatheories. One of the most popular, is now called Zeitgeist. In the coming days it may be full of cinemas all over Finland.


A new Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is a continuation in 2007, graduated Zeitgeist, the Internet and disseminated in a documentary called 'movie, which became a phenomenon. (The link behind the New York Times story last spring.)

The original film offered an explanation of the time a huge world, where all kinds of religious theories, self-invented stories and outright delusions are the current world economic and administrative structures causes. Or something like that. Correlations depend on how much the viewer has been smoking cannabis.

Movie can be viewed in most Web video services, and then be able to read even from here, how the non-stop nonsense it is. In the September 11 days is called a myth, the United States to address the tax unconstitutional, ancient religions, the similarities between pulling up the names of English-speaking, a slight chance of similar spelling of Jesus and the estimated the god of sun. Hitler card in a big swing arc. Thus justifying the urgency of the transition to cashless society. Inaccuracies are such documentarists gold, as well as the realization that leaving the stories and theories of other important details out of them all can be easily adapted to your vision, no matter how crazy.

The end result is closer to psychosis than stupidity: they are all against us, but we can achieve overnight, our utopia. (Although the goals are lofty, the world's most famous fan of Zeitgeist is probably now a mass murderer Jared Loughner a friend that shaped the world view based on it. This knowledge I still would go further to make to try scare other people. Sadly, however.)

Zeitgeist believers are so industrious, that kind of Moving Forward is organized demonstrations in several cities in Finland. In a normal commercially available it can not therefore be seen, but random presentations. Movie theaters can be rented if the money is. May be a foretaste of the trailer.

Have you noticed that there is unemployment? And that pharmaceutical companies are working to make a profit? "Finance will not disclose, before it has killed the last man." Such insights into the Zeitgeist seems again to offer. The answer is some sort of socialist revolution, or at least the nonconformity. I would certainly have been thrilled by the age of 13, but secretly, a bit like some supernatural stories, which are not really about the child's daylight dared to believe. You know, ghosts and curses do not exist, although even those have been made documentary films. Or "documentary films".

This is a quote from an appreciated finnish magazine, Suomen kuvalehti. Link.

I couldn't agree any more. Also, the writer of the article has obviously explored the facts of the issue and manages to use those in a very good way which may irritate the Zeitgest hippies. So, it is funny to see here in Finland what kind of agatiation these Zeitgest hippies begin here in Finland because of that article which is full of facts.

Word is free.

[Sakmongkol]

Suomen Kuvalehti is a ridiculous publication.

[[leke]GrassNinja]

Well, Thor, have you actually seen the movie and biult your own opinion?
Or are you again just blindly adopting the opinion of someone else?

I would love to get this discussion going again, but not as long as come up with these ridiculous posts where you hardly think on your own. Instead you just post this quote which is not even worth discussing.

Come up with a reasoned opinion or leave it.

Btw, has anyone actually seen the movie by now?^^

[Hatten]

Wow, this thing is old. go out on the 'net and you can see hundreds, if not thousands, of people argumenting about how the economy sucks, how everything should be remade with drums, trumpets, and not a single person dying.

What we need (___IMO___) is 1. Higher average IQ, 2. Less corruption.

oh, and if you're so keen on the idea of not paying for stuff, go download linux

[Sebbe]

I've seen the first Zeitgeist video and I thought it was really well-planned. However, now I don't know if it's actually valid.

Could someone (Sak, Thor or Grassninja) tell me, without a wall of text, if Zeitgeist is worth the attention or not.

[[leke]GrassNinja]

I've seen the first Zeitgeist video and I thought it was really well-planned. However, now I don't know if it's actually valid.

Could someone (Sak, Thor or Grassninja) tell me, without a wall of text, if Zeitgeist is worth the attention or not.

I'd definitely say yes. Thor would definitely say no. I'd suppose you to just start watching it and you'll see if you get interested or not.

In the beginning they basically explain how our monetary system works, which I think is very interesting, as money is like one huge part of our lifes. That already makes it worth watching IMO.

[Thor]

I'd definitely say yes. Thor would definitely say no. I'd suppose you to just start watching it and you'll see if you get interested or not.

In the beginning they basically explain how our monetary system works, which I think is very interesting, as money is like one huge part of our lifes. That already makes it worth watching IMO.

Of course it's worth of watching. It shows very well, what kind of people don't understand WHY the economy system nowadays is what it is. I know and understand that some people want change, because capitalism is not perfect solution, but in the same time they come up with a more ridiculous system which would lead to a catastrophe.

A human is a selfish bastard and aslong humans live on Earth the world someones will suffer, was there what kind of system whatever. Only thing we can influence is to keep our welfare, and help those who doesn't have it. Too bad criminals have a very strict hand of poor countries.

But a fact is, capitalism works, unlike for example socialism or communism which is near what those Zeitgeist guys offer.

[Gaston]

Communism wont work at present. Communism (in it's pure form) stifles competition, which is a basic human instinct. The economy we're seeing today throughout the world, is a combination of amongst others, human instinct, cartel based processes and globalism. It's not really something that's decided (sans in situations where something such as a revolution has taken place), but it's more something that evolves depending on production capacity, worldwide credit, and humans.

Is this painting a bleak future for humankind? Not really. This kind of economy, which has been integral worldwide throughout the last 100 years, has come in conjunction with amazing improvements in standard of living for the western world (the "eastern world" is soon to follow.) Though not everyone reaps the benefits; there are upsides and downsides to it.

Can we do anything? Perhaps we can. But we'd be best adviced to go with the evolution strategy rather than the revolution strategy. Why?  Because it has proven to work through time, and has cost less human lives in the name of change. The best thing we can do, is to educate ourself on the subject and take it from there. See, there isn't one uniform "capitalism". It is dynamic, and is expressed differently throughout the world. And the differences between a capitalism that promotes long-term advantages versus one that attempts to fix things in the short term, are somewhat diffuse at best. And with that little sermon, I leave you to be further indoctrinated by the following video:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk</a>

[Sakmongkol]

But a fact is, capitalism works, unlike for example socialism or communism which is near what those Zeitgeist guys offer.

Communism could work, but we can't know for sure until someone tries it out properly. For instance, the USSR was never even near real socialism, it was state capitalist. Cuba is a little closer to socialism but still a long way from communism.

Capitalism, on the other hand, has been practiced for quite long and we are now beginning to see how it falls apart. I think it would be time to try something new, although I'm not entirely sure what it might be.

Personally I'm not really satisfied with the 'fact' that greed and competition are essential parts of the human nature. And even if they were, justifying capitalism with them would be a naturalistic fallacy.

[[leke]GrassNinja]

It's not really something that's decided (sans in situations where something such as a revolution has taken place), but it's more something that evolves depending on production capacity, worldwide credit, and humans.

It actually is decided and even though it evolved, it doesn't mean it's natural. It's an outdated system that evolved from a scarcity of resources and technology, which uses competition as an incentive to be productive and secure a steady growth. It's gone out of hand though, as the necessity to grow and make profit by all means leads to massive corruption and exploitation, and thus the decay of our planet.

The abundance of resources and the steady technological progress eliminate the need of incentive and steady growth. More and more laborers are replaced by machines, and the steady growth of the economy is reaching the limit of this planets capacity. We should produce based on what we have and what we need, rather than force growth regardless of the carrying capacity of our world.

Is this painting a bleak future for humankind? Not really. This kind of economy, which has been integral worldwide throughout the last 100 years, has come in conjunction with amazing improvements in standard of living for the western world (the "eastern world" is soon to follow.) Though not everyone reaps the benefits; there are upsides and downsides to it.

So that's acceptable? Over 50% of our worlds population live in absolute poverty!
It's not like we just overtook the nations which are less developed, but aren't able to help them. There are enough resources and the production capacity is high enough to provide an acceptable standard of living for every human being. The current system won't allow such an equilibrium, the constant competition will always lead to the expliotation of the weak.

Capitalism doesn't work. Or would you call a system that only reaches the well-being of less than half of the people a success? I have truly analysed the principle of our monetary system myself and I can assure you, it's just a matter of time until it will collapse. Money can only be created out of debt and debt always creates interest that has to be paid back as well. So, the money to cover the interest that is charged really doesn't exist. The debts constantly grow because of the interest that can never be repaid, but this can't continue forever, the debts will grow to a point where the collapse is unevitable. There is no way to avoid this, as money cannot be created without creating debt.

So how can we accept a system, in which over half of the people live in misery and human labor and resources are exploited ruthlessly? Capitalism is doomed to fail, so we should really start thinking about alternatives.

[Gaston]

It actually is decided and even though it evolved, it doesn't mean it's natural. It's an outdated system that evolved from a scarcity of resources and technology, which uses competition as an incentive to be productive and secure a steady growth. It's gone out of hand though, as the necessity to grow and make profit by all means leads to massive corruption and exploitation, and thus the decay of our planet.

I disagree with the "decided" part. It's something that has come into shape gradually as the world went along. Trade, banking and "supply and demand" are all integral parts of capitalism, and has steadily grown together in different manners to form different forms of capitalism. There never was a "now we're gonna be capitalists" moment. It's just something that grew out of the circumstances and combined the elements as well as human instincts for competition and really just ended up fitting the landscape of economics in most places.

You are correct that it's gone out of hand though. The last 50 years have seen a globalization that is unfathomable in human history, and the biggest problem is that governments attempts to stop the evolution of capitalism. I'm by no means arguing against socialism as a whole, but there are elements within some socialistic principles which are working directly against the principles of capitalism in a manner that doesn't make the system better, but rather stiffles it's natural evolution, while keeping it up. And a capitalism which isn't allowed to grow it's course, is one that hurts much more in the long term than anything we've experienced so far. Government bailouts is one of the biggest sinners in that area, keeping enterprices which do not have the right to life on artificial life support. This is an unfortunate measure which arises from the globalization that is occouring coupled with nations attempt to keep sovereignity at the same time.

The abundance of resources and the steady technological progress eliminate the need of incentive and steady growth. More and more laborers are replaced by machines, and the steady growth of the economy is reaching the limit of this planets capacity. We should produce based on what we have and what we need, rather than force growth regardless of the carrying capacity of our world.

Yes I agree. And that is the direction capitalism needs to be headed in. Unfortunatly governments around the world are not interested in doing this, as it stiffles their need to compete in the global market. Again, sovereignity in a global world works directly against natural evolution of capitalism and the economic system.

So that's acceptable? Over 50% of our worlds population live in absolute poverty!
It's not like we just overtook the nations which are less developed, but aren't able to help them. There are enough resources and the production capacity is high enough to provide an acceptable standard of living for every human being. The current system won't allow such an equilibrium, the constant competition will always lead to the expliotation of the weak.

I'm by no means saying that pure capitalism will the saviour to all human beings, because it wont be, but what are mainly working against the people in poverty are the governments themself. Import & export regulations and taxes, giving a man a "fish" instead of learning him to "fish" (foreign develpoment help) and such all contribute to keeping the differences up between the countries. Anyhow, my point was that even though it's easy to view the situation as a horrible one, the fact remains that the living standard is continiually growing , as well as the average age, and healt care, and education and so on throughout the world. Of course there are ways to make things go even smoother, but those pills are very bitter to swallow for any nation wanting to stay competetive in the international market (where most economies are artificially high, which again leads to overproduction and overconsumption.)

Capitalism doesn't work. Or would you call a system that only reaches the well-being of less than half of the people a success? I have truly analysed the principle of our monetary system myself and I can assure you, it's just a matter of time until it will collapse. Money can only be created out of debt and debt always creates interest that has to be paid back as well. So, the money to cover the interest that is charged really doesn't exist. The debts constantly grow because of the interest that can never be repaid, but this can't continue forever, the debts will grow to a point where the collapse is unevitable. There is no way to avoid this, as money cannot be created without creating debt.

Capitalism "works" on the ground that it is a tried and tested system.  I never claimed for it to be the saviour of mankind, but it is a system that works. I am unaware of any economies which are not at least in a big part capitalistic that has a big success in terms of well being of people though.

Money being created out of debt is not capitalism in the way it should be (at least not how it goes on now.) Governments are continually manipulating the capitalistic outside well-being, creating a bubble beyond proportions of anything we've ever seen. Sort of like drinking the day after you been drunk trying to fix your headache except they've been doing it for day after day for decades. The meltdown comes (And will come) from the nature of capitalism. This is not the fault of capitalism though. It is rather the fault of those attempting to run a country by capitalistic principles while attempting to patch up all the short-term bad sides (especially if it wins you another election.) They're trying to have the cake and eat it. Don't blame the cake though.

So how can we accept a system, in which over half of the people live in misery and human labor and resources are exploited ruthlessly? Capitalism is doomed to fail, so we should really start thinking about alternatives.

Capitalism isn't doomed to fail. Capitalism is pretty much a systematic expression of human nature. But capitalism which is being manipulated to behave better than it should considering the current state of affairs, is doomed to fail, simply because it isn't capitalism anymore, and thus doesn't follow human nature, which will in turn and time find a way to pop the bubble however long it may take.

Accepting capitalism is like accepting climate. Some days it's sunny, some days it's rainy, and some days there are tornadoes taking lives. Instead of trying to change the system to what we'd ideologicaly like it to be, we should instead consider adapting ourself to the nature of the system (e.g. build better houses in case there comes a tornados)

[Sakmongkol]

The abundance of resources and the steady technological progress eliminate the need of incentive and steady growth. More and more laborers are replaced by machines, and the steady growth of the economy is reaching the limit of this planets capacity. We should produce based on what we have and what we need, rather than force growth regardless of the carrying capacity of our world.

Yes I agree. And that is the direction capitalism needs to be headed in. Unfortunatly governments around the world are not interested in doing this, as it stiffles their need to compete in the global market. Again, sovereignity in a global world works directly against natural evolution of capitalism and the economic system.

I don't understand this, because as we know capitalism is based on competition. If we only produced what we need, there would be no competition and thus no capitalism. But because of greed and competition, demand has to be created artificially to force so-called growth which is unnatural and will eventually lead to a horrible disaster, regardless of how capitalism is regulated or not regulated at all. Capitalism is built on the idea that continuous growth is possible, which is simply not true. There are limits for everything.

So how can we accept a system, in which over half of the people live in misery and human labor and resources are exploited ruthlessly? Capitalism is doomed to fail, so we should really start thinking about alternatives.

Capitalism isn't doomed to fail. Capitalism is pretty much a systematic expression of human nature. But capitalism which is being manipulated to behave better than it should considering the current state of affairs, is doomed to fail, simply because it isn't capitalism anymore, and thus doesn't follow human nature, which will in turn and time find a way to pop the bubble however long it may take.

Accepting capitalism is like accepting climate. Some days it's sunny, some days it's rainy, and some days there are tornadoes taking lives. Instead of trying to change the system to what we'd ideologicaly like it to be, we should instead consider adapting ourself to the nature of the system (e.g. build better houses in case there comes a tornados)

Here we run into a naturalistic fallacy again, but this seems even stranger to me. First you say that capitalism is natural, but then you say that we should 'adapt' ourselves to capitalism? I'd say if any adapting needs to be done, the system is not natural to begin with. Short-term solutions are bad, that is true, but long-term 'solutions' are equally bad if the system is principally unnatural, as capitalism is in my opinion.

[[leke]GrassNinja]

I don't understand this, because as we know capitalism is based on competition. If we only produced what we need, there would be no competition and thus no capitalism. But because of greed and competition, demand has to be created artificially to force so-called growth which is unnatural and will eventually lead to a horrible disaster, regardless of how capitalism is regulated or not regulated at all. Capitalism is built on the idea that continuous growth is possible, which is simply not true. There are limits for everything.

Thank you.

Gaston, seriously, capitalism is not natural. It is a system that evolved though time, as you already stated, but that doesn't mean it's natural. The need for nutrition is natural. Sexual desire is natural. Capitlism however, is not.

Capitalism is a structure that we're all forced into. It has always been led by the ones on the top, as they are the ones with the most power. They indirectly decide how this system evolves. I think everyone agrees that with enough money, you can do almost anything you want. And that's the point. This system doesn't evolve naturally, there are people behind it who pull the strings, people who make decisions. They all have the same amition, and that is maximize profit by all means.

Capitalism is outdated, I say it again. It's an old system that was may have been good in times were growth was needed. Nowadays, we are reaching the limits of growth, which causes numerous problems. We have developted to a point, where growth shouldn't be the main target anymore.

The technological progress opens countless options to create a new system from scratch, a global system that benefits everyone equally. Where production is based on real needs (not created to make profit) and on the carrying capacity of the earth.

And why do you want to stick to this system that spreads so much misery in the world and is doomed to fail, hoping that it will "naturally" evolve to a new, adequate capitalism. It's not that flexible, Gaston. It is at all times based on profit, and this is the main cause of a big number of environmental and social problems. Because the need to maximize profit will always lead to corruption, it's more effective than playing by the rules. That's why capitalism can't be regulated either. So it can't evolve to a new and adjusted version of itself.

Capitalism is no natural part of evolution, it is a system that has been created and developed by those on the top and can be exchanged with a new, adequate system. Of course the transition period is a big difficulty, but considering the global problems nowadays, it is a needed step.

Good night.

[Wander]

Alright, while introducing myself to this topic, let's begin with admitting that I haven't read it all (even though I think I should). However, while reading the last few posts, I think this is a discussion of high quality, in which certain statements are, regrettably, less valid.


Grass, I'm afraid your definition of capitalism might be a bit off. The movie in the beginning of this thread mostly applies to the US, and maybe so does your definition of capitalism.
Regard that however you wish to. However, the following is something I'm quite sure about:

We should produce based on what we have and what we need, ...

'Capitalism' is not about creating money from debt. That's just the definition of money...

Also, I believe that the 'steady technological progress' that you mention is a direct consequence of the same capitalism you fight. Actually, you may not be aware of this, but 'technological progress', measured by the amount of patents filed per year and just about any other parameter you could think off has been declining for many years now. Personally, I think this is a consequence of the capitalism-avoiding (if I may put it that way) policy of many governments.

Capitalism doesn't work. Or would you call a system that only reaches the well-being of less than half of the people a success? I have truly analysed the principle of our monetary system myself and I can assure you, it's just a matter of time until it will collapse. Money can only be created out of debt and debt always creates interest that has to be paid back as well. So, the money to cover the interest that is charged really doesn't exist. The debts constantly grow because of the interest that can never be repaid, but this can't continue forever, the debts will grow to a point where the collapse is unevitable. There is no way to avoid this, as money cannot be created without creating debt.

The concept of 'money' (debt if you must, something that by itself has no value [you can't use it] but yet is accepted by everyone as valuable) has been around for quite a while now (over 26 centuries), and I would say that it has proven to work. What are you really trying to attack here, 'money', 'capitalism' or just the egoïstic human mindset?

I'm by no means arguing against socialism as a whole, but there are elements within some socialistic principles which are working directly against the principles of capitalism in a manner that doesn't make the system better, but rather stiffles it's natural evolution, while keeping it up.

Within the original context, this wasn't less ridiculous than it is without. Seriously, WTF?

If we only produced what we need, there would be no competition and thus no capitalism.

I don't understand this. We can't go back to every individual producing his own needs (obviously). If 'the society' produces what 'the society' needs, you will still need some sort of distributing system between individuals. I would say that competition and thus capitalism has thusfar proven itself better than other systems.

Capitalism is built on the idea that continuous growth is possible, ...

No it's not. It's based on this:

We should produce based on what we have and what we need, ...

Growth is not necessarily inherent to the capitalist system. Capitalism is merely based on a more individualistic point of view than, for example, communism.

Capitalism is a structure that we're all forced into. It has always been led by the ones on the top, as they are the ones with the most power. They indirectly decide how this system evolves.

Apart from the word 'indirectly', this doesn't resemble capitalism to me as much as it resembles other forms of economy...
This is actually one of very few occasions where I would like to bring into mind 'The American Dream' (as something positive).


These things I have pointed out are reasonings that I currently persieve as flaws in your logic. Regardless of them, I wish to applaud you three on the way you manage to have an intelligent discussion. I believe that this is what the Cavern was meant for.

[Gaston]

I don't understand this, because as we know capitalism is based on competition. If we only produced what we need, there would be no competition and thus no capitalism. But because of greed and competition, demand has to be created artificially to force so-called growth which is unnatural and will eventually lead to a horrible disaster, regardless of how capitalism is regulated or not regulated at all. Capitalism is built on the idea that continuous growth is possible, which is simply not true. There are limits for everything.

Capitalism isn't built on the idea that continous growth is possible. That's government steered capitalism. One with bailouts and what have you not. (The economic system needs regulation though. But attempting to steer the economic climate to a certain direction such as with bailouts, is directly working against capitalism.) Capitalism is as you suggest, a competetive inclined system. Competition, while it can lead to situations where artificial demand is created at times, is self-correcting in the long term. If the demand is artificially created (e.g. not a real demand), the ones attempting to propell the demand, will fail in the long term as the demand isn't there. That is unless they are allowed to exercise cartell based strategies and similair to that (which I admit is an inherent problem of both capitalism and human nature when considering principles such as "free market".)

Here we run into a naturalistic fallacy again, but this seems even stranger to me. First you say that capitalism is natural, but then you say that we should 'adapt' ourselves to capitalism? I'd say if any adapting needs to be done, the system is not natural to begin with. Short-term solutions are bad, that is true, but long-term 'solutions' are equally bad if the system is principally unnatural, as capitalism is in my opinion.

Sure it fits the definition of "natural fallacy", but I don't see it as a fallacy. Viewing a system comprised of humans and interhuman activity is something that I cannot fathom should be considered withouth considering human nature itself.

I didn't say capitalism is "natural". I said it was a systematic expression of human nature. And I said that instead of attempting to steer it in the direction we want (such as keeping a big company up to let people keep their jobs, even though the company is pretty much bankrupt.) We should adapt to the nature of the system. (e.g. companies which don't have the right to life should be put out of their misery, so the stronger more robust ones may prosper.)

As contradictory as it may seem, human nature seems to be to a very large extent to work against what's natural. In many cases, that proves to be somewhat benefitial for the species. But working against a system that is expressed through our own nature, is working indirectly against human nature. And the problem with that, is that people who work within the system (e.g. 90+% of the worlds population), will more or less work against that anyway.

[Gaston]

Gaston, seriously, capitalism is not natural. It is a system that evolved though time, as you already stated, but that doesn't mean it's natural. The need for nutrition is natural. Sexual desire is natural. Capitlism however, is not.

Capitalism is a systematic expression of human nature. I don't know if you can call that natural or not, but that's besides the point I'm making. My point is that capitalism and human nature is linked together.

Capitalism is a structure that we're all forced into. It has always been led by the ones on the top, as they are the ones with the most power. They indirectly decide how this system evolves. I think everyone agrees that with enough money, you can do almost anything you want. And that's the point. This system doesn't evolve naturally, there are people behind it who pull the strings, people who make decisions. They all have the same amition, and that is maximize profit by all means.

You mean just like there are humans who are better athletes than others? Just like some people are sexier than others, and gets more choices in who they want to mate with and so on? By all means, capitalism isn't a system that is going to make the world into a utopia for mankind. But it is a system that works, and fits pretty well in with human nature.

Capitalism is outdated, I say it again. It's an old system that was may have been good in times were growth was needed. Nowadays, we are reaching the limits of growth, which causes numerous problems. We have developted to a point, where growth shouldn't be the main target anymore.

Consistent growth isn't inherent to capitalism. It is inherent to government policies and a reaction to globalism seen in conjunction with nations need to stay sovereign.

The technological progress opens countless options to create a new system from scratch, a global system that benefits everyone equally. Where production is based on real needs (not created to make profit) and on the carrying capacity of the earth.

It does? How on earth would you replace capitalism with a new system? Sounds like a pretty ambitious effort to me... Either way, I can pretty much guarantee you, that as long as humans are in charge of a system, not everyone are gonne get equal benfits.

And why do you want to stick to this system that spreads so much misery in the world and is doomed to fail, hoping that it will "naturally" evolve to a new, adequate capitalism. It's not that flexible, Gaston. It is at all times based on profit, and this is the main cause of a big number of environmental and social problems. Because the need to maximize profit will always lead to corruption, it's more effective than playing by the rules. That's why capitalism can't be regulated either. So it can't evolve to a new and adjusted version of itself.

You're painting a very bleak picture of capitalism. With capitalism, the living standard of human beings have continioually gone upwards. I'm not saying that capitalism is the saviour of mankind, but it doesn't seem to be working against mankinds possibility to live well and prosper. Capitalism can be regulated. The most successful way of doing that, is for the government to provide alternatives. While giving regulations for private companies for what they can do and can't. Such as safety regulations, what companies can and can't do in the market they're in and so on.

Capitalism is no natural part of evolution, it is a system that has been created and developed by those on the top and can be exchanged with a new, adequate system. Of course the transition period is a big difficulty, but considering the global problems nowadays, it is a needed step.

Again, I don't see how you (or anyone else) are gonna be able to change such a system as capitalism. I see it as nothing short of a systematic expression of human nature.

[Gaston]

I'm by no means arguing against socialism as a whole, but there are elements within some socialistic principles which are working directly against the principles of capitalism in a manner that doesn't make the system better, but rather stiffles it's natural evolution, while keeping it up.

Within the original context, this wasn't less ridiculous than it is without. Seriously, WTF?

I think "while keeping it up" shouldn't be there. When I'm talking about socialistic principles working against capitalistic principles, I'm mainly talking about things such as bail-outs to companies and manipulation of currency and interest rates to stay competetive on the international market.

[Hostile]

Yep, a new movie from Zeitgeist. If you're interested, watch it from the link below, or downlaod it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gnjRLsKnd0

Edit: Just finished watching it, and loved it. Liked it even more than Zeitgeist: Addendum. A lot more, actually.