It's all about Caring

[rkaiser]

Capitalism is a lot about money and very little about caring. When capitalism goes too far, and caring becomes less, tides change. The tide is changing folks, and it's not Randy Kaiser who is doing it. Look back at the history of civilized :roll: man. Lots of shifts from right to left, and we are seeing one now. GW and the multinational gang left out the caring part for too long, and are going to loose power. And it won't be me that causes that Soapy.

Times are a changing folks, and changing for the betterment of all mankind, and not just those with money and greed as their top priority.

It's great DAAAY to be alive - the suns still shinin when I close my eyes.

Actually it's been raining for two days up here in Central Alberta and the forecast is for more. Hope all of my new babies can get through this without too much sickness. They hide out in this thing called BUSH at my ranch, so they will be all right. Not like me hiding out from that other thing called BUSH. Almost wrote something derogative about GW there but thanks to quick edit I backed off.

Just think of the grass we will be able to grow. Might just be able to compete on a level playing field with the long season advantage that you American folks have over us Canuckleheads.

Have a great day everyone.

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

Boyoboyoboy, Randy, you opened a big one here. I would concur with many of your thoughts with regard to capitalism. Any system can go wrong when things go out of balance. At the root of its failure lies the ugly side of humanity - selfishness and greed.

How about this thought - unbridled capitalism will ultimately have the same outcome as an unchecked communism.

In any case, I would prefer to live and grow in our flawed, democratic, free enterprise system. The challenge is to do so without being derailed by those with an "overdeveloped" need for acheivement. :wink:

My Dad had a good and memorable creed -"Live and let live". In his eighty-two years, he did not harm anyone with it.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

So Randy if you don't like capitalism which way are you leaning. Socialism? Communism? :???:

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

I cannot find where Randy says that he doesn't like capitalism. I understand him to be pointing out what happens when the emphasis on profits overshadows any humanitarian affect.

The pendulum swings both ways and when it goes all the way to one side, the ideologues on the other side tend to react like the Tasmanian Devil on crack cocaine!

 

[Econ101]

One of the extremities of capitalism is fascism. Maybe Randy just sees we are going too close to that side. The recent history of fascism in the world (Italy and Germany) has many similarities to what is going on right now.





---Corporatism should be more accurately defined as Fascism, as it is the merging of corporate and state interests.---Benito Mussolini



I have to keep reminding myself that the sun is still shining. Thanks randy for that reminder.

 

[Sandhusker]

Capitalism works great if the sheriff isn't bought off.

 

[Mrs.Greg]

Well Randy...after listening to the mindless rants of Brian Mason and Jack Layton of late...I sure hope the tide doesn't go too far left :!: :?

 

[mrj]

Interesting points here.

However, don't we see way too much of politicians, liberals from BOTH parties, telling people how much they 'care', then proceeding to demonstrate it to the 'faithful' by taking money from those who work, and giving it to far too many of those who do not? Before anyone blasts away at me, I do not include children in that 'taking' groupl. All too often, their parents are taking the food from their childrens mouths in order to fund their bad habits, and that is criminal!

How much money is donated to humanitarian causes by those evil corporations? Many communities benefit from generous wealthy people and businesses.

How much of the poverty and heartbreak is because people simply make poor choices, rather than because corporations force them to work for too little money?

How many people CHOOSE (or simply just let it happen) not to educate themselves? How many CHOOSE to have babies (or simply just let it happen) before they can support them? How many CHOOSE (or just simply let it happen) use/abuse alcohol, cigarettes, and/or illegal subsances rather than use their incomes wisely for their families?

Whose fault is all that?

Please do not tell us it is because people are 'downtrodden', or know no better, because if that were true, none of those born into 'poor' families would rise above that poverty, mostly by their own efforts, with darn little help from 'the system', as many actually do. How many survive and thrive in spite of, rather than 'helped' by all the groups making their living by 'helping the poor'?

Where else in this world can those truly born into poverty rise to the top of the social and financial systems, as they can and do in the USA?

It sure is fun, easy, and so very socially acceptable to blame 'the system' 'corporate greed' and 'unbridled capitalism' for all societal ills in the USA, though!

MRJ

 

[rkaiser]

Good points MRJ, and maybe you are right about not all. When did I ever suggest anything about being anything but a card carrying conservative BMR or anyone else?

How about one for you MRJ -

"The difference between great people and everyone else is that great people create their lives actively, while everyone else is created by their lives, passively waiting to see where life takes us next. The difference between the two is the difference between living fully and just existing."

The only thing that I would ad to this quote is that each individual has the same potential inside. Great people are simply the ones who use that potential.

Hard for people of any kind to create in a Fascist or Communist society. Econo and Maple Leaf were as close as anyone to knowing where I was going with this thread.

Mind you, I think MRJ would disagree with rkaiser if I said that she was a beautiful lass!!!!!!!!! I SAID LASS ECONO!!!!!

 

[mrj]

Good points MRJ, and maybe you are right about not all. When did I ever suggest anything about being anything but a card carrying conservative BMR or anyone else?

How about one for you MRJ -

"The difference between great people and everyone else is that great people create their lives actively, while everyone else is created by their lives, passively waiting to see where life takes us next. The difference between the two is the difference between living fully and just existing."

The only thing that I would ad to this quote is that each individual has the same potential inside. Great people are simply the ones who use that potential.

Hard for people of any kind to create in a Fascist or Communist society. Econo and Maple Leaf were as close as anyone to knowing where I was going with this thread.

Mind you, I think MRJ would disagree with rkaiser if I said that she was a beautiful lass!!!!!!!!! I SAID LASS ECONO!!!!!

k, not only do we agree on your quote and the potential of people, but we share Celtic heritage, mine being, in order of predominance, Irish and Scottish. We may even like some of the same breeds of cattle, though my favorite is the Scottish Highlander, for meat quality and ability to thrive in unfavorable conditions.

I've never thought I was, nor claimed to be 'beautiful', whatever that may mean, and my British grandmother always said things such as "beauty is only skin deep", "you can't make a silk purse from a sows ear", "don't gild the lilly". One could think she disapproved or was discouraging vanity! I do have a favorite niece who dearly loves me and tells me frequently that I am beautiful, as have some others in, or passing through, my life. My point: 'beauty' can be nice, or not so nice, embarrassing, useful, used, enjoyable, and more, but what is in the heart and soul are more lasting and serves humanity better than what is on the surface. And that is where my 'best' God given beauty comes from.

MRJ

 

[Soapweed]

Many good points have been brought out by all of you. I still think a good motto to live by is: "All things in moderation." The "live and let live" philosophy is pretty good, too, as long as we don't bury our heads in the sand and let rights get taken away from us. One that comes immediately to mind is the right to own and bear arms, and by this, I am not talking about wearing tank tops and displaying biceps with tattoos. :wink:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Frow Randy's post I felt that he was leaning away from capitalism.

Could someone tell me if any Socialist or Communist countries donate more money per capita to worldly causes then the Capitalistic countries of Canada and the USA?

 

[Mrs.Greg]

Frow Randy's post I felt that he was leaning away from capitalism.

Could someone tell me if any Socialist or Communist countries donate more money per capita to worldly causes then the Capitalistic countries of Canada and the USA?

I can't factually answer that but would think they would tend to donate less,and keep more to themselves,simply for the fact to control the people in thier countries.

Randy didn't think I got what he meant...wrong I got it But was trying to point out caring can go too far to the point of problams also,yes tides change when one 'thing' overrides another,its not nessasarly for the better that Randy seems to think it is. :?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

---Corporatism should be more accurately defined as Fascism, as it is the merging of corporate and state interests.---Benito Mussolini

I think this is a very apt quote, Econ. We no longer live in a capitalist society, at least not one that Adam Smith envisioned, but rather a corporate society, where all the decisions are made for the good of the corporations, with the idea that the benefits will trickle down to the people.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

---Corporatism should be more accurately defined as Fascism, as it is the merging of corporate and state interests.---Benito Mussolini

I think this is a very apt quote, Econ. We no longer live in a capitalist society, at least not one that Adam Smith envisioned, but rather a corporate society, where all the decisions are made for the good of the corporations, with the idea that the benefits will trickle down to the people.

Rod

You're exactly right, Rod. I don't like it.

 

[Bill]

---Corporatism should be more accurately defined as Fascism, as it is the merging of corporate and state interests.---Benito Mussolini

I think this is a very apt quote, Econ. We no longer live in a capitalist society, at least not one that Adam Smith envisioned, but rather a corporate society, where all the decisions are made for the good of the corporations, with the idea that the benefits will trickle down to the people.

Rod

You're exactly right, Rod. I don't like it.

What do you see changing that as long as consumers are shareholders in many of these companies that are publically traded and they provide them with (in the case of food) a less expensive product PLUS a return on their investment?

 

[TSR]

---Corporatism should be more accurately defined as Fascism, as it is the merging of corporate and state interests.---Benito Mussolini

I think this is a very apt quote, Econ. We no longer live in a capitalist society, at least not one that Adam Smith envisioned, but rather a corporate society, where all the decisions are made for the good of the corporations, with the idea that the benefits will trickle down to the people.

Rod

Reminds me of Reaganism-trickle down theory.

 

[Sandhusker]

I think this is a very apt quote, Econ. We no longer live in a capitalist society, at least not one that Adam Smith envisioned, but rather a corporate society, where all the decisions are made for the good of the corporations, with the idea that the benefits will trickle down to the people.

Rod

You're exactly right, Rod. I don't like it.

What do you see changing that as long as consumers are shareholders in many of these companies that are publically traded and they provide them with (in the case of food) a less expensive product PLUS a return on their investment?

I don't think anything is going to change, Bill, until people pull their heads out of their arses and look at the big picture. Take this "guest worker" crap being pandered by Washington now. The official story is Mexicans do the jobs we don't want and they do it for less - which saves companies money that they pass down to us via cheaper product. The bigger picture is that they cause us to spend a lot more money on health care, law enforcement, social services, etc.... and most of their earnings get sent out of the country so those dollars don't benefit our economy - they're just gone. So really, how good of a deal is that? Sure, the companies save money on labor, but they will still charge whatever the market will bear. AND, consumers are the ones holding the bag for the bills.

 

[TSR]

You're exactly right, Rod. I don't like it.

What do you see changing that as long as consumers are shareholders in many of these companies that are publically traded and they provide them with (in the case of food) a less expensive product PLUS a return on their investment?

I don't think anything is going to change, Bill, until people pull their heads out of their arses and look at the big picture. Take this "guest worker" crap being pandered by Washington now. The official story is Mexicans do the jobs we don't want and they do it for less - which saves companies money that they pass down to us via cheaper product. The bigger picture is that they cause us to spend a lot more money on health care, law enforcement, social services, etc.... and most of their earnings get sent out of the country so those dollars don't benefit our economy - they're just gone. So really, how good of a deal is that? Sure, the companies save money on labor, but they will still charge whatever the market will bear. AND, consumers are the ones holding the bag for the bills.

Exactly, Sandhusker. Its a no lose situation for the corporations.

 

[RobertMac]

K-man, your Bush bashing puts you in the company of some very suspects groups...far left-wing, blind Bush haters. Your mixed signals make for misinterpretation.

Capitalism is a lot about money and very little about caring.

Too general in that statement...the morality conflict of greed and caring is not an issue of capitalism, but is an issue of those involved...I think we agree here. The corporatazation of our capitalistic system has given those directly involved in the consumer/business interface the ability to be morally detached..."I sorry, that's company policy". Becoming part of a large corporation gives the individual a place to hide when it comes to doing the "caring thing"...the individual has the ability to obfuscate responsibility. As consumers, we are also complicit in helping the trend toward corporate capitalism by making price our primary criteria for making a purchase...we go buy from those that "sell for less". The ability to 'sell for less' comes from 'low margin/high volume'. Those that get there first are able to use their 'low margin/high volume' as a barrier to competition. For smaller competitors to compete, they merge to become the new 'lowest margin/highest volume' player. Mergers continue until small business can't compete at all in major markets, except to offer what large corporations can't.

I see the problem as corporate capitalism vs. small business capitalism. Our Federal government for the last thirty or more years have helped the corporate capitalism because of promises of saving consumers money...read as buying votes. So if there is a change coming, it will have to start with the consumer/voter. Where is a Teddy R. when you need him?