I should add, it's not even necessarily men who are incapable—but often lazy men; people think that capitalism is actually run by hard working men of success, but in fact it is entirely the opposite. Those who print money (which isn't even backed by gold anymore) and loan is out do so very selectively, of course. Nothing is fail proof, and there are not advanced systems in place to monitor this either; it is run by a group of people with agendas and they forgive & spike interest at will. But the money doesn't represent anything; it is literally a fabricated representation of reward, meaning that those who give it out and forgive debts have enslaved the entire world—and they are lazy, you can believe that. They are unethical. They don't have to work for money, not really; they have glorified every unethical behavior as "success" so long as you have money; in other words, the whole system is corrupt because true ethics come from hard working good, and talented, modest, honest people: Not people who sit at the heart of a fabricated representation of human labor printing off cheap ink in the form of stamps onto laughably cheap sheets of cloth.
Flattery is presented as "professionalism & good behavior"; seduction is pretended as "beauty & good marketing", exploitation is called "opportunity", greed is called "success", self-servingness is called "shrewd business" so long as you ACT otherwise, blatant lies are called "possibilities & political correctness", enslavement to cheap wages & long grueling hours for someone else is called "humble duty & subservience to your superiorities", 50 years of enslavement is called "an investment into your old age & a good man", blatant theft & fines are referred to as blunders & mistakes if you can buy your way out, racial supremacy is called a "traditional difference" if you belong to certain lineages or belief systems, protesting is called "ungraciousness & terrorism" if it doesn't suit the thieves' agendas, blatant rape is called frisky flirtation or earnest dating if you can use someone for resources long enough and demonize them later as "deserving to be punished with abandonment" (as if said predator was ever monogamous in the first place). The list goes on and on.
Literally, what you think is capitalism is the entire reversal of ethics—and working very hard to make a lot of money almost never happens. 99% of money is given in barely livable wages to the good people, and kept by the bad; then it is squandered away on flirty charming wicked individuals who play the victim all the time and use drugs, or given to churches by men who are milking ancient divinity, given to charities of individuals who exploit the suffering and claim they are "investing in research", given to lawyers who will take any case good or bad, celebrities, athletes, worthless consumables & vanity items, short-lived fashions, perfumes, etc. You're living in hell, and most of you don't even know it because you've been conditioned to believe that Shakira & Taylor Swift—and all your politicians—are "good men & women" so long as they claim it most of the time and have a fabricated entourage mimicking these claims to add a little extra "oomph" to the delusions. As long as they dress fancy and give big giant cheesy grins … Well, then they are obviously good people. Duh.
Which economic system is correct? I can tell you it isn't capitalism.
|
Hate to burst your bubble, but forms of money/currency were being used wayyy before they even knew what mental conditions were. In fact, most currency was used to organize trade with other smaller communities/city-states.
In fact, the earliest forms of currency probably wasn't even paper or coins, but rather other valuable products such as manure, cattle, and agriculture (and eventually land, children, businesses, etc.) and people said "Hey, I have lots of manure, but nothing to use it on. Why don't I see what that guy has?"
|
I'm not even responding to your post, because the quote you just responded to from me specifically says in there that most currency was either "exchanging resources" or exploitation. Where are you missing this point? You read the rest of my paragraph where I elaborated on the origins of exploitation—and I even clarified that exploitation was probably originally in the form of shiny things, not paper.
Oh, right, but you're bursting my bubble by copying every single point I made.
|
Who is to blame here - the money or the taunter? If you say money, then think of a different example. If the man was taunting disabled people with a piece of bread, saying "Do this for me and I'll give you this bread!" then who is to blame here? The piece of bread?
|
Money is an inanimate object; I'm unsure where your ability to comprehend abstract thought is coming in. Yes, I was advocating we all put money in a big pile somewhere and scream obscenities at it. Of course it's the individuals; it's the agendas and money itself as a faux representation of energy. It is a flawed concept by its very nature and forging abuse & exploitation