What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
84 Comments
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -5/+70How convenient, a ballot box right next to the idiot box!
- nico623, on 07/01/2008, -0/+23any respect for the actual artist ? source ?
- roosevans, on 07/01/2008, -13/+35There is nothing wrong with capitalism per se as long as business isn't trying to control the government, something which Ron Paul and others refer to as "corporatism". To me this is "The Corporatist Pyramid".
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -12/+33It's likely you don't know what capitalism is. What's depicted there is fascism, or corporatism.
- Dumbledorito, on 07/01/2008, -2/+21Or 2008. Whichever.
- commernie, on 07/01/2008, -11/+29"...as long as business isn't trying to control the government..."
You mean the way it happens in magical land? Seriously, over 200 years of capitalism have taught us that this just isn't possible. - inactive, on 07/01/2008, -5/+21There are studies into the happiness of the general populations of nations. The ones that consistently come out on top, in terms of a satisfied populace, are those with a mixed socialist/capitalist system. Those countries at the top of the list include all of the Scandanavian countries, with Denmark on top. The USA usually scores in the low thirties.
- MacBookForMe, on 07/01/2008, -6/+21'Inconvenient truth' about the nature of immortal global corporations
- humanerror, on 07/01/2008, -5/+20>> "There is nothing wrong with capitalism per se as long as business isn't trying to control the government"
That may be true, but it's a bit like saying, there's nothing wrong with abolishing all laws and getting rid of the police, as long as everyone plays nice and nobody ever commits any crimes.
It would be nice, but it won't happen. Just as when the dominant institutions were slavery and feudalism, we need to find a system that allows humans to be humans and yet not live like beasts. - ruiacp, on 07/01/2008, -3/+18Fascism is a capitalist friendly dictatorship.
- Dumbledorito, on 07/01/2008, -3/+18Which seems to be what corporations want, as they spend so much money making sure the laws favor them and that regulation stays at a minimum.
- mentallyinhell, on 07/01/2008, -7/+21Great pic, but that's not capitalism, that's fascism. Actually, it looks a lot like 1984.
- wynja, on 07/01/2008, -9/+22Please relabel, "New Fascist Pyramid."
- MrDNA, on 07/01/2008, -1/+13Here is the original Capitalist Pyramid on which this post is based:
http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/archive/iww-pyra ...
An injury to one is an injury to all! - RoflCoptah, on 07/01/2008, -2/+13or maybe it makes too much sense?
- LloydBentsen, on 07/01/2008, -5/+16Scheissen, a certain level of government is essential to a good and stable economy.
- ghee, on 07/01/2008, -5/+15There's no mystery as to how they built this pyramid.
- Hetman, on 07/01/2008, -2/+12Misleading title. It is really the new capitalist heptagon.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -2/+11And the politicians ON BOTH SIDES support their agendas.
- mlrigsby, on 07/01/2008, -1/+9Good bye
- swrostmore, on 07/01/2008, -3/+10Strict adherence to Capitalism is as stupid as strict adherence to Socialism. The ideal system is the mix of the two as seen in the US government. The balance may need some fine-tuning, but we've got the general idea down right.
- xtinamo, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7That was over a century ago and look how far we've come.. oh *****, nothing has changed.
- mikephimikephi, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6Yeah but look how entertaining the TV is!
There's a Walmart channel, a flower channel, and a channel for Top Gear - neodorian, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5I agree and that is something missed by a lot of armchair anarchists out there. It's important to have a real and legit "left wing" and "right wing" in the sense that we need to constantly maintain the balance between the private and public sector. When either gets too much control, the citizens lose.
- humanerror, on 07/01/2008, -5/+108m4ck: Yeah look at all those corrupt socialist tyrannies like Norway and Sweden and ... Canada! Nooooo! Avert your eyes!
- LloydBentsen, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6DrPaul2008, I would suggest that you read up on the several ways that a free market creates what economists call a dead weight losses. There are many ways that free market economies do not preform at the efficient of optimal level. Here's my olive branch though: Ron Paul was my favorite candidate of the 2008 election cycle behind Kucinich and Gravel.
- mecharabbit, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Unfortunately, a Denmark-type system would be impossible in the US because most Americans would not tolerate the level of taxation necessary to implement it.
- frostbyt, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Ohh I get it. The police want to watch TV too.
- pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4we should return to "true capitalism" that we had before the depression. screw all these child labor laws and workplace safety requirements.
- commernie, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5How is trusting corporations any better? If anything, it's worse. They are very upfront about their priorities: to profit.
- Peko, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4commerniecommernie wrote: "This sounds like an argument against free market capitalism."
In case you haven't noticed, the market in US Style capitalism is really not as free as it could be. - Dumbledorito, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5Wait, so your solution is to elect candidates who promise not to take money while at the same time eliminating any penalty for doing so other than waggling a finger and saying "oooh, we are SO going to elect someone else next time?"
Apparently that whole "power corrupts" maxim totally went over your head. If letting people rule without some kind of legal and enforcable check on the abuses of wealth and power (other than "promise not to be naughty or you'll get SUCH a finger waggling") was such a neato idea, we'd still be operating under feudalism. - fakekevinrose, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4And nothing of value was lost.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -5/+8Close.
Wealthy corporations want tough regulations because it enables monopolies by weeding out the weaker competition. It's simple enough for a big corporation to meet any bribes demanded by the government, plus they benefit from the lack of competition.. they invest 1/100,000ths of the money coming in to hurt little guys who have to dedicate 1/10th of what would be their profit to service the government bribe.
Some people who run corporations are willing to pay government for political favor. Which is why the design of our government was meant to be very limited, and not beneficial to purchase favor from. This is why we should look for presidential candidates who have the integrity to turn down payments from big businesses. We have a chance this year, but apparently there wasn't enough conservative strength left in the GOP to oppose the neocons, and thus, Ron Paul would have to be written in, and that certainly doesn't leave a very good chance. Obviously, a larger problem then not being on the ballot is that too few people actually understand this. - BigManOnCampus, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3kind of dizzying to look at.
- pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -6/+9http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6093/newcapital ...
- Aadain, on 07/01/2008, -6/+9Corporatism is basically the final goal of capitalism, in which everything has a price, even the government leaders and laws.
- commernie, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4"This is why we should look for presidential candidates who have the integrity to turn down payments from big businesses."
The very, very few politicians that behave this way are never allowed to have any sort of real power by the corporations. In practical terms, such politicians don't exist.
By the way, Ron Paul wasn't that kind of politician. - mlrigsby, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Reminds me of Romero's Land of the Dead.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Firstly, it's hard to take seriously any comment which begins "Jesus dude," but be that as it may, true Laissez faire economics isn't what we have here in the U.S., but I really don't want to argue that... I just don't want to let you get away with saying that Europe's standard of living is better than America's, because that is ridiculous. According to the Wall Street Journal (credible to most people, but not you I'm sure,) U.S. GDP per capita was "a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since." In addition, the disparity is "so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up."
Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says (note that it's a SWEDISH study.)
I'll give you this, though, Germany did edge out Arkansas in per capita GDP. - inactive, on 07/01/2008, -5/+7It's also like saying nothing is wrong with socialism, as long as the peoples' lives and liberty are contingent upon their responsible choices and the government is a selfless, ethical establishment looking out for the goodwill of the people - it would be nice, but it won't happen.
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - digitronix, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2If there is a congressional override, then you're not talking about a Democracy. That's what we call a Republic.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2"The fact of the matter is that our friend, the supply-demand curves which intersect to establish equilibrium price & quantity is what makes the world go round."
Spoken like someone who thinks economics is arithmetic. - galeninjapan, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2So your saying that what we call capitlism isnt really capitlism at all? Maybe we should call it what it really is then. Fascism.
- phike, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4Chicofaraby - ever hear of the USSR? Or do you think it was Regan that ended the cold war?
Whataboutdave - Capitalism only works when the lower & middle class live somewhat comfortably (relative to the upper-class), as this will encourage them to continue to supply their labor & dollars to the rich. In order to keep this balance, the gap between the wealthy and the poor needs to shrink, if not then stay the same. Unfortunately, this gap is increasing at an alarming rate, therefore the U.S. capitalist system will ultimately fail if nothing changes. The answer? Look at Obama's plan; raise taxes by ~4.5% to the wealthiest of the rich; the bottom 90% of citizens get further tax relief. Standards of living will naturally increase for that 90%, while the rich are hardly affected, for they will still be rich (and will continue to get richer, but not at the same pace). - bizz0ris, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Except the new religion...TV!
- whataboutdave, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3I don't watch TV.
The European liberal democracies you are describing are mixed markets (did I mention they are liberal democracies?). I said an *alternative* - not just the American system with higher taxes and more entitlement programs. - dOOBiEx213, on 07/01/2008, -4/+5He used the synonym.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
