Study: $21 trillion hoard hidden from taxman by global elite

Capitalism rewards immoral behaviour.

which economic system doesn't ?

Yeah. WTF? And btw, heard of the legal system and what it should do?

Survival of the shittest.

I think what azatoth is referring to is the way that the market does not reward "good" moral actions; it punishes them. It rewards cost-effectiveness and immediate monetary returns. It is amoral, as goDel said, and people want money more than they want morals, so capitalism is used as a vehicle for global destruction in the name of shareholder profits. Doing the right thing will often cost shareholders money, so they will pull their money out, the public company will suffer, and they will have learned the lesson: Don't do the right thing.

  On 5/24/2013 at 8:40 PM, luke viia said:

people want money more than they want morals

in what alternative system that won't be the case ?

I don't have the answer to that.

I disagree with such a generalisation though. The market not rewarding "good" moral actions? If someone finds a cure for cancer, wouldn't there be a reward? You could say capitalism is bad in the same sense science is bad. There's nothing wrong with science itself (it's amoral), but it can be used to produce the atom bomb, for instance. If scientific discoveries can produce stuff that fucks up humanity, than that doesn't imply science is bad or that it rewards "bad" stuff.

On the whole this "reward" stuff puts it a bit too black/white, if you ask me. It's absolutely not the case that bad stuff doesn't get rewarded. I'm not blind. But to generalize it to such proportions that it's never the good stuff and always the bad stuff which gets rewarded, is just false.

My only point was, and still is, that to blame all the bad stuff on "capitalism" is just way too easy. Capitalism doesn't dictate the tax-code and/or its loopholes. Capitalism doesn't dictate absolute free markets. Capitalism doesn't dictate the entitlement mentality which could be seen behind the tax-evasion crap in the docu. Capitalism doesn't dictate that politicians should be bribable. Capitalism doesn't dictate there is no such a thing as a social obligation. And finally, it just doesn't dictate greed or fear.

Sorry, I didn't intend to say that my explanation occurred 100% of the time. I don't generally feel the need to qualify my generalizations with that sort of disclaimer... I'll keep it in mind in the future.

Speaking of false generalizations, I don't blame all bad stuff on capitalism, and never have, but thanks for the primer on what capitalism doesn't do at any rate. I have my problems with the prevailing economic view shown in manyTNC's international business tactics, but I can't put my thoughts on the interplay of TNC's and my government into a coherent paragraph here this afternoon; my previous post was simply to try to elucidate azatoth's statement.

Regarding a cure for cancer: I'm sure you're familiar with Myriad Genetic's BRCA1/BRCA2 gene patents, right? I'm not saying "capitalism" is to blame for things like this, but the market rewards exclusive rights over a cancer cure, so that's what that company has done: gained the exclusive rights to study breast cancer with these genes.

  On 5/24/2013 at 9:33 PM, luke viia said:

Sorry, I didn't intend to say that my explanation occurred 100% of the time. I don't generally feel the need to qualify my generalizations with that sort of disclaimer... I'll keep it in mind in the future.

 

Speaking of false generalizations, I don't blame all bad stuff on capitalism, and never have, but thanks for the primer on what capitalism doesn't do at any rate. I have my problems with the prevailing economic view shown in manyTNC's international business tactics, but I can't put my thoughts on the interplay of TNC's and my government into a coherent paragraph here this afternoon; my previous post was simply to try to elucidate azatoth's statement.

That blame-point wasn't directed at you. On the contrary. You added a lot of nuance to Aza's remark. I just disagreed with the "good behavior often doesn't get rewarded" thing. That blame-thing was in response to Azatoth's swift remark. I thought it was necessary to put it here again in another form. It's just a general observation of mine that stuff gets attached to capitalism way too easy. So this is basically the third time I've said it. Again not aimed at you.

In other words, I've turned into a tape recorder repeating myself ad infinitum. Rather sad, I know. Just as sad as being watmm poster-boy for capitalism. I'm actually more neutral to it, than it shows around here, but whatever.

Lol, it's all good. It's nice to have someone to pester about capitalism, your role is welcome as far as I'm concerned.

hey, I'm a big fan of capitalism too!

I agree the patent thing is a very sensitive issue. Especially on this forum in the context of content creation, btw. Altough you've already said capitalism is not to blame, I still would like to press this point even harder. (because the association of various problems to capitalism are so damned tight) A capitalistic system without patents is still a capitalistic system. A capitalistic system with even more freedom to produce various goods.

The way patents work is more about the design of the laws, the regulation, the protection of original content creators and what not. It has to do with what people think is "moral" an should be put in the legal system. That these patents/laws can be used against social interests is a given. And it could be argued this says more about how well the laws are written, than it says about capitalism.

But just like Eugene says though, what other system would provide a better "reward" in this case?

You're great too, chen. *pats on the head*

*21 Trillion offshore free mason group hug*

  On 5/24/2013 at 10:04 PM, goDel said:

I agree the patent thing is a very sensitive issue. Especially on this forum in the context of content creation, btw. Altough you've already said capitalism is not to blame, I still would like to press this point even harder. (because the association of various problems to capitalism are so damned tight) A capitalistic system without patents is still a capitalistic system. A capitalistic system with even more freedom to produce various goods.

 

The way patents work is more about the design of the laws, the regulation, the protection of original content creators and what not. It has to do with what people think is "moral" an should be put in the legal system. That these patents/laws can be used against social interests is a given. And it could be argued this says more about how well the laws are written, than it says about capitalism.

 

But just like Eugene says though, what other system would provide a better "reward" in this case?

Yes, I agree with what you've said here. I don't really have a favorite alternative political ideology... (I'm still studying my own field in college and it eats up most of my serious reading time) But would a sort of socialist-capitalist nation, in which people owned private capital but social interest is preserved above private interest, be at all a good starting point? (That's a genuine question, I promise) Regarding this patent issue, I would basically just prefer to see a nation which does not consider scientific progress as private property to be bought and sold, often by people who had no part in the research (ie "patent trolling" - a fellow student of mine has gone to work for such a patent-collecting/ lawsuit-machine company recently). Such a nation would have to consider innovations that benefit the public good as essentially "open sourced" in that all companies would be allowed access to the research, be allowed to add to it, etc, for the good of the people. It would necessarily remove benefit from the private corporation that innovated in the first place, and it can be argued that this would reduce innovation. I won't go into it but I believe that if done right, this creative collaboration would actually spur on innovation rather than hinder it. I should mention that I have fairly radical views on intellectual property in the first place, and again I believe our mutually agreed point that this is not a "capitalism" problem but a legislation problem.

The immoral action thing wouldn't be a problem if our government actually did its job and protected its citizens from exploitation in the pursuit of profits.

We can't even get a reasonable minimum wage ffs.

  On 5/24/2013 at 10:00 PM, chenGOD said:

hey, I'm a big fan of capitalism too!

to a certain extent, im in absolute agreement. It seems to me that many people fail to separate what is an inherently economic ideology (capitalism) of ownership, and the governments which condone (or condemn) such methods.

It is certain "extremist" forms of capital production combined with failure of the gov't apparatus to accurately delegate in the interests of its representative body that cause these problems most lump together as "capitalism".

In other words, there's far more to crony and corporate greed than believing in the Invisible Hand.

If we wanted a real system that imposed justice, the loopholes that allowed these men to smuggle away funds should be closed- shouting "Hang them all!" might seem productive, but it would only serve to benefit other people to take their places (usually with more insidious motives)

FYI: the offshore data is out in the open:

http://offshoreleaks.icij.org/

  Quote

 

 

The data are part of a cache of 2.5 million leaked offshore files ICIJ analyzed with 112 journalists in 58 countries. Since April, stories based on the data — the largest stockpile of inside information about the offshore system ever obtained by a media organization — have been published by more than 40 media organizations worldwide, including The Guardian in the U.K., Le Monde in France, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Norddeutscher Rundfunk in Germany,The Washington Post and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

  Quote

that's awesome. thanks for sharing, godel (& ICIJ!)