Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Don’t miss this exceptional article…

2014: The Year US-led Capitalism Became Exposed as Root of Global Conflict

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2015/01/the-ye ... -conflict/

[Paphitis]

Don’t miss this exceptional article…

2014: The Year US-led Capitalism Became Exposed as Root of Global Conflict

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2015/01/the-ye ... -conflict/

It's a bogus article because Capitalism is not led by America.

Capitalism derives its power from the masses who fuel the market driven forces every time they go shopping, do their banking or buy the latest and greatest car or hatchback.

Without the average Joe Bloggs consumer on the street, Capitalism can't thrive. Without the ambition to succeed it all falls in a heap. Which is why it is so successful in most countries including Cyprus and even so called Communist States like China!

Capitalism allows people the opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. Nothing falls into your lap, but generally speaking, if you try hard and are semi intelligent, opportunities will come your way. The problem is, some people are in their comfort zones and miss these opportunities.

Why is it that in Western Culture we place a particular importance on our children's education? So they can survive and thrive in this world by getting the plum jobs and earn good money and be happy and content or to go the other route and set up their own little enterprise and work hard to achieve what they set their minds to and most of all be happy and decent human beings.

That is what Capitalism is all about and you can't get that in a truly Communist State. There is no individuality or freedom to do what you want, when you want, and there is no reason to be as ambitious and you do not get any opportunities to achieve what you want.

This is why, the Capitalism Vs Communism debate is very one sided. Capitalism is by far the preferred option even for those who are suppressed by totalitarian regimes which do not allow it.

On the other hand, capitalism does not suppress Communism because it doesn't have to and it goes against the grain of our free societies.

[Robin Hood]

Don’t miss this exceptional article…

2014: The Year US-led Capitalism Became Exposed as Root of Global Conflict

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2015/01/the-ye ... -conflict/

A good article, Not too much detail which makes it a quick read and tells it as it is but something easy to remember as a basis for finding out more.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

It's a bogus article because Capitalism is not led by America

.
It is accurate but gets the message over because it is a simple and straight forward explanation. Capitalism today is driven by the banking and financial systems both of which are dominated by a few TBTF US Institutions. When they go belly up, the State bails them out ...... that is called socialism!!!!! So capitalism is driven by America and mainly to satisfy the interests of the US/Old World elite, but is quick to fall back onto socialism when it is they who are in trouble!

I don’t think anyone can ignore the fact that capitalism is a requirement for a society that advances over time. But I think you are confusing the PRINCIPALS of capitalism with the APPLICATION of those principals? We have without any doubt, a global financial and banking system driven by EXTREME capitalism and extreme capitalism is as bad as extreme Islam, they are both applied with translations of the rule book for the benefit of the few and work to the detriment of the majority.

Capitalism allows people the opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. Nothing falls into your lap, but generally speaking, if you try hard and are semi intelligent, opportunities will come your way. The problem is, some people are in their comfort zones and miss these opportunities.
Why is it that in Western Culture we place a particular importance on our children's education? So they can survive and thrive in this world by getting the plum jobs and earn good money and be happy and content or to go the other route and set up their own little enterprise and work hard to achieve what they set their minds to and most of all be happy and decent human beings.

But extreme capitalism does not cater for those unfortunates that do not have these qualities and no matter how hard they try, never will aspire to those ideals.

That is what Capitalism is all about and you can't get that in a truly Communist State. There is no individuality or freedom to do what you want, when you want, and there is no reason to be as ambitious and you do not get any opportunities to achieve what you want.

That is not true! As I understand the principal of communism, it allows you to exploit your own talents but does not allow you to exploit others to make a yourself rich out of the labours of others. Capitalism can work within the communist system but the gains are distributed so that everybody benefits from it. In theory you could say that ultimate capitalism is capitalism run by communists! (The other way round it does not work.)

If capitalism is used to make a few wealthy and as a result powerful, who then go on to change the rules so that they become even wealthier and more powerful, then you have what we see now extreme capitalism and an ever increasing gap between the haves and the have not’s. That gap usually results eventually in the ‘collapse of Empire’ and war.

This is why, the Capitalism Vs Communism debate is very one sided. Capitalism is by far the preferred option even for those who are suppressed by totalitarian regimes which do not allow it.

But NOT extreme capitalism! In the Daily Mail a few days ago it was said that Goldman Sachs have awarded 100+ senior employees a share of something like $350m in bonuses. That is obscene! But exactly what have they contributed to society to deserve it?

On the other hand, capitalism does not suppress Communism because it doesn't have to and it goes against the grain of our free societies.

So why is the US so intent on supressing any communist/socialist regime such as Venezuela and Cuba, to name but two? What are they frightened of? According to your philosophy, communism is self-destructive? If the people want communism and vote for it, then so be it. In many cases the majority want it but the elite are opposed to it because it would limit their acquisition of wealth, usually taken from the less fortunate, because it would have to be shared. Maybe capitalists attack communism because it DOES allow capitalism but it is controlled and the excesses/extremes are eliminated?

Communist Cuba now has a first class medical system, available equally to all, the lowest birth death rate and some of the best doctors in the World. All this in spite of 60 years of US sanctions. Capitalist UK has an NHS that is rapidly going down the pan but a financial system that I read recently is predicted will be 70% of the country's GDP by 2030!!!!. If capitalism is no competition for communism, why are countries like the US so quick to supress it? (Remember the McCarthy era?)

[Robin Hood]

I think this is what I think I believe too! (I struggled to understand the detail!!!)

The “Cancer Stage of Capitalism”: The Ten-Point Global Paradigm Revolution
As we enter 2015, the global corporate system deepens and spreads in its eco-genocidal effects. But the dots are not joined in their common cause across domains. Money-value coordinates like GDP, commodity productivity and stock market indexes are still adopted as the measures of “economic performance” rather than life capital development which is systemically attacked rather than advanced.

More than any prior stage of history, we know not what we are doing at that macro level of life organization, nor why no uptick of American sales can remotely solve the problem of collapsing social and natural life support systems. Greece – the world’s emblem of the sacrifice of society to debt servicing – is now 45% more in debt than it was before the “austerity” programs started. Global social and ecological collapse proceeds in lock-step with the ruling paradigms transnational corporate and bank prescriptions, and they increase in their demands the more they fail to provide for societies life needs and development.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cancer-stage-of-capitalism-the-ten-point-global-paradigm-revolution/5422537

Does this explain why 99% of the population won’t have a clue what he is talking about?

These articles are written by academics, it is in a language that only other informed academics will understand. I understand quite a lot about the financial world, the creation of money and banking and I struggled with what he was trying to convey ...... no wonder the population can be so easily ripped off by the financiers and bankers?

[Paphitis]

And what gives the State the right to distribute wealth like that which was created by the hard toil of certain people?

For instance, a surgeon earns the big bucks but why inhibit this after these people persevered with excessive schooling to get where they are and who perform high risk procedures upon patients who's lives are literally in such people's hands?

Why distribute the wealth of an airline pilot, lawyer or high executive to hospitality workers who dropped out of school?

Or you set up a profitable business. Why is it as problem for this business to be in a position of profit even in the order of several millions after years of sacrifice by the owners to achieve this as long as you pay the tax and mind you sustain gainful employment for others at the same time?

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

And what gives the State the right to distribute wealth like that which was created by the hard toil of certain people?

Do you mean money? The State has no right to distribute wealth as you point out but, it does have the right to control its distribution! For example: If you start a small business and make money …….... that is good! When you then employ others to make your business grow and increase profits ……….. that is also good BUT, those you employ should be entitled to share in the profits that could not have been created without their labour. This I see as fair distribution of wealth. The workers have the right to share in the profits of their labour as much as shareholders share in the profits made by their investment.

I have just had a conversation with an intelligent Cypriot lady who says that her wages have halved but her hours have increased. Her employer has dropped the thirteenth month salary and will no longer pay them sick pay and has reduced the holiday pay. They were asked to sign an acceptance of this or they could leave and find another job!!!!!! He made it very clear that if they ‘blew-the-whistle’ and called in the labour office, he would fire them anyway. The unacceptable face of capitalism?

For instance, a surgeon earns the big bucks but why inhibit this after these people persevered with excessive schooling to get where they are and who perform high risk procedures upon patients who's lives are literally in such people's hands?

No problem! The surgeon can make as much he wishes but the back-up staff who are often as equally well qualified in their own field should share the profits. If the limits are set as to the charges the surgeon can make and limit his ability to overcharge, then the surgeon’s charges are self limiting. He has an option, he can work for the State in the State system on a salary or set up his own practice where legislation would ensure he shared his profits with those that helped him make good use of his qualifications. Basic salary will always separate the different levels of responsibility.

Why distribute the wealth of an airline pilot, lawyer or high executive to hospitality workers who dropped out of school?

In the examples you give, none of them could function without a large number of lower paid back up staff. Not everybody can be another Einstein but if a person gives their best to the job it should be recognised. As a pilot you would not get far without the guy who filled the tanks, or swept the runway, or cleaned out the toilets, loaded the luggage, or ATC or even the cabin crew …… they are all of equal importance!

Or you set up a profitable business.

No problem, providing you do not use the labour of others without sharing the profits!

Why is it as problem for this business to be in a position of profit even in the order of several millions after years of sacrifice by the owners to achieve this as long as you pay the tax and mind you sustain gainful employment for others at the same time?

Come off it! Owners may get the headaches of running a business but that is why they get paid more. What about the sacrifices of those that created that wealth for the company owner? It would be of far greater benefit to the economy if those ‘several millions’ were shared with the workers, who then spend it into the economy rather than it sitting in a bank or as shares. Taxes are a joke ….. the wealthier you are the less tax you pay pro-rata!

You would make far more out of any business if there was an incentive for the workers that was linked to an equal share of the profits. After all, this principal is applied to shareholders! Each shareholder gets an equal dividend per share periodically why should the workers not be given the same reward, where the profits are equally divided between employer, employee and shareholder? It makes sense to me as you have an incentive, as an employee, to ensure the company makes a profit.

The World is not Utopia and never will be but what we see going on in this world where the top 1% has an disproportional and increasing share of the wealth whilst the majority are seeing their living standards decline, is a recipe for eventual disaster. The system that has to change is the extreme capitalism that is inherent in banking and finance.

IF ONLY ………………………

[Paphitis]

And what gives the State the right to distribute wealth like that which was created by the hard toil of certain people?

Do you mean money? The State has no right to distribute wealth as you point out but, it does have the right to control its distribution! For example: If you start a small business and make money …….... that is good! When you then employ others to make your business grow and increase profits ……….. that is also good BUT, those you employ should be entitled to share in the profits that could not have been created without their labour. This I see as fair distribution of wealth. The workers have the right to share in the profits of their labour as much as shareholders share in the profits made by their investment.

The employer in any Western Country does pay the workers a fair salary and good working conditions generally except for a minority of businesses who illegally exploit workers which is against the law. The worker has a right to a fair wage as dictated by the market, safe working conditions, and an 8 hour day up to 38 hours per week with overtime and loading. The employer should also pay into the employees pension fund. This generally happens in most countries however the minimum wage in the US is quite low compared to other countries.

I have just had a conversation with an intelligent Cypriot lady who says that her wages have halved but her hours have increased. Her employer has dropped the thirteenth month salary and will no longer pay them sick pay and has reduced the holiday pay. They were asked to sign an acceptance of this or they could leave and find another job!!!!!! He made it very clear that if they ‘blew-the-whistle’ and called in the labour office, he would fire them anyway. The unacceptable face of capitalism?

Of course this is unacceptable by the employer. The Capitalist System is not responsible for this kind of exploitation and these actions are probably very illegal. The lady has very solid legal grounds here. Undisputed!

For instance, a surgeon earns the big bucks but why inhibit this after these people persevered with excessive schooling to get where they are and who perform high risk procedures upon patients who's lives are literally in such people's hands?

No problem! The surgeon can make as much he wishes but the back-up staff who are often as equally well qualified in their own field should share the profits. If the limits are set as to the charges the surgeon can make and limit his ability to overcharge, then the surgeon’s charges are self limiting. He has an option, he can work for the State in the State system on a salary or set up his own practice where legislation would ensure he shared his profits with those that helped him make good use of his qualifications. Basic salary will always separate the different levels of responsibility.

The Anesthetist earns as much and sometimes more than the Surgeon does.

But you can't really put a case for an orderly or a Nurse earning the same as them.

Why distribute the wealth of an airline pilot, lawyer or high executive to hospitality workers who dropped out of school?

In the examples you give, none of them could function without a large number of lower paid back up staff. Not everybody can be another Einstein but if a person gives their best to the job it should be recognised. As a pilot you would not get far without the guy who filled the tanks, or swept the runway, or cleaned out the toilets, loaded the luggage, or ATC or even the cabin crew …… they are all of equal importance!

I think we can agree that exploitation in Western Countries is not the norm. In addition to this, the work-forces are highly unionized and protected by the union and Industrial Relation Laws which are enforceable against an unscrupulous employer who is not following the rules.

However, in Europe, America, Australia, manufacturing is under pressure because these countries simply just can't compete with Asia. Our workforce does not labour all day for $2. They are usually well paid on a livable wage. But our manufactured goods are also a lot more expensive but of good quality. Asian products however are manufactured at one quarter of the cost, are cheaper for the consumer who once again is unknowingly supporting slave labour or simply does not care every time the choose the cheaper Asian product over the more dearer local product. Once again, the market dictates.

I mean let's be realistic. You can't pay a Pilot the same as a Flight attendant. What would be the incentive for anyone becoming a Pilot and to have all that responsibility plus the added stress of regular Line and Simulator Checks (which are crappy and not a lot of fun)? I think I would prefer serving coffee. ATC earn just as much. Refuellers earn decent money and work for the most profitable businesses on the planet (SHELL/BP) which have great work conditions and have NAZI like safety regimes which outdo the airlines running on thin margins. Everyone gets paid what they are worth and according to their level of responsibility.

Or you set up a profitable business.

No problem, providing you do not use the labour of others without sharing the profits!

The employee gets his fair wage and proper safe work conditions and benefits as is driven by the market and dictated by the union and industrial relations.

Why is it as problem for this business to be in a position of profit even in the order of several millions after years of sacrifice by the owners to achieve this as long as you pay the tax and mind you sustain gainful employment for others at the same time?

Come off it! Owners may get the headaches of running a business but that is why they get paid more. What about the sacrifices of those that created that wealth for the company owner? It would be of far greater benefit to the economy if those ‘several millions’ were shared with the workers, who then spend it into the economy rather than it sitting in a bank or as shares. Taxes are a joke ….. the wealthier you are the less tax you pay pro-rata!

But then there is NO INCENTIVE for this business to trade millions worth of products and services only for this to be distributed in that fashion.

It is better for the millions to fund expansion and growth = more jobs = more turnover = more incentive for the business to continue growing.

You would make far more out of any business if there was an incentive for the workers that was linked to an equal share of the profits. After all, this principal is applied to shareholders! Each shareholder gets an equal dividend per share periodically why should the workers not be given the same reward, where the profits are equally divided between employer, employee and shareholder? It makes sense to me as you have an incentive, as an employee, to ensure the company makes a profit.

An equal share of the profits is just unrealistic.

Reputable companies actually gift their workforce an allocated amount of shares as an annual bonus. Many businesses do that.

The World is not Utopia and never will be but what we see going on in this world where the top 1% has an disproportional and increasing share of the wealth whilst the majority are seeing their living standards decline, is a recipe for eventual disaster. The system that has to change is the extreme capitalism that is inherent in banking and finance.

IF ONLY ………………………

There will always be the super rich. there is not much we can do about it.

But the super rich also employ thousands of people.

To be fair, I don't agree that this is an example of extreme capitalism. I don't believe there is such a thing. We have market driven economies and these markets can be very cyclic.

[Paphitis]

Speaking of slave labour!

Pilots are experiencing greater pressure on their work conditions because we have silly chavs paying cheap airfares on Low Cost Carriers like Thompson (who fly to Cyprus I might add).

We even have Militiades gloating about the cheap fares he is able to get through this airline. And soon, one of the safest airlines in the world, is about to go down the gurgler and you have silly people gloating about it in Cyprus Mail! Why? Because they think pilots there are overpaid? Well they are not when compared to industry norms. There wages are nothing to write home about. They were a safe airline and people should be mindful of that fact. At the end of the day, you can choose to be safe and that is well worth a few extra Euros. It's sad to see airlines like this go down but the public real what they sow. Just don't go crying when you lose loved one in an air crash.

But did you know:

Thompson employ inexperienced First Officers who actually buy their position in the right seat? There are Pay2Fly schemes for young inexperienced pilots fresh from school who have actually paid for their type rating and endorsement but also pay an enormous fee for the "privilege" of sitting in the right hand seat. This is unacceptable, and sadly the flying publuc are endorsing this type of exploitation without knowing it.

It's all good until a plane falls out of the sky.

Would you fly Thompson now?

http://www.jetcareers.com/pay-for-train ... grams.html

Oh yes Miltiades! This is what your low fares get you!!!

In Cyprus there was a famous air crash from a certain Hellios! People were surprised but they were gambling with their lives all over a cheap fare.

Don't get me wrong. There are many LCC who do the right thing but there are many which cut corners.

These are the types of things which have a negative pact on work conditions but also to the safety of the flying public and the regulators need to catch up to these ptactices.

It's the same with Banking. The Fimancial Serviced Infustry does work and has its way of providing safe financial products. All we need is for the Banks to have tighter regulations to keep the system working fairly and safely for the public.

I tend to think Capitalism is a product of human nature. As a result it does have its flaws which is why regulation is required to protect workers, consumers and the general public. it applies in every industry including the Banking Sector.

[repulsewarrior]

...my brother in law was a surgeon, he died young unfortunately, and worked at the Hospital in Nicosia. He was invited to practice in Canada, as a young man, at one of its most reputable hospitals. At least for some, it seems, there is something more to their Practice, the pleasure in it was worth more than the money, because although at the time, his salary was not far from that of other civil servants, he had authority in his own Operating Room, he staffed it, he had his own ward, and he was provided whatever equipment he asked for, this would not happen, that closeness to Care, where he would have tripled his salary instantly; but i doubt this kind of incentive is available to Medical Practitioners now, in Cyprus.

Times have changed indeed, but not really, because Communism is still regarded as a competing system for our hearts and minds; It is not. Our treatment of Karl Marx and Fredric Engels' work, politically, is how Darwin's work was treated, for or against. Although somehow, unlike Evolution as it was described by Marx, thrown into a heap of fire, Darwin's work avoided the same fate, perhaps because of the way they were defended. In any case, Lenin's efforts to produce a revolution based on a Vanguard only proves that our evolution may be directed to resist the affects of change, what is Natural, is not changed.

All things come to an end, it is the Law of Entropy, and in the larger system of things, such an end describes a cycle. And, by survival or design, as beings we adapt to what changes around us. Scientifically they, Darwin and Marx, (i feel it deserves repeating,) in describing Evolution have not been treated the same, although by nature neither is different in how they analysed the facts as they were, and how from the analysis their theory evolved.

Somewhere i mentioned Trotsky, too, the split of Leninism if you will with Stalin, and the mystery he took to his death, why he stopped trying. And if Marx is correct, denied or not, there will be a moment where the very few have become so few that they are exposed by this weakness, it is the nature of Capitalism, and in this extreme, the world in an instant will know who they are, and from them proceed in directing the Means of Production themselves. Socialism, and Social-Democracy, as we see from the reaction in the radical right in America typically (and elsewhere) is a step back from Capitalism unfettered, and in their minds, likely one step forward toward what is their deepest fear, an end of the Supremacy of Capitalism, because there is a rational use of resources (which is Social rather than Plundered) toward fulfilling needs.

Indeed, historically, at the time, Socialism as a Movement was diluted by the Russian effort (competing directly with it, or being taken over by it) to move their Agenda forward, becoming not unlike the Imperialist they swore to overthrow; what was expected failed, otherwise the horrors of Stalins' rule may not have been necessary for the survival of this Ruling Class.

We, being the rest of us, suffer to this day the harm that was done to thought in general because what is an analysis of what will be because of what was, based on the fact that all things come to an end, was hijacked skewing any debate on it (read: Evolution) as a subject, itself (read: Political Economics). And our well-being has been reduced to the NGOs who promote this awareness, where we might choose ourselves something more than being mindless consumers of debt, often under conditions where it appears as though Government, and, Finance/Industry, are their adversaries for Social-Justice; and where an Aid Agency may be an agent entirely against Equity, and whose intention is to keep things (corrupted) just the way they are.