Capitalism
- Thread starter Kwoodchuck
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No I don't. To an extent I do...I believe in the free hand for businesses that arent in the publics interest...but anything dealing with healthcare, energy, etc...I feel only the government can be trusted. Big business doesn't give a care about the common man, the only thing it cares about is the monetary gain (usually on the peoples dime). I put about as much trust in that as I do any of my employers...not a whole lot. Atleast the government is held accountable by the people.
My dad's side is actually originally from Scandinavia, until they came to the U.S and lived in Wyoming about 100 or so years ago. My great-great-grandfather was from Sweden and my great-great-grandmother was from Norway. So who am I supposed to side with in the rivalry?Drejer43 said:
I pretty much agree - the problem with pure unfiltered capitalism is the formation of cartels, both official and unofficial (the diamond supply is officially cartel controlled, for example). Cartels mean that the systems which are supposed to ensure the capitalist system works effectively are undermined, and ultimately it prevents real value from reaching the public.kurupt87 said:
So, capitalism with socialist parts (i.e. Road maintaince, Military Defence, Civil Policing, etc, etc) and government oversight is probably the best solution as of the present time - one day, someone might come up with a better way, but for now, we have to deal with what we've got.
For anyone not getting the difference of Socialism and Communism, i´ll try to simplify:
Socialism: Government controls EVERYTHING(i.e. Soviet Union and other "communistic" countries)
Communism: the Government does not exist and every thing trade related is good-will based(which is why a pure communistic country has never existed and most likely will not).
Communism also does not work because "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" and the fact that the Gov. really evolves into a tyrannical ruling not quite unlike a fascist country(Stalinism, Animal Farm).
"Communist" is really just an insult from right-wingers and extreme capitalists nowadays.
Socialism: Government controls EVERYTHING(i.e. Soviet Union and other "communistic" countries)
Communism: the Government does not exist and every thing trade related is good-will based(which is why a pure communistic country has never existed and most likely will not).
Communism also does not work because "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" and the fact that the Gov. really evolves into a tyrannical ruling not quite unlike a fascist country(Stalinism, Animal Farm).
"Communist" is really just an insult from right-wingers and extreme capitalists nowadays.
I, myself, live in the US of A, and have known capitalism all my life.
It works.
But, in a society that suits its needs, any method of economic or governing status could word. Socialism to Theocracies, each has its place.
Except Anarchy. Most people get the bad end of the stick everytime in that situation.
It works.
But, in a society that suits its needs, any method of economic or governing status could word. Socialism to Theocracies, each has its place.
Except Anarchy. Most people get the bad end of the stick everytime in that situation.
I prefer a leftist command economy (preferably Socialism).
People point at stats of quality of life in command economies and say that they have less wealth per capita as their "proof" that capitalism generates more wealth. What they are failing to realize is that it isn't the command economy that caused the nation to be poor, but the poverty of the nation that caused them to move to a Socialist economy. Indeed, command economies have really shown nothing but success historically. The Soviet Union, despite its social failings, economically went from being one of the most backwards feudal societies in the world to being a major power that competed with every other major power for 50 years before it collapsed- largely due to the aforementioned social, non-economic, failings (such as a right to free speech not being guaranteed).
Of the top 17 most literate nations in the world, only one of them isn't a Soviet bloc nation. That nation is Cuba. Another interesting thing about Cuba is that it has the highest doctor to patient ratio in the world, and has, by distributing the wealth of the nation previously held by a few, eliminated the rampant starvation and poverty present before the command economy. For the last several decades, they have had to do this while undergoing a crippling economic boycott by the most powerful nation in the world.
Capitalism has definitely served a purpose. Coming out of feudalism, where science and discovery were discouraged, the motive of profit made innovation something to strive for. However, innovation is already a cherished idea in our society, and the command market will not damage that innovation that already exists. Proof of this is that the Soviet Union won the space race*.
I suppose though, it boils down to this. Do you prefer a system that works exceedingly well for a very small percentage of the population, and poorly for the rest, with a small chance of becoming one of the few that it works exceedingly well for; or do you prefer a system that works reasonably well for everyone and in which everyone strives together for mutual, not personal, advancement? I prefer the latter, which is why I am a Socialist.
People point at stats of quality of life in command economies and say that they have less wealth per capita as their "proof" that capitalism generates more wealth. What they are failing to realize is that it isn't the command economy that caused the nation to be poor, but the poverty of the nation that caused them to move to a Socialist economy. Indeed, command economies have really shown nothing but success historically. The Soviet Union, despite its social failings, economically went from being one of the most backwards feudal societies in the world to being a major power that competed with every other major power for 50 years before it collapsed- largely due to the aforementioned social, non-economic, failings (such as a right to free speech not being guaranteed).
Of the top 17 most literate nations in the world, only one of them isn't a Soviet bloc nation. That nation is Cuba. Another interesting thing about Cuba is that it has the highest doctor to patient ratio in the world, and has, by distributing the wealth of the nation previously held by a few, eliminated the rampant starvation and poverty present before the command economy. For the last several decades, they have had to do this while undergoing a crippling economic boycott by the most powerful nation in the world.
Capitalism has definitely served a purpose. Coming out of feudalism, where science and discovery were discouraged, the motive of profit made innovation something to strive for. However, innovation is already a cherished idea in our society, and the command market will not damage that innovation that already exists. Proof of this is that the Soviet Union won the space race*.
I suppose though, it boils down to this. Do you prefer a system that works exceedingly well for a very small percentage of the population, and poorly for the rest, with a small chance of becoming one of the few that it works exceedingly well for; or do you prefer a system that works reasonably well for everyone and in which everyone strives together for mutual, not personal, advancement? I prefer the latter, which is why I am a Socialist.
While many would say that America won the space race, that is inaccurate. Surely, America won the moon race, but the space race was firmly commanded by the Soviets.
Soviet Union:
First unmanned craft in space
First satellite in orbit
First manned craft in space
US:
First manned craft to the moon
Soviet Union:
First unmanned craft in space
First satellite in orbit
First manned craft in space
US:
First manned craft to the moon