Capitalism

[Valkyrie101]

Yes. Of course there has to be regulation, but ultimate with capitalism work = profit. This contrasts with socialism, where work = profit but no work also = profit. Anyone else see the inherent flaw here?

And for the record, capitalism does not make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Making the poor poorer is a socialist conspiracy theory, which is actually in no one's interest since the poorer people are the less money they have to spend, ergo the more profit the rich make.

 

[Valkyrie101]

The reasons Capitalism is the dominant system is:

1) It had a 1500 year head start. People have been taught to be greedy for over a millennia.

Sorry for the double post, just saw this. Capitalism does not teach people to be greedy, people are greedy by nature, bred into us by millions of years of evolution. This phenomenon can also be observed in non-capitalist, even communist economic models, which is why they're so fucked up.

 

[Kair]

The reasons Capitalism is the dominant system is:

1) It had a 1500 year head start. People have been taught to be greedy for over a millennia.

Sorry for the double post, just saw this. Capitalism does not teach people to be greedy, people are greedy by nature, bred into us by millions of years of evolution. This phenomenon can also be observed in non-capitalist, even communist economic models, which is why they're so fucked up.

I see not being taught not to be greedy as being taught to be greedy.
We are not animals, we are capable of rational thought. We should act accordingly.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Capitalism is morally and economically superior to socialism in every way.

Except for the way capitalism leaves poor people to rot while rewarding people for being already successful.

 

[tjarne]

The reasons Capitalism is the dominant system is:

1) It had a 1500 year head start. People have been taught to be greedy for over a millennia.

Sorry for the double post, just saw this. Capitalism does not teach people to be greedy, people are greedy by nature, bred into us by millions of years of evolution. This phenomenon can also be observed in non-capitalist, even communist economic models, which is why they're so fucked up.

Which is why we should not have any person or group to be in control. Because people are naturally greedy especially when given power. The power should be with the people and not with the Capital.

 

[tjarne]

Capitalism is morally and economically superior to socialism in every way.

Except for the way capitalism leaves poor people to rot while rewarding people for being already successful.

And lets not forget rewarding for being born with rich parents or the right place. Few people are getting rich from nothing.

 

[BlackStar42]

Yes. Anything that rewards people for not being lazy or stupid wins in my book.

Paris Hilton.

You sir, win.

 

[tjarne]

No absolutely no. Those of you who claim that Capitalism is better and we shouldn't try Socialism because it wouldn't work in a real world, think of this. It might not work because we live in a Capitalistic world, and you are not willing to try to make it better.

Or, maybe capitalism works because it gives people what they want, a chance to shine, be successful, and have pride in what you do, rather than having everything done for you.

But your right, socialism works so well for all the countries that use it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2010/04/greece_bankruptcy_hovers.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela

WTF THERE WAS SOMETHING CALLED THE SOVIET UNION?!

/of sarcasm
You seriously claim that a nurse in Prag is less worth than one in Stockholm? Just because he/she earns less money? Don't come and say anything else, if you believe the capital should decide that's exactly what it means.

Who's to say that the nurse in Prag is doing just as good of a job as the one in Stockholm? Maybe the one in Prag has less resources to work with or less motivation if they are getting paid less for doing the same job.

Or maybe it is that the average salary is lower in Prag than in Stockholm? And that's because economical gain determines the worth of each country's currency. Or are middle Europeans lazier than Scandinavians? I think not, most nurses I have meet have been very dedicated.

 

[Fulax]

Capitalism is morally and economically superior to socialism in every way.

Except for the way capitalism leaves poor people to rot while rewarding people for being already successful.

Or, maybe in a capitalist system there would be 'voluntary charity'. The capitalist is willing to give his own money to help the less fortunate, the socialist would rather steal other people's money to help them. Interesting how socialists always claim the moral high-ground on that one.

Although, I suppose in a socialist 'economy' there would be far more poor people who needed helping.

And lets not forget rewarding for being born with rich parents or the right place. Few people are getting rich from nothing.

First of all, how is stealing the rich parent's money morally superior?

Second, your statement is not true. I forget the exact stats, but the majority of America's millionaires were not born into rich households.

In the free-market, there is one way of making money: by producing goods that people want to buy. Yes, some people, Steve Jobs for example, will become very rich, but they can only do so by giving people what they want - iPods. To put it another way, one person can only become better off by making another person better off. That is a basic truth of trade.


Not that any of this really matters. The fact it, socialism as an economic system cannot work.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Capitalism is morally and economically superior to socialism in every way.

Except for the way capitalism leaves poor people to rot while rewarding people for being already successful.

Or, maybe in a capitalist system there would be 'voluntary charity'. The capitalist is willing to give his own money to help the less fortunate, the socialist would rather steal other people's money to help them. Interesting how socialists always claim the moral high-ground on that one.

Although, I suppose in a socialist 'economy' there would be far more poor people who needed helping.

Well when poor people need help and not enough give to charity then someone has to be made to give unfortunately. Taxes aren't "right", but they are "less wrong" than letting someone starve.

 

[dsawyers9]

OK, here's the Deal.

There are basically 2 sides to Capitalism

1. The harder you work, the more you work, the more money you get.

2. The greedy are rewarded.

How has this played out in the past?

Well take Europe for example; they had aristocrats. People born into these families never had to do shit all their life, they got the golden spoon and all went great until the Renaissance happened and well, the lazy got killed.

How does this reflect to Capitalism?
Simple, even though you were not rich in Europe back then, you still could work your way up to the top, only difference was, You would sell people out so you can get what you want.

People now days who are born in families with high amount of $$$ will have a better chance to continue to be on top.

So how do people usually get to the top?
Greed before others.
Sell others out to help your self.
Everyone is your enemy in the business world, use someone before they use you.

Sadly, Capitalism works now, but it is a horrible system.
People do need to stop thinking I,I,I and start thinking, We,We,WE.

Best way to see the transition from I,I,I to We,We,We; Marriage.
However, Marriage has started to become just a waste of time and guess what, MONEY.

People need to stop being greedy and selfish. YOU cant however always be helping, you have to balance your needs but not let your greed take the best of you.

I will say this much, If we ever worked like Ants, Humans would be living in Space right now and the the idea of hoover cars would be something of the past. Technology would be farther than it is now and guess what, if the dictator, cause well Ants are run by 1 ant, the queen, if the human ruler was pure of heart, a rare sight in the human race, and this person looked out for the human race and did what was best for everyone, then I would strongly suggest we give up the I's and move to the future of We as a United Human Race. Sadly, People would hate to give up their I's so we won't ever get any farther than we are now.

IMO the human race can continue forward, but compared to how we advanced in the sciences of the past and look at how we are now with technology, I say we are way behind and its because people are greedy bastards. In 1900, if you went to a college in England, by the time you were in your 3rd year, the first 2 years would be obsolete technology. 2 years!!!!!

Now days, we still use things from 30 years ago, How Pathetic.

 

[AssButt]

No absolutely no. Those of you who claim that Capitalism is better and we shouldn't try Socialism because it wouldn't work in a real world, think of this. It might not work because we live in a Capitalistic world, and you are not willing to try to make it better.

Or, maybe capitalism works because it gives people what they want, a chance to shine, be successful, and have pride in what you do, rather than having everything done for you.

But your right, socialism works so well for all the countries that use it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2010/04/greece_bankruptcy_hovers.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela

WTF THERE WAS SOMETHING CALLED THE SOVIET UNION?!

/of sarcasm
You seriously claim that a nurse in Prag is less worth than one in Stockholm? Just because he/she earns less money? Don't come and say anything else, if you believe the capital should decide that's exactly what it means.

Who's to say that the nurse in Prag is doing just as good of a job as the one in Stockholm? Maybe the one in Prag has less resources to work with or less motivation if they are getting paid less for doing the same job.

Or maybe it is that the average salary is lower in Prag than in Stockholm? And that's because economical gain determines the worth of each country's currency. Or are middle Europeans lazier than Scandinavians? I think not, most nurses I have meet have been very dedicated.

I've never been to either country nor am particularly knowledgeable about the specifics of their healthcare systems and what resources they have, etc. If you insist that the healthcare is equal for both countries then I will have to take your word for it.

As for income disparity. There's always some flukes in the system and there are other factors involved. For example, the US economy is essentially backed solely by our military might, and because of it, we are the only country in the world that can literally print money. Is it fair? Of course not, don't be silly, but for me to deride such a system when I benefit from it substantially would be very hypocritical so I'm in no position to judge it.

 

[Meet_Your_Doom]

As a whole I have mixed feelings about Capitalism. I consider my self a Socialist - Democratic. And when I say this I seem to get a lot of flak for it. People always say I'm only that because I'm lazy, because I'm poor, and they also imply that if your poor then you're dumb, uneducated, lazy, and that's the only reason you're a socialist.

And because of that state of mind alone, I hate Capitalism greatly. I consider my self a hippie, one that is indeed lazy but I'm definitely not uneducated and that definitely isn't the reason I address my self as a Socialist. The idea of Capitalism and Communism, in theory they both sound like really good ideas and some reason we always pick on Communism how it doesn't quite live to it's expectations . . . and you know what, Capitalism doesn't either.

The idea to let people start their own business is a good one. Everyone deserves a shot at success after all. At the same time though Capitalism seems to have this odd affinity with bull shit. These businesses will always tell a few lies or bull shit there way around just to make a profit. Disney will push a few lemmings off a cliff and tell us that lemmings do that just to sell better. Oil companies will tell us oil is perfectly all right for the environment even after oil spills fuck up our water.

Oh, and would you look at that. It always seems to be the lazy poor left wing liberals who always clean the messes up, even with just a toothbrush in some cases.

Capitalism is where you never have to apologize for fucking someone over. We've managed to keep track of thousands and thousands of years of our existance and yet we're still fighting with sticks and stones, clawing our way to the top. Insurance companies will find anyway to back out of their promises, businesses will form law suits even when they're the ones taking your ideas, and the decent honest businesses are probably bought over before you can say 'Sold!'

You call it the American dream, I call it the mirage. Just like the ones you see in a desert when your dehydrated dying and crawling over dunes and endless sands. If we were to follow Capitalism to it's fullest definitions everything would be owned by corporations and everything would be for profit. Who cares if a guy has a broken leg after serving our corporation for fifteen years? Fuck him. He should pay for working for us and injuring himself, stupid prick.

Of course though Socialism isn't without it's flaws either, and given that these flaws have been analyzed to death by the definitely unbiased Americans I doubt I need to go on.

If we were to follow Socialism entirely then everyone would be paid the same no matter what, and I think that's just as flawed as Capitalism. Because surely, someone who works hard 12 hours a day shouldn't be paid the exact same as a guy that works 4 hours drunk.

As I said though, I'm a Socialist Democratic. And as a Socialist Democratic I believe that borrowing ideals from Capitalism and Socialism is the way to go. Because for fuck sakes, Socialism is not Communism!

Maybe hopefully one day everyone that's ever called me lazy, poor and uneducated will have a heart attack and wake up in the hospital to find that the insurance company copped out and that the hospital bill is big enough for you to lose your house.

Then we'll see just how stupid free health care is.

It's like I'm looking in a mirror

 

[Fulax]

Capitalism is morally and economically superior to socialism in every way.

Except for the way capitalism leaves poor people to rot while rewarding people for being already successful.

Or, maybe in a capitalist system there would be 'voluntary charity'. The capitalist is willing to give his own money to help the less fortunate, the socialist would rather steal other people's money to help them. Interesting how socialists always claim the moral high-ground on that one.

Although, I suppose in a socialist 'economy' there would be far more poor people who needed helping.

Well when poor people need help and not enough give to charity then someone has to be made to give unfortunately. Taxes aren't "right", but they are "less wrong" than letting someone starve.

With a more prosperous economy and fewer poor, more people will have more money to give to charity. Further, the lack of a tax-funded welfare system would give people more of an incentive to give to charity. The idea that capitalism would lead to people dying on the street while the wealthy drive past in their limos is a popular myth, but a myth nonetheless. If you want to see that kind of thing, head on over to a socialist country like North Korea or Zimbabwe. Plenty of people starving to death, while a tiny minority live in luxury.

Socialism makes everyone equally poor(except the Glorious Leader and his friends, obviously), capitalism makes people unequally rich.

 

[BlackStar42]

Capitalism is morally and economically superior to socialism in every way.

Except for the way capitalism leaves poor people to rot while rewarding people for being already successful.

Or, maybe in a capitalist system there would be 'voluntary charity'. The capitalist is willing to give his own money to help the less fortunate, the socialist would rather steal other people's money to help them. Interesting how socialists always claim the moral high-ground on that one.

Although, I suppose in a socialist 'economy' there would be far more poor people who needed helping.

Well when poor people need help and not enough give to charity then someone has to be made to give unfortunately. Taxes aren't "right", but they are "less wrong" than letting someone starve.

With a more prosperous economy and fewer poor, more people will have more money to give to charity. Further, the lack of a tax-funded welfare system would give people more of an incentive to give to charity. The idea that capitalism would lead to people dying on the street while the wealthy drive past in their limos is a popular myth, but a myth nonetheless. If you want to see that kind of thing, head on over to a socialist country like North Korea or Zimbabwe. Plenty of people starving to death, while a tiny minority live in luxury.

Socialism makes everyone equally poor(except the Glorious Leader and his friends, obviously), capitalism makes people unequally rich.

Socialism IS NOT Communism, there is a difference.

 

[Necromancer1991]

I'm with the great Karl Marx for the most part, yes it can lead to prosperity but all the money ends up up in the hands of too many D-bags for my taste.

 

[Fulax]

Capitalism is morally and economically superior to socialism in every way.

Except for the way capitalism leaves poor people to rot while rewarding people for being already successful.

Or, maybe in a capitalist system there would be 'voluntary charity'. The capitalist is willing to give his own money to help the less fortunate, the socialist would rather steal other people's money to help them. Interesting how socialists always claim the moral high-ground on that one.

Although, I suppose in a socialist 'economy' there would be far more poor people who needed helping.

Well when poor people need help and not enough give to charity then someone has to be made to give unfortunately. Taxes aren't "right", but they are "less wrong" than letting someone starve.

With a more prosperous economy and fewer poor, more people will have more money to give to charity. Further, the lack of a tax-funded welfare system would give people more of an incentive to give to charity. The idea that capitalism would lead to people dying on the street while the wealthy drive past in their limos is a popular myth, but a myth nonetheless. If you want to see that kind of thing, head on over to a socialist country like North Korea or Zimbabwe. Plenty of people starving to death, while a tiny minority live in luxury.

Socialism makes everyone equally poor(except the Glorious Leader and his friends, obviously), capitalism makes people unequally rich.

Socialism IS NOT Communism, there is a difference.

My criticism of socialism/communism applies in particular to any system where the means of production are publicly owned, but any distortion of the price mechanism by government is economically destructive and any unprovoked coercion is morally reprehensible.

Socialism, communism, fascism, whatever. They're all economically irrational and morally bankrupt.

 

[dsawyers9]

Capitalism is morally and economically superior to socialism in every way.

Except for the way capitalism leaves poor people to rot while rewarding people for being already successful.

Or, maybe in a capitalist system there would be 'voluntary charity'. The capitalist is willing to give his own money to help the less fortunate, the socialist would rather steal other people's money to help them. Interesting how socialists always claim the moral high-ground on that one.

Although, I suppose in a socialist 'economy' there would be far more poor people who needed helping.

Well when poor people need help and not enough give to charity then someone has to be made to give unfortunately. Taxes aren't "right", but they are "less wrong" than letting someone starve.

WHAT?
How can you say Taxes are wrong?
Where do you think all your road construction in your city comes from?
What, you think businesses should be able to run the world?
Hell NO.
Ever heard of a thing called Monopoly? Yeah, A huge issue when Capitalism first started and damn we are lucky our Government stepped up and did the rarely seen good deed, by stopping Monopolies.

Capitalism is a piss of crap social system. But guess what, Its currently the best thing we have. The idea of Capitalism is to help your self and then you help others. The problem is everyone forgets to do the second part, help others. Now I do agree not all can help others, but do we really need people who have Billions of dollars? NO, The way how the system should go is tax the hell out of the rich to help the poor, but then people say: So if I become rich I Pay the price for having more money? NO, you will still be rich, just you won't have to look at the poor person and feel bad for them but then still not help them, the taxes do it for you so you don't have to deal with it, its helping you get over your self inflicted EGO of I'm rich and I just want to get richer while the family down the street cant pay the electric bill because of people who only care about them self don't help the poor.

Socialism as stated in the quote above your quote however, that person needs to learn more about that system before he post.

The Idea of Socialism is we all work the same and we all get the same.
There wouldn't be a rich, there wouldn't be a poor, the system functions like an ant colony. The issue is, there is one person on top and well humans cant handle power, they get too much and go crazy with it. That is why Socialism cant work unless the leader is some form of PURE GOOD

 

[AssButt]

Capitalism is morally and economically superior to socialism in every way.

Except for the way capitalism leaves poor people to rot while rewarding people for being already successful.

Or, maybe in a capitalist system there would be 'voluntary charity'. The capitalist is willing to give his own money to help the less fortunate, the socialist would rather steal other people's money to help them. Interesting how socialists always claim the moral high-ground on that one.

Although, I suppose in a socialist 'economy' there would be far more poor people who needed helping.

Well when poor people need help and not enough give to charity then someone has to be made to give unfortunately. Taxes aren't "right", but they are "less wrong" than letting someone starve.

WHAT?
How can you say Taxes are wrong?
Where do you think all your road construction in your city comes from?
What, you think businesses should be able to run the world?
Hell NO.
Ever heard of a thing called Monopoly? Yeah, A huge issue when Capitalism first started and damn we are lucky our Government stepped up and did the rarely seen good deed, by stopping Monopolies.

Capitalism is a piss of crap social system. But guess what, Its currently the best thing we have. The idea of Capitalism is to help your self and then you help others. The problem is everyone forgets to do the second part, help others. Now I do agree not all can help others, but do we really need people who have Billions of dollars? NO, The way how the system should go is tax the hell out of the rich to help the poor, but then people say: So if I become rich I Pay the price for having more money? NO, you will still be rich, just you won't have to look at the poor person and feel bad for them but then still not help them, the taxes do it for you so you don't have to deal with it, its helping you get over your self inflicted EGO of I'm rich and I just want to get richer while the family down the street cant pay the electric bill because of people who only care about them self don't help the poor.

Socialism as stated in the quote above your quote however, that person needs to learn more about that system before he post.

The Idea of Socialism is we all work the same and we all get the same.
There wouldn't be a rich, there wouldn't be a poor, the system functions like an ant colony. The issue is, there is one person on top and well humans cant handle power, they get too much and go crazy with it. That is why Socialism cant work unless the leader is some form of PURE GOOD

A large part of society is already run by corporations and it isn't all that bad thing. One good thing is convenience, things in the US are a lot more cheap and available and the stores don't close at 7 PM.

As for ant colonies. There is someone at the top: the queen. Everyone works to support the queen because the queen is the one passing down their genes. The individuals also have absolutely no regard for their own well being nor a sense of self. If they did, the colony would fall into chaos as everyone would be off doing their own thing and the end result is that nothing gets done. But I'm guessing you were already making that point.

 

[mrhappyface]

Well depends. For a large, unorganized country without strict discipline, Capitalism is the best way to go. Besides, it'll be the only way to motivate people to work hard!
But for small, well organized nations, National Socialism is the best way to go.