Capitalism
- Thread starter Kwoodchuck
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But the people are just as prone to greed and abuse of power - see British trade unions in the 70's. The decade where no one could eb sacked without the whole workforce striking, which isn't exactly good for productivity.tjarne said:
Yes, because when you are forced to work hard to earn your keep, you value your progress much more than if it's handed to you.
As many have said if this were an ideal world where people were immune to greed Socialism would be probably the best system, but even in that scenario Capitalism would also be a very good system because you would have balanced competition everywhere without people greedily trying to run other people out of business.
However, people give in to greed and our world sucks sometimes, so you have to go with what's best, and in this case it's Capitalism with a small amount of oversight to keep greed from running rampant. Really what Capitalism needs is a 'Magna Carta' for workers. A type of contract that makes doing business a partnership between owners and workers, so that people have a mutual goal of making the company successful. This is the ideal of a Captialist society because you want motivated leaders and workers to build your company, but many times those in power solidify power and then there's very little employee say in the matter. What I'm getting at is not a Union, something I do not care for, for the same reasons.
As many have said if this were an ideal world where people were immune to greed Socialism would be probably the best system, but even in that scenario Capitalism would also be a very good system because you would have balanced competition everywhere without people greedily trying to run other people out of business.
However, people give in to greed and our world sucks sometimes, so you have to go with what's best, and in this case it's Capitalism with a small amount of oversight to keep greed from running rampant. Really what Capitalism needs is a 'Magna Carta' for workers. A type of contract that makes doing business a partnership between owners and workers, so that people have a mutual goal of making the company successful. This is the ideal of a Captialist society because you want motivated leaders and workers to build your company, but many times those in power solidify power and then there's very little employee say in the matter. What I'm getting at is not a Union, something I do not care for, for the same reasons.
Oh. So you immediately base your decisions on the one scum of society? And you insult me? Try getting more facts, graphs, data, and then maybe we'll have a basis for an argument.Davrel said:
I think that capitalism is more effective than socialism but if you're looking for the best economic system I think a blend is the best. A pure capitalist is against things like minimum wage but these things bebefit the average person. Plus with pure capitalism it doesn't take corporations long to realize that they control everything. They can do things from buying out the government to forming cartels.
In short capitalism is good but it should be somewhat regulated.
In short capitalism is good but it should be somewhat regulated.
Well it might not be perfect but its better then rest of the other choices.
I wish the US would go back to Capitalism but nope we now socialist and looks like communist pretty soon if there not a big sift in the culture.
Maybe I will move to Germany or Russia they seem to be sifting back to Capitalism.
I wish the US would go back to Capitalism but nope we now socialist and looks like communist pretty soon if there not a big sift in the culture.
Maybe I will move to Germany or Russia they seem to be sifting back to Capitalism.
We are making that move, thanks to the FDP, a nice financially sound party. No one knows how that happened though, because they don't sugarcoat things, like the "we will spend more and have less taxes" factions.Raregolddragon said:
Anyway, we still have healthcare but i doubt that is your only concern.
Germany might be gotten more capitalistic now, but we can afford it because we used to be the nation that exported most. 3 years ago or so china 1up'ep us so we got a signal to get off of our arses.
PaulH said:
im not even talking about investing, if you legitimately worked for your money fine your entitled to it, but as far as getting lucky goes i wasn't referencing capitalism at all i was referencing plain old life. some people due to gender, background, race, etc get the short end of the stick, and that is exacerbated in capitalism where there is no backup plan, so safety net for people who work hard and just simply dont make enough to even begin to break out of the paycheck to paycheck routine
Why all the haters for Socialism? Most of Western Europe has at least some elements of it, and we seem to be doing fine.
Sorry, what?Free Thinker said:
1) Where exactly in the words "Paris Hilton" do I portray how I have made my decisions? At the very most, she is simply an exception to the rule that you propose and is in no-way a full indicator of my feelings on the subject.
2) Who are you to assume that I would be so simple-minded as to base my decision on her singular (though by no means, unique) example?
3) Where exactly in the words "Paris Hilton" is there an insult? Are you an offended relative or fan?
4) Where exactly are your facts, graphs, and data? - set the precedent before demanding it of others.
5) Calm down.
In after all the claims that socialism=fascism. Christ people. Learn the difference between economic and political theory.Kwoodchuck said:
Capitalism in it's purest form- with no intervention by governments at all- is a terrible, terrible thing.
Capitalism with some government intervention, namely for the provision of public goods, is pretty darn good.
When the government starts to intervene into markets which involve normal goods, there are problems. It should stop at provision of public goods.
In my book (Literally), public goods are defined as being:
Non-Rivalrous (There's no competition for them e.g. Air) and,
Non-Excludable (You can't stop others reaping the utility from your good e.g. light from a lighthouse.)
A good that fills just one of those categories is a quasi-public good. It's quite hard to think of things that fulfil both criteria. It's my opinion that the government should step in for the provision of most quasi-public goods, such as healthcare, fire services, police, roads, streetlamps, militaries, and so on.
There are some goods which are best provided by the process of a free market (EG Food), but are perhaps too essential to go lightly regulated. The provision of these goods should be heavily regulated to minimise exploitation of inelasticity. We have failed to do this with oil, unfortunately. The price can rocket and people will still buy it.
In short, free, competitive markets work, but not all the time.
So I guess I'm somewhere in the middle.
People will always hold up the USA as an example of how awesome they think capitalism is, as if it is the sole reason for the country's success. It's not. The reasons America has been so successful are that it:
1) Can employ the resources of (almost) a whole (Incredibly resource rich) continent.
2) Was not turned to dust twice in the last hundred years.
3) Greatly profited from the re-construction of said dust.
4) It was founded whilst mostly empty (See Below).
5) Calvinism pushing hard work at its founding.
To say that capitalism is the sole cause of their success is absurd. It is also absurd to ignore the negative externalities inherent with rampant capitalism. There's no question about it, capitalism is bad in many ways. To balance: It is also absurd to claim that the selfless ethos of the current socialist theories could possibly achieve the same levels of economic growth as current capitalism can, but then we've had capitalism being steadily refined for thousands of years, so that is to be expected.
Personally I think socialism in nearly it's purest form could work on a small, voluntary scale. That is, it would require the establishment of a new, empty country, it which those who wished to practise it could move [footnote]As was the case for America and Capitalism.[/footnote]. It would be impossible to convert a previously capitalist country to it, as the in-grained fetish for amazing economic growth and competition as the sole means of motivation will be too worn in.[footnote]As was the case with Russia, China, and a few smaller countries. Germany's socialism actually served it rather well, until it's manic leader took it to war. It is a special case, and so I do not include it.[/footnote]
There is a lot of truth behind the myths. Unregulated free-market capitalism lead to the abhorrent working conditions of 18 and 19th century Britain, for example, as the workers were not protected from the tyranny of the firms.Fulax said:
It also currently leads to the poverty in Africa and many poorer countries. The suffering is minimised in your country, thanks to globalisation, and it is shipped elsewhere. Just take a look at the mountainous scrap piles picked across by naked children in Africa, or the slums lying low next to high-rise hotels in the Middle East and Brazil (See Image.), and you can see the suffering unregulated capitalism causes.
Instead of the poor littering your streets, they fill the cities of other countries like India, a fair bit of Indochina, a large part of China [footnote]A socialist country, to an extent, but the sweatshops exist in order to sustain it in the context of a greater capitalist system.[/footnote], and the entire continent of Africa. The inequality, rather than being intranational, is now international.
Both systems, when devoid of proper regulation and/or accountability, lead to great inequalities. As I say, we've just had a few thousand years to get capitalism under control, in stable countries where social change was possible. Most nearly-socialist states around the world at the moment rose out of WWII due to necessity, and were then open to the predations of dictators who took it too far.
Some, like China and a lot of Europe, recognised the benefits of socialism and employed a regulated variant. Neither system is inherently economically unsound or morally 'bankrupt'. Both can be well-argued for. The systems are not evil, the people are.
That's quite the assertion to make. Care to back it up?
Try to ignore the extremes of prejudice and just address authoritarianism as a whole, as that seems to be the root problem you have with these systems, not the economics of it.
I hate how many posts on here devolve into neo-McCarthyism.
