Capitalism- Good or Bad?

[bgrass1234]

So when does my "personal property" become "capitalist property" that is now no longer mine?

 

[Pray4Che]

So when does my "personal property" become "capitalist property" that is now no longer mine?

That is a confusing question. If the capitalist property was no longer yours it would not be capitalist property. Capitalist property refers to capital. Capital is money which is used to buy commodities but not so that they can be consumed, but so that they can be sold again at a higher value. So the capitalist buys the hammer (and the raw materials and the other machines) not so that he can use it to do personal DIY, but so that he can put it at the disposal of the worker who will then increase its value and change its form into something which can be resold at a higher price.

 

[Rightwing3r]

Capitalism works well, very well. It works so well, that I vote republican, even though I entirely disagree with them on social issues, for the fact that they know how to handle money.

Although there should be restrictions of course, and there should be taxes, etc...Just less of them, if you want money, work for it. Don't make others live for your sake, work for your own sake.

 

[bgrass1234]

That is a confusing question. If the capitalist property was no longer yours it would not be capitalist property. Capitalist property refers to capital. Capital is money which is used to buy commodities but not so that they can be consumed, but so that they can be sold again at a higher value. So the capitalist buys the hammer (and the raw materials and the other machines) not so that he can use it to do personal DIY, but so that he can put it at the disposal of the worker who will then increase its value and change its form into something which can be resold at a higher price.

So let me see if I got this strait. My property is "personal property" as long as it is for my personal use and consumption. But if it is property that is to be used for capital gain on that property, than that is "capitalist property". Am I on track?

So then your opion must be that profit from your own labor is OK. But profit from property that created wealth based upon not only the property, but the labor of others in combination of the property, and that the "owner" is not all of the workers, that property and profit should then be shared equally among the workers and no longer under the control of the original owner of the property. Is that right?

 

[CCGirl]

So let me see if I got this strait. My property is "personal property" as long as it is for my personal use and consumption. But if it is property that is to be used for capital gain on that property, than that is "capitalist property". Am I on track?

So then your opion must be that profit from your own labor is OK. But profit from property that created wealth based upon not only the property, but the labor of others in combination of the property, and that the "owner" is not all of the workers, that property and profit should then be shared equally among the workers and no longer under the control of the original owner of the property. Is that right?

In a round-about way, yes.

 

[Maxwell511]

So how big does my factory or farm have to become (thet I invested my own labor into growing) before the "workers" get to come and take it for themselves?

If I take a stick and attach a rock the end to make a hammer. That would be a means of production, because now I can build houses. Does that hammer now become community property? Isn't it my labor that created it. Does that now mean that I do not own myself, but am then owned by the community?

Self ownership is cornerstone of liberty and freedom. No man owns me and I can't own you. To own another, even if it is collectively, is slavery.

I'm not sure that it is that the hammer is own by the community although I know some of the Left (proper left not US "Left") are of that thought. I would say that in a socialist system the means of production are owned privately. Surely the worker is a private individual? However the profit is owned by those that use the means to create it. So in case of the hammer while a man may own and decide what to do with the hammer, he may rent it, sell it or refuse anyone else the use and keep it on his mantel, he has no right to the profits of what it is used to created unless he labours towards the creation of the product himself.

Theoretically the system is trying, by the definition of property rights, to produce the effects of a perfectly competitive capitalist market.

 

[Maxwell511]

Shalom Jgarden,

I'm not so convinced by your findings in the UN Human Development Index, I really think this is a case of apples and oranges...

First, 5 of those top 10, I count amoung the E.U. And those countries are nowhere near the size of American populations, maybe you have a more comparable study between the United States and all the European Union?

Second, in a majority of those countries, post secondary education is completetly subsadized by their goverment and available to all for free, which really reduces the quality of that education ( I've studied in Copenhagen ).

Considering that you counted 5 EU countries in the list and there are only 3 I would have to agree that your education was substandard.

 

[jgarden]

Most and Least Livable Countries: UN Human Development Index, 2006

The Human Development Index (HDI), published annually by the UN, ranks nations according to their citizens' quality of life rather than strictly by a nation's traditional economic figures. The criteria for calculating rankings include life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income. The 2006 index is based on 2004 figures.

“Most Livable” Countries, 2006
1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Australia
4. Ireland
5. Sweden
6. Canada
7. Japan
8. United States
9. Switzerland
10. Netherlands

Shalom Jgarden,

I'm not so convinced by your findings in the UN Human Development Index, I really think this is a case of apples and oranges...

First, 5 of those top 10, I count amoung the E.U. And those countries are nowhere near the size of American populations, maybe you have a more comparable study between the United States and all the European Union?

Second, in a majority of those countries, post secondary education is completetly subsadized by their goverment and available to all for free, which really reduces the quality of that education ( I've studied in Copenhagen ).

Third, From what I understand, most of those countries are not socialist, in the tradtional meaning, but are Social Democracies, which still rely heavily on Free Market trade, they are just more comfortable with a welfare state, and given the considerable smaller populations and less obligations to the world wide community, they have a better setting to employ these ideas, then the United States.

1. The size of America's population didn't stop her from becoming the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world. Why should it now become an obstacle when it comes redistributing that wealth for the benefit of the nation and its citizens? Economies of scale should actually give the US an advantage.

2. Universal access to public education to create a more literate, educated population gave America an advantage in the past over most other nations. A broadbased system designed to educate the many is better that an elitist system that benefits the few. Many are beginning to view the American has allowed its public education system to become substandard.

3. Virtually every other western democracy is on the left of the political spectrum when compared to the US. If "less obligations" translates into a smaller military, then that is true - but $350 billion spent on the military in Iraq is $350 billion that can't be spent on the quality of life of America's people. Ironically, Japan which was defeated in WW2, now ranks higher than America - the victor.

 

[Maxwell511]

2. Universal access to public education to create a more literate, educated population gave America an advantage in the past over most other nations. A broadbased system designed to educate the many is better that an elitist system that benefits the few.

Public universal access to third level education has given the fourth country on the list the means to be there.

Despite what Chabadnik says the universities here (meaning Ireland I don't have too much experience in the other Member States) are independent of the government in the sense that they can charge whatever they wish for undergraduate courses and teach whatever they want. It is not in their interest to provide substandard courses. As an hopeful academic I do have problems with the structure of fourth and higher levels in the country (these are mostly privately funded and have nothing to do with the government), I believe that the institutes should be more focused giving a bigger hinterland similar to the US universities.

Having said that Ireland does provide third level education to all. What that does is provide that the best students get the best courses and we get the best graduates. The competition is stronger there is no reduction in the quality of education, as can be noted by the amount of high skilled US manufacturing companies are here, like Pfizer etc. These same companies even export to the US from an area where the average industrial wage and cost of living is higher than most places within its own borders, what does that tell ya?

 

[KarateCowboy]

I am very pro-capitalism. It provides the greatest growth and most upward mobility. However, capitalism only works when it's players are ethical.

I don't mean it to reflect upon you but I had to chuckle when I read that line --is there any economic system that does work when its players are not ethical?

 

[Sketcher]

That comparison is not valid. Of course they would, because in India or Afghanistan that pay will stretch to a healthy and good life. In the USA it does not. In Afghanistan corporations that thrive on Capitalistic principles do very well by having the people there work for a few cents a day. If that. This is too little to live off of. Many are also treated worse than our cattle is.

Even when you factor in the inflation and cost of living, it would be a better life here in America. Why? Because America prospers. Why does America prosper? Two reasons - the grace of God, and capitalism.

What those countries need isn't socialism, but devoted Christian business management.

Sorry, but this is a blind accusation. If you want to compare prosperity, compare your country to ours. To any Scandinavian country in fact. Check the poverty line, litteracy, healthcare stats. We thrive - even more so than the states given our size. Our BNP per capita is higher than yours. If what you say is right - we should be poor. After all, we are socialists. We have high pay, even for workers, we have great healthcare and a fairly high percentage of our population does not work. Still we thrive. That is true for all Scandinavian countries. Not just oil-rich Norway. By your logic we should all be very poor. We are not.

Only four countries are ahead of the US in GDP, and only two of them are Scandinavian. The US is ahead of most of Europe, and way ahead of Canada, which is similar in size.

As for the other companies you mentioned they are not innocent either. There was the case of Apple's iPod production which was - and probably still is - unethical. Apple also uses chemicals in their production of electronics that pollute significantly. Chemicals others have stopped using.
The list of corporations who have conducted themselves poorly (at best) is very very long.

And this somehow makes private enterprise inherently evil?

It is easy to give if it does not really cost you anything.

And that is the heart of the matter when it comes to the morality of capitalism vs. socialism. Under capitalism, you have more that you can choose to give away. Under socialism, more of that choice is made for you, negating any moral value it might have otherwise had. Paying taxes is a moral obligation yes, but giving money out of your own free will is morally better because you can choose to do it.

Yes, but your wealth as a nation cannot be comared to that of the third world. Compare the state of your poor to the state of the poor in another nation with comparable wealth or BNP per capita.

And this is why we shouldn't change. The poor here are rich by humanity's standards throughout history. If you want to compare countries, we're in the top 5 for GNP per capita - better than all but two Scandinavian countries, and much better than Canada, which is ranked at #18. And only .04% of our population is below the poverty line. That's ahead of just about everybody.

Oh no, you are twisting my words. Though I can see why you would think so. My argument is not that people should be jealous. No way. My argument is that my life is just as much worth as the life of a homeless man. Or His majesty the king's life for that matter. My argument is that the value of a human cannot be measured in money. We are equal before God. And we should be to eachother as well. My argument is that Capitalism strengthens the strong and weakens the weak. My argument is that this is unjust and creates a class division we cannot afford. It is that we (or rather you, thus also a lot of the world) experience a power imbalance which has and still does lead to revolutions in other parts of the world where it has escalated too far, or never really been any different...

I agree with you that people are equally valuable before God, but it's not just a matter of strong vs. weak here. Hard work is also a factor. A naturally "weak" person who worked hard can easily surpass a lazy person who had a "strong" start in life. And this is good, because it motivates people to work harder. Thanks to our free market economy, people can go from poor to rich if they just apply themselves.

I have no problem with some people making or having more than me. What I have a problem with is when people are left behind without rights, without a voice to be heard.

They have the same rights that I do and that a rich man does - both on paper and in practice.

I do not want a materialistic consumerist society where we are all under the false lure that consumption = prosperity.

I don't either, but that's what the church is for. Not the state.

I want and fight for a society where all - regardless of social position have a chance - a good chance - to get an education which lets them fulfill their potential.

We have community colleges with open enrollment, and people can transfer to four-year universities. Lots of poor people get an education this way.

A society where people regardless of their posessions can and will be able to receive what healthcare they need without the possibility of personal bankrupcy or debt.

That would be nice too, but not at the cost of a waiting list and the inherent clusterflubs that such a system would bring to America. Our federal entitlement system if broken, the last thing we need to do is expand it.

I advocate justice.

So do I. Being allowed to keep what you've worked for is justice. Having it forcibly taken from you and given to someone else who did not work for it is injustice.

While I see what you say, I do tyhink you are adressing the issue from an angle which is not really seen here... Jealousy? Some may be I guess. But it is not what socialism is about. Socialism is about equality. Human worth. Human potential. And a limitation on greed.

If it were about human potential, it wouldn't handcuff businesses.

Well, yes. Legally a corporation IS a person. A person who can sue, and be sued. Who can invest and so on and so forth. But that is another issue, while it does touch the issue at hand. While a corporation consists of people like a mob consists of people, it is capable of terrible things. As shown by - I believe it was Texaco - who in the Ecuadorian jungle let their spill run free in the rivers killing local animals, and also local citizens. They knew about this, but as the people killed were indigenous tribes in the jungle, they did not care - these people had no voice. So why bother? Not until the press got a whiff did things change. Or Coca Cola who has been accused, and even charged with murder of Colombian citizens who opposed Coca Cola interests. Or Dole, who put children to use in the fields to get rid of snakes and pests - costs a few lives now and again - and spray with pesticides while the workers are in the fields. There's Nike which uses very bad sweatshop labour. Same for Tommy Hilfiger.
Funny thing is, these corporations are made up of people who - in Dole's case - are killed making their products. Or in Texaco's (or was it Shell?) case kill other bystanders because of their product.

And governments that have the power to distribute needed resources are just as bad if not worse. Take the Baath Party socialists in Iraq. They had the power to starve the people of Basra and severely limit their clean water. Because of capitalism in America, it is the people that have the power so something like that could never happen here.

Your system is not semi-social. It is pretty much utterly capitalistic. In a properly socialistic country you would - IF you qualified - get a university degree. Lest you didn't want to work for it of course.

The gap in tuition between private colleges and state universities is rather large here. At a state university, the state subsidizes the college itself, and there are guidelines that must be followed. However, even with this in place the trustees of these colleges are very wasteful. In a single year, the state will cut funding, but the trustees will begin another expensive project - a new campus site here, a new statue there, an expensive and unnecessary computer upgrade there - it will blow your mind. If we went with a fully socialist model, the tax burden would be horrific. Just so you know, Washington spends its money just as badly (if not worse).

So why do you have such problems with class division? Why do the top 20% run away with the earnings of your country, yet the bottom 80% do not benefit accordingly? Capitalism gives money to those who have money. And takes it away from those who do not. What happens in the USA if you do not have an insurance and get sick? What happens if you are smart and poor? You might get a scholarship. But chances are you will not be able to get to the university, or college.

I have problems with this notion of class warfare because all people are equal, but the concept makes the rich out to be less than people, even human demons. And under capitalism, the money trickles down. Again, our poor would be considered decently well off in most countries. Documentaries showing the plights of the American poor that were shown in Communist countries left their masses impressed with how well we have it here. Where else can some homeless person who refuses to work weigh close to 300 pounds (this is a real-life example, I've met this person)?

I disagree wholeheartedly. What I pay in taxes, you pay in insurance fees. What I get for free. you may still have to pay for even with insurance. Which includes much medical care. but also education.

You don't have nearly the amount of universities we do though. Our tax situation would be much, much worse than yours is. Heck, social security is already a grand waste, and that system will collapse in the next 50 years.

I currently work in a charity - based organization. I get my pay, and others here do too. Much is given by churches around the country. And a lot is given by the state too.
Furthermore, why on earth would it entail more restrictions on giving to charity? That is tax deductible you know.

Two things: One is that federal funding has guidelines, and if you don't follow these guidelines, you don't get the money. Christian charities objected very much to Bush's plan to use federal funding for faith-based initiatives because they didn't want to be dependent on money that could very much disappear if they chose to follow the Bible rather than some arcane stipulation that would require them to compromise their beliefs. There is a growing "separation of church and state" movement, and the charity workers don't want some federal judge saying they can't evangelize if they want to receive funding.

Second, if I am taxed more, I have less at my disposal to give. If the cost of living remains constant for me, that means I'd have to give less. I don't spend a whole lot on entertainment, last year I was just barely getting by from month to month. The only luxury I really paid for regularly was the Internet bill. I couldn't afford a car. And yet my taxes are still supposed to go up? That's an insane proposition. For the record, I gave too.

You - falsely - accuse me and my entire country to have a system which makes one poor and also is based on jealousy. We are stinking rich.

It is based on Communism, which is based on jealousy.

Yes, and such is great. But why should that mean that socialization is out of the question?

Because we don't need it. What we need are more churches like this.

 

[Sketcher]

True, but they can give you a perspective that if organized certain ways things might work very differently - and profitably so - in another country. What baffles me is that you live in a capitalistic country, and you bash socialism as if you knew what it was about by bringing up examples from your own society and system - which is NOT socialistic. You cannot say that socialism is bad because your experiences with a capitalized system has shown you that it can be hard not having money and resources! That is what Socialism is about, helping those without resources and money. Capitalism is not about that. Capitalism is about corporate profit.

I bash increased government spending on social services because our government has proven to be a bunch of goobers at best when it comes to this. I have no reason to trust them with more.

Absolutely. Which does not really discredit socialism in any way. At least here they have a chance. What is worse? That a lot of people die without any hope of help, or that a very very few die while waiting for help which is within reach?
I choose the lesser of two evils, it is better that everyone gets help and having queues in hospitals, than for just a few to get help and not having any queues.

A few? It is the minority of people that can't get the health care they need, rather than the majority. Very few people can't get essential care here.

Well, most our clinics are free. But that does not seem to have the effect you claim. Our doctors are very good - with the inevitable exceptions of course. Who are duly fired, if they are bad enough. As far as I remember, by the way, according to the UN, Canada is significantly better to live in than the states. I do not have the figures in my head, but I thought it's healthcare was quite good actually.

By the numbers, America is as good if not better than Canada.

US Health Statistics

Canada Health Statistics

Actually, you have tried repeatedly to change our policies. Your government has threatened us on several occasions to force through your own agenda. Whined and sued Norwegian citizens too, need I mention Jon Lech Johansen - AKA DVD jon?

Ever hear of international copyright?

I am not wanting to tell you how you should run your country. All I want to do is to let you see that there are alternatives out there which may be better.

Given your stance and rhetoric against capitalism, that is awfully surprising.

Furthermore, what injustices do not affect me, still concern me. That people in other countries suffer is my concern even if I never meet them, know them, and even if (probably especially if) their poverty is a direct result of my own consumption and lifestyle. It concerns me. And I wish to deal with the root of the problem. So what? Should I ignore all injustice outside my borders because I lead a happy and good life? Certainly not! Are we - as citizens in the worlds' richest nations tied to some responsibility due to our resources and power? I think we are. And that we need to do something about it - now. Even if that means we cannot live as we used to.

First of all, what happens within a sovereign nation's borders is beyond my control. Local reforms are what's needed to help these people. It worked for us, it can work for them. Second, I've thought about boycotting based on sweatshop practices, I really have. But then I consider that if the people in charge are as untrustworthy as the socialists and commies claim, all it's going to do is result in a pay cut for the workers anyway. "Hmm - profits are down - the new wage shall be 50 cents an hour instead of $2." Third, the market is saturated with these goods anyway. Therefore, what needs to happen is more Christians need to have influence in the top ranks of the business world. This needs to happen globally. An excellent way for that to happen is for more Christians (who are thusly gifted) should go into business, and transfer out of the country since they will be in positions of leadership and have access to people with far more authority. Once they are there, they can do good to those below them directly, and evangelize to their peers and superiors, who would in turn make things better for the workers below them. With the Spirit in control of more businessmen, the workers under them will reap the benefits. Since private enterprise is no better or worse than the people in charge of it, the people themselves need to change. Not necessarily the economic model.

Really? That depends on where it's power lies, doesn't it? In your case yeah. Because your country has a very strong military. We don't. Besides there are plenty of safeguards in place for such an event. Sure, they can be overridden I guess, as yours were with the Patriot act.

You don't know much about the Patriot Act.

We do not have people with the power you do domestically. We do not give our corporations the power they get from your politicians. We give it to the people.

And there are laws to keep it in balance. We don't need more.

 

[CCGirl]

By the numbers, America is as good if not better than Canada.

US Health Statistics

Canada Health Statistics

Wrong. Take another look at the links.

A few? It is the minority of people that can't get the health care they need, rather than the majority. Very few people can't get essential care here.

It should be zero, not just a minority that can not get access to quality medical care. Everyone has the same rights. 18,000 people in the USA died last year because they could not get health care.

I bash increased government spending on social services because our government has proven to be a bunch of goobers at best when it comes to this. I have no reason to trust them with more

The common denominator in your posts point out that the problem is with your government, not the system.

 

[jgarden]

From 1996 through 2000, just ten large profitable companies enjoyed a total of $50 billion in corporate tax breaks. That brought their combined tax bills down to only 8.9 percent of their $191 billion in U.S. profits over the five years. In just the most recent two years for which data are available, these ten companies got $29 billion in tax welfare, and paid a mere 5.9 percent of their profits in federal income taxes.

Microsoft
- enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years.
- In fact, Microsoft actually paid no tax at all in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits.
- Microsoft’s tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits.

General Electric
- America’s most profitable corporation, reported $50.8 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, but paid only 11.5 percent of that in federal income taxes.
- That low tax rate reflected almost $12 billion in corporate tax welfare for GE.

Ford
- enjoyed $9.1 billion in corporate tax welfare over the past five years.
- It reported $18.6 billion in U.S. profits over the past two years, but paid a tax rate of only 5.7 percent.

Worldcom
- paid no taxes at all in two of the last three years, despite reported U.S. profits of $15.2 billion.
- Worldcom’s total tax rate over the three years was only 1.6%.
- Corporate tax welfare slashed Worldcom’s tax bill by $5.3 billion over the past five years.

IBM
- reported $5.7 billion in U.S. profits in 2000, but paid only 3.4 percent of that in federal income taxes.
- In 1997, IBM reported $3.1 billion in U.S. profits, and instead of paying taxes, got an outright tax rebate.
- Over the past five years, IBM enjoyed a total of $4.7 billion in corporate tax welfare.

General Motors
- paid no taxes at all in three of the last five years, despite $12.5 billion in reported U.S. profits.
- M’s tax rate for the past three years was negative 1.3 percent.
- Its corporate tax welfare totaled $3.6 billion over the past five years.

Enron
- paid no income taxes at all in four of the past five years, despite $1.8 billion in reported U.S. profits.
- Enron’s total taxes over the five years were a negative $381 million.
- Its corporate tax welfare totaled $1.0 billion.

El Paso Energy
- reported $1.6 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, but paid less than nothing in federal income taxes, getting tax rebates of $254 million.
- El Paso’s tax rate over the five years was negative 15.5 percent.
- Its corporate welfare totaled $827 million.

Colgate-Palmolive
- paid no taxes at all in three of the past five years, despite $1.6 billion in reported U.S. profits.
- Colgate’s total tax rate over the five years was negative 1.3 percent, due to $595 million in corporate tax welfare.

Navistar
- on $1.4 billion in U.S. profits over the past five years, paid only $28 million in federal income taxes, a tax rate of only 2 percent.
- Navistar’s corporate tax welfare totaled $451 million.

http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm

capitalism = corporate socialism

If the corporations pay little or no taxes, someone or somebody has to pickup the "slack" - and we all know who that someone is!

How many individual taxpayers in the workplace pay 5.9% or less in federal income tax?

 

[Maxwell511]

Even when you factor in the inflation and cost of living, it would be a better life here in America. Why? Because America prospers. Why does America prosper? Two reasons - the grace of God, and capitalism.

What those countries need isn't socialism, but devoted Christian business management.

This attitude led to the death of about a million people in my country in the 19th century within 5 years. It is a wicked (and I would say an unChristian) philosophy.

 

[Sketcher]

This attitude led to the death of about a million people in my country in the 19th century within 5 years. It is a wicked (and I would say an unChristian) philosophy.

But there is nothing exclusively characteristic of capitalism about the potato famine. That could have happened at the hands of statists as well, as it did in Basra.

 

[Sketcher]

capitalism = corporate socialism

If the corporations pay little on no taxes, someone or somebody has to pickup the "slack" - and we all know who that someone is!

How many individual taxpayers in the workplace pay 5.9% or less in federal income tax?

The big bosses will be paying up to 39% or so (at the very most). But the tax breaks they do get are the tax breaks that the rich congressmen get. This includes liberals like Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and John Edwards. If they put their money where their mouths are on poverty, they would be living in smaller mansions and be giving a lot more to the poor directly, rather than shifting the burden to middle class taxpayers. I'm not going to let some misdirected pretend white guilt of rich politicians and actors guide my political views.

 

[Maxwell511]

But there is nothing exclusively characteristic of capitalism about the potato famine. That could have happened at the hands of statists as well, as it did in Basra.

During the "famine" the island produced enough food to feed itself a few times over. Of course the hungry could not afford the food. But then again it was "God's" work after all the attitudes of the MPs at the time was all that was needed was "devoted Christian business management."

 

[Sketcher]

The common denominator in your posts point out that the problem is with your government, not the system.[/FONT]

If the government is a lousy steward, why switch to a system that depends on them more? Especially when most of us have it good already? Besides, I value my freedom. Giving the government more power is giving away more of your freedom.

 

[Sketcher]

During the "famine" the island produced enough food to feed itself a few times over. Of course the hungry could not afford the food. But than again it was "God's" work after all the attitudes of the MPs at the time was all that was needed was "devoted Christian business management."

Devoted Christian business management would have seen the plight of those people. They talked up a good game, but didn't execute.