Capitalism- Good or Bad?

kermit said:

It was more than just the railroad industry that produced robber barons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

Click to expand...

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

Click to expand...

OOPS!

HorstWessel said:

OOPS!

Click to expand...

Strange. My link didn't work in my post but it works in your reply.

We can argue about the details all day. But you cannot deny that unregulated markets destroy themselves. We used to have an unregulated economy and the result was the Great Depression.

I don't like strong regulations, but we need some to regulate healthy growth and quick recovery by avoiding large ups and downs in out economy. I don't think there is one example of a free market left in the world because the simply don't work in the long run.

kermit said:

Strange. My link didn't work in my post but it works in your reply.

We can argue about the details all day. But you cannot deny that unregulated markets destroy themselves. We used to have an unregulated economy and the result was the Great Depression.

I don't like strong regulations, but we need some to regulate healthy growth and quick recovery by avoiding large ups and downs in out economy. I don't think there is one example of a free market left in the world because the simply don't work in the long run.

Click to expand...

The Great Depression was not a result of a unregulated economy. It was the result of poor monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, and made worse by government intervention. It's a shame that Hoover and Roosevelt didn't take Harding's 1921-22 example.

As for "robber barons," I think you need to make a distinction between" "market entrepeneurs" and "political entrepeneurs."

Bulldog said:

Do you have any examples of this?

Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of the opposite?
Tommy Hilfiger
Pepsi
CocaCola
Elf
Shell
Nike

All examples of the destructive force of "free" trade.
It is as he says, greed will grow wherever there is room for it to grow. And the free-er the market, the more room is it for greedy corporatists.

Bulldog said:

The Great Depression was not a result of a unregulated economy. It was the result of poor monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, and made worse by government intervention. It's a shame that Hoover and Roosevelt didn't take Harding's 1921-22 example.

As for "robber barons," I think you need to make a distinction between" "market entrepeneurs" and "political entrepeneurs."

Click to expand...

The market crashed due to excessive speculation. This type of excessive speculation doesn't happen in moderately regulated economy.

Bulldog said:

Why not?

Click to expand...

Because of start up costs and transaction costs.

I am a communist. I think society would be better run if the private property of the capitalist class was expropriated and run under worker's control. In this society everyone would receive according to their need. Capitalism is horror without end for most people.

When people use force or fraud in a free market it is seen as crime.

When it is government using force or fraud it is seen as regulation and that somehow makes it OK.

The fact is that the initiation of force or fraud is wrong. Just because 99 out of 100 think its OK doesn't make it so.

Also its not fair to point to government backed corporations to make a case against a free market.

Capitalism is the best system so far.

Those that work the hardest, work the most efficeint,
and help the most people will make the , most money.

Those that don't want to invest in thier job or themselves don't make big money. They are content with making less and enjoying life.
In capitalism, people make sacrifices for things.

Any other system makes no bonuses for working better, faster, or more efficient. they pay the same for the worst worker and the best worker.

People who invest in the machines to do work, make the
job available, for the profit of everyone working. But they make the most, because they took the chance to
open the business.

Pray4Che said:

I am a communist. I think society would be better run if the private property of the capitalist class was expropriated and run under worker's control. In this society everyone would receive according to their need. Capitalism is horror without end for most people.

Click to expand...

Fine, give up all your luxuries, because goverment has to redistribute them, so that everyone has a fair amount of nice things.

Capitalism is only a horror to those that don't want to work.

Wait until you begin to work. For every dollar that capitalistic overbaron gives you, Big Brother takes 1/3
of it to give to the people that don't want to work.
(Federal, State, local, and school taxes equal 33% or more.)
Who is worse? The capitalist that gives you wages enough to get nice things, or the goverment that wants to take 1/3 of everything you earn? (and more if you want to buy luxuries with that salary)

I know I have to pay more than 50% to breath american air. Its not just you fed, state, and prop taxes, but all the sale's taxes you pay, Soc.Serc (not just the 7%you pay as an employee, but the other 7% share the employer covers that gets passed on to the consmumer), all the lisencing fees, you cars registration, the taxes on the goods required for production of commercial goods and services that gets passed on to the consumer, and not to mention the devaluation of our dollar as the fed prints more, which then we have to make more to maintain our standard of living, but then guess what, now your in that next tax bracket and get to cough up even more. They tax you way more than you can imagine.

Capitalism is only as good or as bad as the people in its system, and changing the system won't change the people. I like capitalism because it will give those people who choose to do good the most resources and freedom with which to do their good deeds. At least until Jesus gets back, I think the best possible system would be capitalism under direct influence of the church. The church teaches generosity and provides better services to the poor than the government can do (particularly on a large scale), and the free market puts the most money in the hands of the deacons and active laity for them to do their acts of service to the poor.

bgrass1234 said:

When people use force or fraud in a free market it is seen as crime.

When it is government using force or fraud it is seen as regulation and that somehow makes it OK.

The fact is that the initiation of force or fraud is wrong. Just because 99 out of 100 think its OK doesn't make it so.

Click to expand...

Do you think that force or the threat of force is okay if it is used to make one party of a private agreement complete their duties or compensate the injured party for failing to complete them?

Just curious.

StartToday said:

Do you think capitalism is the best available economic system (as in it is the fairest, most productive, etc?).

If another system came along that didn't capitalise on the lower and middle classes, would you support it?

I am asking because of a conversation I recently had with a friend who insists that nobody would ever vote for a candidate that didn't support capitalism; I think that this is absurd because the vast majority of Americans are lower or middle class citizens, and would think it more fair and just to be paid more for their work, and the owners of their place of employment be paid less.

Thoughts, anyone?

Click to expand...

"WE LIVE, AS WE MUST SOONER or later recognize, in an era of sentimental economics and, consequently, of sentimental politics. Sentimental communism holds in effect that everybody and everything should suffer for the good of "the many" who, though miserable in the present, will be happy in the future for exactly the same reasons that they are miserable in the present.

Sentimental capitalism is not so different from sentimental communism as the corporate and political powers claim. Sentimental capitalism holds in effect that everything small, local, private, personal, natural, good, and beautiful must be sacrificed in the interest of the "free market" and the great corporations, which will bring unprecedented security and happiness to "the many" - in, of course, the future.

These forms of political economy may be described as sentimental because they depend absolutely upon a political faith for which there is no justification, and because they issue a cold check on the virtue of political and/or economic rulers. They seek, that is, to preserve the gullibility of the people by appealing to a fund of political virtue that does not exist. Communism and "free-market" capitalism both are modern versions of oligarchy. In their propaganda, both justify violent means by good ends, which always are put beyond reach by the violence of the means. The trick is to define the end vaguely - "the greatest good of the greatest number" or "the benefit of the many" - and keep it at a distance.

The fraudulence of these oligarchic forms of economy is in their principle of displacing whatever good they recognize (as well as their debts) from the present to the future. Their success depends upon persuading people, first, that whatever they have now is no good, and second, that the promised good is certain to be achieved in the future. This obviously contradicts the principle - common, I believe, to all the religious traditions - that if ever we are going to do good to one another, then the time to do it is now; we are to receive no reward for promising to do it in the future. And both communism and capitalism have found such principles to be a great embarrassment. If you are presently occupied in destroying every good thing in sight in order to do good in the future, it is inconvenient to have people saying things like "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Sentient beings are numberless, I vow to save them." Communists and capitalists alike, "liberal" and "conservative" capitalists alike, have needed to replace religion with some form of determinism, so that they can say to their victims, "I am doing this because I can't do otherwise. It is not my fault. It is inevitable." The wonder is how often organized religion has gone along with this lie." -- Wendell Berry, The Idea of a Local Economy.

twistedsketch said:

Capitalism is only as good or as bad as the people in its system, and changing the system won't change the people. I like capitalism because it will give those people who choose to do good the most resources and freedom with which to do their good deeds. At least until Jesus gets back, I think the best possible system would be capitalism under direct influence of the church. The church teaches generosity and provides better services to the poor than the government can do (particularly on a large scale), and the free market puts the most money in the hands of the deacons and active laity for them to do their acts of service to the poor.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your idea.

The ones who get the most resources are those who are cynical enough to only use them to further their own agenda.

Also, I have heard many Americans state how private charity is so much better than government controlled charity.
Yet I am still to see any evidence supporting this claim. It is much as the claim that anything and everything is better if privatized; Unbased in reality. If that was the case, how come you have such problems with your privatized healthcare?
I do not want to attack you with this statement, only request numbers to back your statement up.

The way I see it, a socialistic democracy is better. Especially if well founded on Christian beliefs. It allows for a healthy distribution of wealth, helping those who are in need. It lifts up the poor, allows the strong to help the weak. I am aware that many here consider taxation theft. But I am still unable to fathom why, if the money you pay in taxes pays for your education, your kids education, health insurance, and so much more. While also regulating trade to hinder/halt unethical trade and production. Unlike what we see capitalism do today; When it allows for businesses to exploit the workers, nature and the local population. Which is why CocaCola and Pepsi are both banned from an entire state in India; Their factories destroyed their water supply, ruining agriculture and sanitation alike.
No, I have seen the evils of Capitalism somewhat close. And I have seen the benefits of socialism even closer, as it has given me a good education, healthcare and more - for "free". It has also given that to my entire family, which at times have proven far more efficient and beneficial than any insurance could.

To get the healthcare benefits I get today - for free - through an insurance company, I would have to pay more than I pay in taxes today. Why would I give up all that I am given through taxation, for a worse offer which costs more? Makes no sense to me.

faith guardian said:

The ones who get the most resources are those who are cynical enough to only use them to further their own agenda.

Click to expand...

The richest people in America also give the most to charity. It's not just raw dollars and cents, but they give significant proportions of their wealth to various charities and they start their own charitable foundations.

But back to what I did say: That capitalism gives the more money and freedom to those who choose to do good than any other system. When you have your own personal abundance, and the stores have an abundance, you have the resources and freedom to do the most good with it. I've served on a commune and I've served in the church. Those that take part in church service projects can volunteer their own abundance of resources to getting the work done. Those that depend on the commune to give them more resources to finish when they run out pretty much have to quit for the day. Since more charity work done is better than less in a day, I find capitalism to be the superior system for doing good to the poor.

faith guardian said:

Also, I have heard many Americans state how private charity is so much better than government controlled charity.
Yet I am still to see any evidence supporting this claim. It is much as the claim that anything and everything is better if privatized; Unbased in reality. If that was the case, how come you have such problems with your privatized healthcare?
I do not want to attack you with this statement, only request numbers to back your statement up.

Click to expand...

We're a lot better than Canada. Since Canada is a large country unlike the Scandinavian countries, it makes more sense to compare the possibilities of socialized medicine in the US to the realities of Canada rather than Scandinavia.

And for government charity being so good - the US government doesn't do as much charity as a socialist might think. It is well practiced at Indian giving, however. In case you didn't know, SSI (Social Security income, for retired, permanently injured, and handicapped persons) is taxed. And those that depend on it don't get nearly as much as they were counting on when they need to collect due to red tape and such. I know, because I worked with a lady who was injured and got screwed out of the SSI that she was expecting. As a result, she wound up stuck in a fast-food career, because her injury prevented her from office work (I don't remember what it was exactly) so she couldn't even use the degree she obtained. Lesson from all this: The government is not your savior, and should not be counted on to be your savior.

Maxwell511 said:

Do you think that force or the threat of force is okay if it is used to make one party of a private agreement complete their duties or compensate the injured party for failing to complete them?

Just curious.

Click to expand...

No. I think violence is only permissable for self defense or the defense of others. (I even struggle with violence being OK for defense) It is not right to use violence to force service or to extract payment, even if service or payment is due.

twistedsketch said:

The richest people in America also give the most to charity. It's not just raw dollars and cents, but they give significant proportions of their wealth to various charities and they start their own charitable foundations.

Click to expand...

True. But let's bring up a couple of these rich people. There's what'shisname who owns most of WalMart, he does a lot of charity. But how did he GET his fortune? Is WalMart an ethical company? Certainly not. It is highly unethical, both in the products they carry, and the way they treat their employees. Or how about Bill Gates, who certainly currently does a great job of charity, but he has been known to steal code from opposing companies, perform foul play in order to gain market shares. In short, in order to get rich he has performed some actions which are dubious at best.
So, because they give so much charity, should their wicked actions be ignored? Isn't that sort of like saying we should forget Stalin's Gulags and persecutions because he freed us in WW2? Or forgive the USA for numerous terrible acts because of the Marshall aid?
Furthermore; You bring up the rich people in your country and the amount of charity they give, what makes you think rich people in socialized countries do not give to charity? What's more, what percentage of their wealth is give to charity?
Besides, what good is it if the rich give so much more money to charity if society is way out of balance, and the difference between the rich and the poor is extreme?
I would recommend you take a look at this graphical representation of the distribution of wealth in your society; http://www.lcurve.org/

Let's hear what the CIA have to say about your economic system.

[blue]The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $43,500. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products.[/blue]

Click to expand...

In other words, you are capitalists. As it said here, your firms have great freedom. It even mentions the freedom to lay off workers specifically. And this is exactly what some of my criticism of the capitalistic society deals with; Security and rights for the population more than the corporation is what I want.

[blue]

US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits.[/blue]

Click to expand...

Again, another area where I criticize the capitalistic system. It pretty much states here that the system has increased the class divide, and that one of your challenges is just this. The problem persists in an evil loop because the "lower levels" of society do not get the education they need - and indeed may very well be equipped for. As people in your system are poor, they have problems getting out of poverty because their children cannot go to school, they cannot pay for healthcare or insurance and thus get in debt whenever they MUST have a procedure done, which decreases their - and their childrens' chances of ever getting out of the loop.
We continue to read;

[blue]

Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.[/blue]

Click to expand...

In other words, things are getting worse, not better.

Source; CIA World fact book.

But back to what I did say: That capitalism gives the more money and freedom to those who choose to do good than any other system.

Click to expand...

No, it really does not if you do not have money. If you are rich, then yeah, within limits. If you do not, it hinders you and limits you.

When you have your own personal abundance, and the stores have an abundance, you have the resources and freedom to do the most good with it.

Click to expand...

Or evil.

I've served on a commune and I've served in the church. Those that take part in church service projects can volunteer their own abundance of resources to getting the work done. Those that depend on the commune to give them more resources to finish when they run out pretty much have to quit for the day. Since more charity work done is better than less in a day, I find capitalism to be the superior system for doing good to the poor.

Click to expand...

And such is your oppinion based on your experience - in the USA. I still need to see some numbers before I buy into the idea. Opinions do not cut it.

We're a lot better than Canada. Since Canada is a large country unlike the Scandinavian countries, it makes more sense to compare the possibilities of socialized medicine in the US to the realities of Canada rather than Scandinavia.

Click to expand...

The only thing you have to your benefit is the response time of your medical system - and only then if you have the money or insurance to get it.
You want to compare with Canada, if so, find figures. Not just a biased document that basically complains about the waiting lines. That waiting lines occur in a socialized health care is unavoidable; If all your population were to get top level health care, you would also get queues. That is an unfortunate fact which is still better than the alternative; Large parts of the population not getting the health care services they need.

The best of your doctors are extraordinary. Your best hospitals are great, and you develop much health care related technology the entire world benefits from. But that does not change the fact that if you do not have money - you're in deep trouble. If you are poor, or lack insurance then what do you do? The best doctors in the world do not benefit you if only the rich can go.

And for government charity being so good - the US government doesn't do as much charity as a socialist might think. It is well practiced at Indian giving, however. In case you didn't know, SSI (Social Security income, for retired, permanently injured, and handicapped persons) is taxed. And those that depend on it don't get nearly as much as they were counting on when they need to collect due to red tape and such. I know, because I worked with a lady who was injured and got screwed out of the SSI that she was expecting. As a result, she wound up stuck in a fast-food career, because her injury prevented her from office work (I don't remember what it was exactly) so she couldn't even use the degree she obtained. Lesson from all this: The government is not your savior, and should not be counted on to be your savior.

Click to expand...

Your government is not your savior, no. But you have made it the way it is. You want a capitalistic government, we do not. We have a socialistic democracy, and boy does it give us benefits!
The lesson you have would probably be reversed here. Several people I know here now lead good lives in good, productive and challenging jobs because of the socialized healthcare managing to pull them out of the problems they had and "rebuild" them.
The lesson I have learned is that in most cases the government can indeed be your hero in many situations. UNLESS the people have allowed the government ot ignore the people and listen to the corporations and rich individuals instead of the masses. Which is the case in the states. So yeah, I would agree that your government is certainly not your savior.

CCGirl said:

Is this allowed on this forum? Such racist language??!!

Click to expand...

It's not racist, it's just an expression.