HorstWessel
Member
It was more than just the railroad industry that produced robber barons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.
OOPS!
Upvote
0
It was more than just the railroad industry that produced robber barons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.
Strange. My link didn't work in my post but it works in your reply.OOPS!
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.
Do you have any examples of the opposite?Do you have any examples of this?
The market crashed due to excessive speculation. This type of excessive speculation doesn't happen in moderately regulated economy.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."
Why not?
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.
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?
I disagree with your idea.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.
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.The ones who get the most resources are those who are cynical enough to only use them to further their own agenda.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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]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]
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]
Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.[/blue]
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.
Or evil.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.
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.
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!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.