Does capitalism work?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Mostly the senate, really. The senate is really useless. I bet there is also a lot of nepotism.cool skill said:
As for Bush & Co, they are not lazy, they are just hard workers for their own best interests rather then the inteterst of the american people and the world..
Speak for yourself. Circular.(Q) said:
I think stupid people such as yourself seem to like circular discussion. You morons really like chasing your own tail.
Here's your response:
There are those that deserve help, and you deserve nothng.
Elitist response. Not relevant.
Equality means that all individuals have equal rights. Nobody is even discussing help. The discussion is about basic stanard of living that is available for all without obligation.
There is no such thing as forcing systematic poverty on yourself.
you seem to be seriously brain damaged. You are a crappytalist.
Crappytalists such as yourself are not the solution. You simply pertpetuate the problem.
no, because in capitalism it is possibel for anyone to make it work for them provided they work hard and make themself wanted by society. This does not mean that everyone WILL make it work for them, rather that everyone CAN make it work for them. As opposed to communism where everyone is imprisoned in a system in which there is no froward advancement and no possibility for individual improvement and teh only people who make it work are the hypocrites in charge.
Please dont make the weak argument that rich people prevent poor people from advancement jsut like the communist leaders do to teh people. It is entirely diffferent, shown by the great number of poor people in capitalism who have become rich and teh zero poor people in communism who becaem rich.
Please dont make the weak argument that rich people prevent poor people from advancement jsut like the communist leaders do to teh people. It is entirely diffferent, shown by the great number of poor people in capitalism who have become rich and teh zero poor people in communism who becaem rich.
Just a quick clarification on your last sentence. Uhh, Communism is not about getting someone 'rich.'Jeff 152 said:
Before you become a cheerleader for your imaginary rich pimp daddy you would do well to understand the opponent philosophies of capitalism, and perhaps learn to spell as well.I decline to forgive you but I did in fact get your point. I just want to make clear that not every human beings' goal is to "wanna git rich er die tryin." There are other more worthy goals the human race can aspire to than simply copying the ultimate goal of the common gangbanger in Compton or a bank robber.Jeff 152 said:
Genji said:Just a quick clarification on your last sentence. Uhh, Communism is not about getting someone 'rich.'
I was responding to coolskill's argument by the way in which he claimed that communism and capitalism are similar because the rich people at the top (for communism it would be the communist party) like the system because it works to their benefit and makes them rich. I was then observing that in capitalism, the poor who are dissatisfied and feel oppressed by the rich are capable of improving their situation and becoming rich themselves, unlike in communism where disatisfied people are helpless to change their situation. Maybe everyone in communism is satisfied with their position and doesn't want improvement. I don't really think this is the case though because people naturally want more money and power and the people in a communist state are usually extremely impoverished because the communist party hordes all the money evem more that the rich in capitalism do. And even though they both horde the money, at least in capitalism the poor can reach the level of the rich and then they too will become hypocrites and look out for their own interests.
This is the exact definition of crappytalism which is the result of proverty and crime.Jeff 152 said:
I would like to see an intelligent argument for capitalism that actually addresses the points against capitalism without going off into a nutrageous fantasy.
1. Do you actually believe there are no poor people in a capitalist system?
2. Do you actually believe that all resources are used in their most efficient matter?
3. Do you actually believe that every person within the borders of the capitalist land are free from any obligations for the sake of personal necessities?
4. Do you actually believe that there are no crooked rich individuals taking advantage of others?
5. Do you actually believe there is negligible stratification, and that everybody does not have absurd wealth differences?
6. Do you actually believe every single person has access to true first world standards?
cool skill said:
1) nope, i never said that. But everyone can become rich. Also, I'd rather take a chance and bet on my own talent that I can make it and become rich in a capitalistic system than be forced into a system where I am forced to be poor with everyone else, maybe mot desperately poor but moderately poor. Why should I want to be as poor as a lazy friend in a socialistic type system when I am confident I could be better off in a capitalistic system?
2) first of all perfect efficiency is idealistic and cant be realized. Secondly, eveyone tries to use resources to benfit themselves the most. Obviously, everyone can not have it their way, so they must make compromises so that everyone gets the most possible benefit. When they all agree, everyone is happy or at least as happy as they can expect to be. Efficent by whose standards? Everyone has differnt ideas of how resources should be allocated, so you are correct, nobody will ever be perfectly satisfied with how resorces are managed unless they take over teh economy and do everything their way instead of compromising (for example, when the communist party controls how resources are used and nobody else has a say)
3) I dont really understand your question here. It is probabaly my fault but could you rephrase it?
4) There are definitely rich individuals who are corrupt, but there will always be in any system. You must remeber though, that even acts done for completely one's self interest benefit others involuntarily. many actually believe that it is best for everyone to act in only their self interest, and they will inadvertently benefit everyone else. It is a philoshy called egoism, you can look it up on Wikipedia.
5)I do not deny there are huge welath differences, but I believ they are necessary for the betterment of society. What is the motivation to work hard and get educated and contribute to society when society returns the same benefit no matter what. When there is no threat of poverty, there is no motivation for people to work. Poverty is a necessary evil. It would be great if people would work hard without incentive or threat, but tat is just simply not the case because people are imperfect.
6) Nope, but life is not fair. I believe this is perhaps the strongest argument against capitalism. In theory, everyone in capitalism has the same opportunity to get an education and succeed, but I realize that this is idealstic as some people are just born inot a better situation than others. There is not really much of an answer to this other than no matter how dire your situation is, it is never impossible to become rich, and tat life is just unfair. Sorry i dont have a better argument, this was a very good question. I would still prefer being poor with a chance for improvemnet though over being poor with no chance for improvement.
Genji said:
Ummm, this entire thread and many others is about you complaing that the rich hoard all of the money and they manipulate the economy and the workers to prevent you from getting any money. If you do not care that you have no money, why do you care if others have money or not?
Wrong Again! I make a comfortable living for a single guy. You are a baiter bullshitter but I'll add I oppose the ruling class and their thievery. I think outside of my own selfish needs which surely is an alien concept to a person like yourself. You do have my pity.Jeff 152 said:
1. You are in a system in which people are forced to be poor.Jeff 152 said:
2. There are different views on the needs of each individual. Currently, the needs of the individual are not decided by the individual or the populus. They are decided by rich elitists that control the economy for what they believe people need in order to continue being oxen for the rich. Many who even believe they are rich are nothing by oxen driving oxen.
Rich
V
V
Sheepdog
V
V
Sheep
3. Do you actually believe that every person within the borders of the capitalist land are free from any obligations for the sake of personal necessities?
Freedom is nothing but a scale:
Obligation <---------------->Access
The more access one has, the more freedom one has.
More Access = Less Obligation.
The more obligation one has, the less freedom one has.
More Obligation = Less Access.
To have 100% access means you can get whatever you want, and go wherever you want without lifting a finger. This means you have supernatural powers of Jesus. You do not even have to think for thinking is effort. You just have pure unlimited access.
To have 100% obligation means you cannot get anything you want whatsoever.
In real life, humans are somewhere on the scale.
If you find that you HAVE to work in order to pay for a decent standard of living, you have a very low level of access.
If you find that you don't have to do anything beyond basic personal care and basic personal administration in order to have a decent standard of living, you have legitimate access.
both primitive systems of Capitalism and Communism are systems of obligation. Eveery individual in both systems unless they are disabled are not free, but individuals of obligation. Less access = less choice = more oppression.
EDIT: woops. forgot about 4-6:
4. Egoism and elitism are the most impractical primitive minded perspective. Egoism is about self interest. Not about objective logic. The only people that abide by egoism are very subjective nutbags and elitists.
Populism is more accurate form of political paradigm.
5.
The belief in the necessity of poverty = the necessity of poverty.
The belief in the eradication of poverty = the eradication of poverty.
Man has a propensity towards serious stupidty.
Our biggest enemy is ourselves. Most of the time when you want something, the only thing holding you back from getting it is yourself. How many times in out own lives have we missed out on something we could have easily gotten had we not been so stupid. Many many many many many. Much of what is holding you back or what you think is holding you have is nothing more than an illusion.
Society's absolutely ignorant belief n the necessity of poverty is the biggest enemy in the eradication of poverty.
6. You cannot apply particulars as a universal.
Last edited:
Maybe he wants to be rich but he doesn't want toexploit other people, so he feels conflicted inside...Jeff 152 said:
Huuuummm.....
Capitalism works. But whether it is beneficial to society or not, that is the issue. Here are a few points:
1) Economic growth is not a very good measure of improvement. It doesn't take into account sustainability, ofr instance. Nor quality of life. The health of the people is also excluded from the equation. In short, economic growth is not a good measure of standard of life improvement.
2) The political and legal systems have very close ties to the rich. That skews political and legal decisions towards the benefit of the rich, rather then of the whole society. For instance, rich corporations hire lobbysts to influence new legislations. Regular people can't do that. Therefore, money buys "democracy".
3) The environment is often ignored in the name of profit. Corporations also need to look good to their investors, so they cut "unnecessary expenses.
4) Similarly jobs get cut because of outsourcing and in the name of leverage. Instead of decreasing hours, hours increase because the job market becomes more competitive.
5) In politics, one person gets one vote. In the world of the stock market, the richer you are, the more votes you are.
6) Corporations always have precedence over human life, regardless of the situation. They used to be way less powerful. The people used to have the power to terminate them. Now they are able to last forever. They are also separate entities and they can pretty much do whatever they want.
That's probably a good start...
1) Economic growth is not a very good measure of improvement. It doesn't take into account sustainability, ofr instance. Nor quality of life. The health of the people is also excluded from the equation. In short, economic growth is not a good measure of standard of life improvement.
2) The political and legal systems have very close ties to the rich. That skews political and legal decisions towards the benefit of the rich, rather then of the whole society. For instance, rich corporations hire lobbysts to influence new legislations. Regular people can't do that. Therefore, money buys "democracy".
3) The environment is often ignored in the name of profit. Corporations also need to look good to their investors, so they cut "unnecessary expenses.
4) Similarly jobs get cut because of outsourcing and in the name of leverage. Instead of decreasing hours, hours increase because the job market becomes more competitive.
5) In politics, one person gets one vote. In the world of the stock market, the richer you are, the more votes you are.
6) Corporations always have precedence over human life, regardless of the situation. They used to be way less powerful. The people used to have the power to terminate them. Now they are able to last forever. They are also separate entities and they can pretty much do whatever they want.
That's probably a good start...