Does capitalism work?

Does capitalism work?

  • Yes

    Votes: 76 62.8%

  • No

    Votes: 45 37.2%
  • Total voters
    121
TruthSeeker said:
It doesn't work that way. And here is why. The countries that have cheap labour have a very uneven income distribution in which a lot of people can barely survive and a few people have too much. On top of it, those poor people are taxed like hell and all the money they give to the government goes to pay huge debts which the government aquired to support the few people with money and power. So basically, those people are slaves of their government's debt. The reason why I am personally outraged about that kind of situation is that many of those governments were established by the west. Dictators all over the world were endorsed by the United States (and in some cases UK) to protect the west's interests. In turn, those few dictators the US put in power in those countries can enjoy an easy plentiful life with the debt they create for their people.

Examples of those dictators are Saddam Husseim (I hope you knew that), and other dictators from Indonesia, Chile, Brazil, South America in general (all the south american ones were during the cold war), all over Middle East and in some parts of Asia and Africa.
Click to expand...

You're thinking short term.

In the long term, the dictators eventually die. Eventually the people will not take the taxation anymore, or it will be in the best interest of someone more powerful than their dictator to liberate the people from them, probably sometimes just for another... but it cannot last forever, and if you think about it... china is a shining example of what I was saying. The bigger, more powerful countries (even if previously at a technological/economic disadvantage) will likely come along for the 1st world ride first, and slowly, over a long time - the rest follow, until the balance is met. Technically it's always balanced, but I mean the larger scale.. oh crap nevermind I'm bored with trying to explain it.

I does work like I said, but perhaps not as quickly as the tastes of many involved would prefer.
 
Are you SURE it works like what you said? :rolleyes:

:D

I will believe when I hear a reasonable argument... ;)



Btw, not everyone can live by first world standards. There are simply not enough resources to do that...
 
As time progresses, utilization of resources becomes more efficient in first world countries, so....

If nothing else, at some point third world countries live as the first worlders used to. In the long run, given persistence of the species and all....

Then again, I could be completely full of shit.

I'd really like quadraphonics' take on this. He's the sharpest economics guy I've seen on the board.
 
TruthSeeker said:
It doesn't work that way. And here is why. The countries that have cheap labour have a very uneven income distribution in which a lot of people can barely survive and a few people have too much. On top of it, those poor people are taxed like hell and all the money they give to the government goes to pay huge debts which the government aquired to support the few people with money and power. So basically, those people are slaves of their government's debt. The reason why I am personally outraged about that kind of situation is that many of those governments were established by the west. Dictators all over the world were endorsed by the United States (and in some cases UK) to protect the west's interests. In turn, those few dictators the US put in power in those countries can enjoy an easy plentiful life with the debt they create for their people.

Examples of those dictators are Saddam Husseim (I hope you knew that), and other dictators from Indonesia, Chile, Brazil, South America in general (all the south american ones were during the cold war), all over Middle East and in some parts of Asia and Africa.
Click to expand...

What's Mexico's excuse then?

I'd say you're probably right about at least a few countries, but for the others, won't the reasoning provided eventually pan out? If not, why? Is it a culture of corruption? What's africa's problem? Seems to me the main reason they're third world is corruption. Strong arms take the loot, leaving the rest to fend for themselves with not for scrap, then do the same thing you touted except on a local basis, wherein they are basically enslaved, as if they pursue opportunity for themselves, they are ousted from it and if they work for the strong arms, they get squat for the most part.
 
wesmorris said:
As time progresses, utilization of resources becomes more efficient in first world countries, so....

If nothing else, at some point third world countries live as the first worlders used to. In the long run, given persistence of the species and all....

Then again, I could be completely full of shit.

I'd really like quadraphonics' take on this. He's the sharpest economics guy I've seen on the board.
Click to expand...
Let's PM him then.

Yes, I realize third world countries have quite a bit of technologies that were not enjoyed by the first world when the first world was developing. However, if you observe carefully you will see that we use those resources in a much less efficient way. A classic example is the speed of expansion of cities in third world countries, and the consequences of that rapid expansion.

A more pressing problem is in fact the availability of resources. Is there really enough resources for the entire planet to live like the 6% wealthiest? Even by the standards of middle class america, it is hard to assume that we have enough resources. Not only that, but is it really worth destroying the entire planet to live like the 6% wealthiest? North America has about 6% of the population of the whole planet, and it consumes about 80% of all world resources. Do you think the planet could take all of us consuming like that?
 
wesmorris said:
What's Mexico's excuse then?

I'd say you're probably right about at least a few countries, but for the others, won't the reasoning provided eventually pan out? If not, why? Is it a culture of corruption? What's africa's problem? Seems to me the main reason they're third world is corruption. Strong arms take the loot, leaving the rest to fend for themselves with not for scrap, then do the same thing you touted except on a local basis, wherein they are basically enslaved, as if they pursue opportunity for themselves, they are ousted from it and if they work for the strong arms, they get squat for the most part.
Click to expand...
Your answers are in history.
 
TruthSeeker said:
In other words, you cannot answer my questions. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
In others words your questions are idiotic.


wesmorris said:
Eventually the people will not take the taxation anymore.
Click to expand...
What crap. The debts will never be paid. And if such unforseen event would occur, we can easily install more chaos, mayhem, evil dictators, mass murder. Thereby generating more debt, and more money for the rich.
 
lixluke,

We usually are on the same side, but reading your posts makes me want to be a hard-core reich-wing, free-market, capitalist freak, just to not have you on the same side as me. Your constant barrage of insults is reprehensible. The absolute worst that I've read only in the last two pages of this one thread is, and I quote:
You are a total dumb pea brained retard from the planet fool.
Click to expand...

This style of debating only makes you look like the dumb, pea-brained retard from Planet Fool. Clean up your act or shut the fuck up. If you don't, I will continue to take up my duty as a fellow member of SciForums to report your posts.

Have a nice day.

</discussion>

---​

As for the thread, I've seen the phrase 'economic freedom' used to mean something it doesn't mean. Call me out of touch, but I understand the phrase 'economic freedom' to mean 'the ability to easily afford everything you need'. How long has this legerdemain been happening for?
 
I've always understood "economic freedom" to mean the ability to buy and sell without restriction (assuming one has enough money).
 
The only people with such "economic freedom" are the rich. It is illegal for other countries to compete with the business and free trade against the rich.
This means might makes right.
The might do anything, and use any law against the poor to control the poor, and make sure laws protect the rich and only the rich.

Absane said:
Prove it. With logic.
Click to expand...
Get real.
 
Get real? How am I supposed to believe you? You have not said one thing that makes sense and when we ask you questions, you call me and everyone else stupid.

Instead of throwing around attacks why not work on convincing us of your communist views? Your attacks do nothing but hurt our ability to understand the guy who is infallible.
 
Hi Absane

I hope all is going well

I would love to earn a lot of money without my responsibilities or the hours i put into my work... Oh dont i wish we all lived in the world of CS??

~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
Zak
 
You are asking CS if he is qualified to tie his own shoes. Ergo dumb ass questions.
 
FACT
1. Might makes right means that all capitalism and laws rely on the rich to manipulate them for higher profit. The poor are but slaves with NO rights unless the rich say so.

2. All humans labor so that the rich do not have to lift a finger.

3. If a rich person steals money from a poor person. Then CS goes up to the rich person, and steals money from the rich person so he doesn't have to lift a finger: This does not mean that CS is going up to poor people, and stealing their money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top