PDA

View Full Version : Is Capitalism the best system?



PatrickDurden
06-10-2009, 03:18 AM
Discuss.

Jenslyn17
06-10-2009, 03:20 AM
Ideally: Probably not

In reality: Probably

Paris.
06-10-2009, 03:21 AM
Ideally: Probably not

In reality: Probably

this

from a theoretical standpoint, i'd vote for socialism tho

Mourning Tide
06-10-2009, 03:26 AM
current capitalist system = yes
'laissez-faire' capitalism = no

My_Friend
06-10-2009, 03:29 AM
yes, but there needs to be a lot of government intervention to prevent monopolies and other problems.

7Happy7
06-10-2009, 03:38 AM
yes, but there needs to be a lot of government intervention to prevent monopolies and other problems.

this

Devils
06-10-2009, 03:40 AM
Horrible system, a few percent of the population control all the wealth.

the next arnold
06-10-2009, 04:24 AM
Based on what people think capitalism is - no

Based on what capitalism actually is - yes

Whalefood
06-10-2009, 04:31 AM
Capitalism fails.

Americanism, now that's another story. Fck yeah!

Manchester_Brah
06-10-2009, 04:37 AM
In reality: yes.

/thread

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 04:37 AM
a primarily capitalist system, yes.

but many primarily capitalist systems fail miserably or operate completely unsustainably. the scandinavian model is an excellent example of a primarily capitalist mixed economy with a welfare state but fewer people actually on welfare than in "more" capitalist countries, and very little intervention into the actual market, the government emphasis being on property rights and public services.

ireland has a very capitalist system but it's failing horribly because of grossly inappropriate monetary policy for us and legalisation of CDO's.

Corporate personhood is also an issue. but capitalism doesn't require that.

generally speaking though, more capitalist countries achieve more and had less poverty than less capitalist countries.

it says alot that first world countries are pretty much all heavily capitalistic (even if many types of government intervention is screwing them over).


Horrible system, a few percent of the population control all the wealth.

name a system that's worked better, tell me where and when.

Infusco
06-10-2009, 04:40 AM
As long as it's a system that governs humans, I expect capitalism is.

secondhandloser
06-10-2009, 04:45 AM
Ideally: Probably not

In reality: Probably

This. In a perfect world, a communal system would provide the maximum efficiency and fairness...but we don't live in a perfect world.

ghengisconor
06-10-2009, 04:46 AM
a primarily capitalist system, yes.

but many primarily capitalist systems fail miserably or operate completely unsustainably. the scandinavian model is an excellent example of a primarily capitalist mixed economy with a welfare state but fewer people actually on welfare than in "more" capitalist countries, and very little intervention into the actual market, the government emphasis being on property rights and public services.

ireland has a very capitalist system but it's failing horribly because of grossly inappropriate monetary policy for us and legalisation of CDO's.

Corporate personhood is also an issue. but capitalism doesn't require that.

generally speaking though, more capitalist countries achieve more and had less poverty than less capitalist countries.

it says alot that first world countries are pretty much all heavily capitalistic (even if many types of government intervention is screwing them over).



name a system that's worked better, tell me where and when.

then it's not capitalism. Fail.

GalaxyBoy
06-10-2009, 04:56 AM
in Soviet Russia communism capitalize on you

KRILLEN91
06-10-2009, 05:01 AM
At the moment it's the best system

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 05:04 AM
then it's not capitalism. Fail.

Wrong. i did not fail.

I never said welfare was capitalistic. However, the Scandinavian economy operates on a primarily capitalist model. it's something called a mixed economy, but the market itself is largely free of government inteference.

true capitalism doesn't exist.

i can't think offhand of a capitalist leaning country (including US and Hong Kong) without a welfare model.

ghengisconor
06-10-2009, 05:05 AM
Wrong.

I never said welfare was capitalistic. However, the Scandinavian economy operates on a primarily capitalist model. it's something called a mixed economy, but the market itself is largely free of government inteference.

true welfare free capitalism doesn't exist.

a mixed economy =/= capitalism. Again, I submit, Fail. Also, "largely free" =/= capitalism. Amusing, but not quite.

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 05:07 AM
a mixed economy =/= capitalism. Again, I submit, Fail. Also, "largely free" =/= capitalism. Amusing, but not quite.

A true capitalist system does not exist. but in this thread we're talking about the real world. a mixed economy incorporates elements of capitalism and non capitalism. This is true... not untrue.

my semantics are well explained here and easily understandable.

i'm not sure where the confusion is, but I garner that u really like to tell me I fail.

Stalwart Steve
06-10-2009, 05:17 AM
The point of capitalism is survival of the fittest, but most of its proponents (namely fat old men) would have the **** kicked out of them if we adopted that model for everything so of course we have to have a bunch of social programs to bail people out

StaticZ
06-10-2009, 05:29 AM
Nope. But then, i've been called an "idealist". Kind of a copout in a theoretical debate, though :D

Manchester_Brah
06-10-2009, 06:00 AM
a primarily capitalist system, yes.

but many primarily capitalist systems fail miserably or operate completely unsustainably. the scandinavian model is an excellent example of a primarily capitalist mixed economy with a welfare state but fewer people actually on welfare than in "more" capitalist countries, and very little intervention into the actual market, the government emphasis being on property rights and public services.

ireland has a very capitalist system but it's failing horribly because of grossly inappropriate monetary policy for us and legalisation of CDO's.

Corporate personhood is also an issue. but capitalism doesn't require that.

generally speaking though, more capitalist countries achieve more and had less poverty than less capitalist countries.

it says alot that first world countries are pretty much all heavily capitalistic (even if many types of government intervention is screwing them over).



name a system that's worked better, tell me where and when.


Wtf? More / less Capitalistic?

A country has a social system and is either richer or poorer than another country.

I swear you overcomplicate **** to sound more intelligent.

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 06:04 AM
Wtf? More / less Capitalistic?

A country has a social system and is either richer or poorer than another country.

I swear you overcomplicate **** to sound more intelligent. China is run buy a communist party, yet is set to become THE superpower pretty soon. Do you have any idea what you're on about?

yes. i've no idea what ur on about or what kind of response/clarification ur looking for though.

China may be run by a communist party (though they are steadily transitioning to more and more capitalist elements as the years go on, this market reform along with a manufacturing base of hundreds of millions of people is why they are growing so well), still quality of life is nowhere near that of far less powerful countries.

the USSR was socialist and was more powerful than any capitalist country besides the US, but again, entrepeneurial elements and quality of life didn't and could not compare.

all developed, first world, countries have a majority of capitalist elements to varying degrees

i have no idea how anything i said was complicated in any way, lol

Manchester_Brah
06-10-2009, 06:11 AM
the USSR was socialist and was more powerful than any capitalist country besides the US, but again, entrepeneurial elements and quality of life didn't and could not compare.


At least you know that - although it contradicts what you said earlier.

Its a simple question and be honest, you're over complicating the answer to make yourself sound more intelligent than you probably are. You make huge sweeping statements such as "quality of life is far better in countries poorer than China." So what? Quality of life in many places is better than the USA and the UK, it has nothing to do with how Capitalist they are, you're again manipulating information to back up your point and sound more intelligent.

"generally speaking though, more capitalist countries achieve more and had less poverty than less capitalist countries"
And this isn't true. Except N.Korea there aren't major Communist states in the world, but the USSR under Lenin and later Stalin and Co. enjoyed a lot of prosperity and development actually...even with the atrocities committed, many ex-USSR citizens regarded him as a hero and a saviour.

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 06:17 AM
At least you know that - although it contradicts what you said earlier.

Its a simple question and be honest, you're over complicating the answer to make yourself sound more intelligent that you probably are. .

it does, i should have been more specific. it contradicts "more capitalist countries achieve more ". however I should clarify that I meant in terms of business innovation and social progress.

certainly, u don't have to be capitalist to achieve more in some areas.

And no, I'm not. i'm answering with a badly structured stream of consciousness! i never once decided to over complicate anything or include any words/phrases to make myself sound smart.

Sorry u feel the need to put faith in ur assumptions like that.

Messiahtype
06-10-2009, 06:18 AM
Yes, the smarter and stronger people generally get the monies, while the stupid and poor eat ramen.

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 06:25 AM
At least you know that - although it contradicts what you said earlier.

Its a simple question and be honest, you're over complicating the answer to make yourself sound more intelligent than you probably are. You make huge sweeping statements such as "quality of life is far better in countries poorer than China." So what? Quality of life in many places is better than the USA and the UK, it has nothing to do with how Capitalist they are, you're again manipulating information to back up your point and sound more intelligent.

"generally speaking though, more capitalist countries achieve more and had less poverty than less capitalist countries"
And this isn't true. Except N.Korea there aren't major Communist states in the world, but the USSR under Lenin and later Stalin and Co. enjoyed a lot of prosperity and development actually...even with the atrocities committed, many ex-USSR citizens regarded him as a hero and a saviour.

no state ever has achieved communism but there are several socialist countries still around, Cuba, Laos (is Vietnam one?) and they have remained very stagnant

the USSR enjoyed a lot of development that is true, but they did not have high levels of prosperity for the average citizen compared to more market based economies like Europe or America.

but every country has different circumstances so that may not be entirely fair... A better direct example of that experiment was the quality of life in East vs West Germany.

Socialism can work and improve prior circumstances, just not as well as capitalism, IMO


Quality of life in many places is better than the USA and the UK, it has nothing to do with how Capitalist they are, you're again manipulating information to back up your point and sound more intelligent.

i made it pretty clear that there's no linear, exact relationship, between how capitalist a country is and how well off it is. I already made that point by saying how Scandinavia is better off than countries that are more capitalist.

All those places with better quality of life than the USA and UKA are mixed economies with plenty -a majority - of capitalist elements.

Manchester_Brah
06-10-2009, 06:30 AM
no state ever has achieved communism but there are several socialist countries still around, Cuba, Laos (is Vietnam one?) and they have remained very stagnant



Again - being pedantic so you can be 'right'. The USSR was pretty much as close as it is possible to get to Communism, realistically.

Whatever aregument I use, (prosperity vs. quality of life) you will just use the other one and tell me that you are 'right'. Which I have no time for. You fail.

Newsflash: by your own logic, nowhere is COMMUNIST or CAPITALIST, everywhere has a mixed economy. Great answer for you ther OP, not.

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 06:34 AM
Again - being pedantic so you can be 'right'. The USSR was pretty much as close as it is possible to get to Communism, realistically.

Whatever aregument I use, (prosperity vs. quality of life) you will just use the other one and tell me that you are 'right'. Which I have no time for. You fail.

U mad?

pointing out communism vs socialism was just a point that came to my head, it achieved nothing to make me appear any more "right" about anything - wtf are u talking about? Countries like Cuba are just as communist as the USSR.

Whatever argument u use, I will respond with certain facts and opinions on what I believe to be true....

Fact is, in terms of prosperity of the average citizen AND quality of life, every single country on top is a generally capitalist mixed economy. If u think this is wrong, refute it.

I don't know what ur getting so mad about.

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 06:40 AM
Newsflash: by your own logic, nowhere is COMMUNIST or CAPITALIST, everywhere has a mixed economy. Great answer for you ther OP, not.

Technically, yeah that's true.

But the degree of the mixed economy matters. And a PRIMARILY capitalist mixed economy is going to do much better than a generally socialist mixed economy, so while it's not "pure" capitalism I can talking about, it's pretty clear that a very capitalist system is the best system in my view, which is a pretty clear answer for the OP - without having to waste my time on personal attacks! :eek:

Go figure.

SpikedDiesel
06-10-2009, 06:55 AM
Ideally: Socialism but only if JC Himself was running it. Human corruption will ruin what could be a perfect system every time, no exceptions.

Realistically: Pure capitalism. No welfare system. You make what you're worth.

Duckenheimer
06-10-2009, 06:59 AM
Yes - well, in a "least worst" kind of way.

Not necessarily pure laissez faire capitalism, but close to it.

One of, if not the, most important things about capitalism is the allocation of resources via prices, which command economies cannot do efficiently.

Command economies do pretty well at science and war.

But just because your economy is more capitalist than most doesn't make it necessarily less immune to the intervention that might occur. Look at Ireland right now :(

(thanks European Central Bank, thanks big spending government :mad:).

maynardjames
06-10-2009, 07:15 AM
Horrible system, a few percent of the population control all the wealth.

repped .....

It's not even close to being the best... Everything good about the current system is taken from ahem elsewhere....

anonymous
06-10-2009, 07:17 AM
This. In a perfect world, a communal system would provide the maximum efficiency and fairness...but we don't live in a perfect world.

a communal system would be far less efficient than capitalism

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 07:17 AM
repped .....

It's not even close to being the best... Everything good about the current system is taken from ahem elsewhere....

what's the best system that has been successfully implemented, when and where?

anonymous
06-10-2009, 07:18 AM
socialism would not be perfect even w/ no corruption and lol at it being efficient

Gator1010
06-10-2009, 07:18 AM
Horrible system, a few percent of the population control all the wealth.

strong sig

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

maynardjames
06-10-2009, 07:20 AM
This. In a perfect world, a communal system would provide the maximum efficiency and fairness...but we don't live in a perfect world.

we could you know if those handful financial vultures don't screw the rest of humanity and create a buffer against socialism...
Just look at the elite few's propaganda machine...
Everywhere you get the same diatribes about socialism being impossible in reality coz humans are corrupt.. Where do you think this idea came from....
200 years of propaganda on behalf of the capitalist or wealth owning handful of families...

Yes socialism is possible and yes we'll see it's glory in a couple of decades....

anonymous
06-10-2009, 07:20 AM
Realistically: Pure capitalism. No welfare system. You make what you're worth.

whose gonna support the old folks?


:D

BadMoulie
06-10-2009, 07:21 AM
Naw.... a Communist system ran strictly off of Marx's ideals definitely is (difficult to accomplish unfortunately)

maynardjames
06-10-2009, 07:24 AM
what's the best system that has been successfully implemented, when and where?

things are reletive...
As some of the above posters said, too few people control too much welath...
Now it's also true on a global scale.... A couple of million people in a very small part of the western world control all the world....


Now getting back to your question, just like i said things are relative....

Who do you think has better health care, education, security...
Cuba or El salvador, guatemala, honduras, panama or any other country in central america...


Vietnam or thailand, cambodia, laos, burma etc..

Don't believe in the rich few's propaganda...

anonymous
06-10-2009, 07:26 AM
Naw.... a Communist system ran strictly off of Marx's ideals definitely is (difficult to accomplish unfortunately)

no its not

there will always be shortages/surpluses

its impossible to predict how much every factory should produce

the only way to have an efficient market is to have supply/demand set the price

Caerus
06-10-2009, 07:27 AM
a mixed economy =/= capitalism. Again, I submit, Fail. Also, "largely free" =/= capitalism. Amusing, but not quite.

Then there are no capitalistic countries.

Stalwart Steve
06-10-2009, 07:29 AM
Ideally: Socialism but only if JC Himself was running it. Human corruption will ruin what could be a perfect system every time, no exceptions.

Realistically: Pure capitalism. No welfare system. You make what you're worth.

FQHtTHmkhDU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture


Then there are no capitalistic countries.

Ukraine was capitalistic in the 90s and early 2000s

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 07:35 AM
things are reletive...
As some of the above posters said, too few people control too much welath...
Now it's also true on a global scale.... A couple of million people in a very small part of the western world control all the world....


Now getting back to your question, just like i said things are relative....

Who do you think has better health care, education, security...
Cuba or El salvador, guatemala, honduras, panama or any other country in central america...


Vietnam or thailand, cambodia, laos, burma etc..

Don't believe in the rich few's propaganda...

cuba has great health care I'm sure, but Canada, Scandinavia have better, more prosperous, and more sustainable overall systems.

a mixed economy built on classic liberal economy, with primarily a capitalist market, but also smartly implemented social democracy seems to deliver the best overall system, to different degrees.

Caerus
06-10-2009, 07:37 AM
socialism would not be perfect even w/ no corruption and lol at it being efficient

You're right, it's not efficient. One company in the Soviet Union for instance, made these GIGANTIC screw nuts that wouldn't be useful for anything, just to fill up their required quota. And that was the case for numerous other companies as well.

Stalwart Steve
06-10-2009, 07:39 AM
Human beings are not smart or developed enough yet for pure socialism or communism to work of course, haha.

BadMoulie
06-10-2009, 07:53 AM
no its not

there will always be shortages/surpluses

its impossible to predict how much every factory should produce

the only way to have an efficient market is to have supply/demand set the price

Supply and demand is a man made fallacy. Why was it that gas was $4 a year ago and suddenly dropped to $2.50 when the economy became terrible? Is it because the supply increased or is it because the bourgeoisie realized they couldn't rip people off and still maintain their $100 million dollar houses? Why do you think life saving medicines (cancer/AIDS etc) cost thousands of dollars? Slaves with white collars...

frankenstein
06-10-2009, 07:57 AM
A system based on free markets where people make their own decisions and don't demand the livelihood of their neighbors is the best system. Free markets are synergistic. Forced collectivism has a draining effect on people's behavior, as it creates resentment and dependency.

What I find most interesting is that people think the US is so capitalist and free market oriented. The US is a mixed economy, sliding towards more govt enforced collectivism during this time of crisis.

"Never waste a crisis" in the exact words of Rahm Emanuel. What he means is have the govt take more control [over our lives] during times of stress when people are financially scared. It's amazing to me that people don't see the similarity of this immoral position in the same way we can see the immorality of the neocons in the past administration using 9/11 as their excuse for invading the Middle East. The invasion of Iraq by the Bush Administration and the power grabs over the entire US economy with the Obama Administration are paths down parallel roads.

To answer the OP more directly, is capitalism the best system? It's not perfect but it's better than any system ever tried or any that has been proposed. FYI, utopia does not exist and never will. There will always been winners and losers under any system. The more collectivist, the more everyone is the loser. Prime example: North Korea. And BTW, the US was ranked #6 or #7 in economic freedom in the world. Not much better than the 'socialist' economy of Denmark. There's more to free markets and capitalism vs. socialism than just tax rates. People here in the US think we have low taxes but we don't. There are all sorts of 'stealth taxes' in the US that rob us of our money.

Stalwart Steve
06-10-2009, 08:04 AM
Supply and demand is a man made fallacy. Why was it that gas was $4 a year ago and suddenly dropped to $2.50 when the economy became terrible? Is it because the supply increased or is it because the bourgeoisie realized they couldn't rip people off and still maintain their $100 million dollar houses? Why do you think life saving medicines (cancer/AIDS etc) cost thousands of dollars? Slaves with white collars...

The gas prices decreased because income is a determining factor of demand, and when demand decreases, prices go down. Income decreased, therefore demand decreased, therefore prices went down. Life saving medicines for cancer and AIDS cost thousands of dollars due to production costs and the inelasticity of demand. Due to the patients' willingness to pay being very high (the alternative is death) the productions firms are incentivized to maximize profits. A man made fallacy, ha ha. God.

DCarruso
06-10-2009, 08:06 AM
The gas prices decreased because income is a determining factor of demand, and when demand decreases, prices go down. Income decreased, therefore demand decreased, therefore prices went down. Life saving medicines for cancer and AIDS cost thousands of dollars due to production costs and the inelasticity of demand. Due to the patients' willingness to pay being very high (the alternative is death) the productions firms are incentivized to maximize profits. A man made fallacy, ha ha. God.

Gas prices can also go down due to a glut in supply, and vice versa.

DCarruso
06-10-2009, 08:07 AM
A system based on free markets where people make their own decisions and don't demand the livelihood of their neighbors is the best system. Free markets are synergistic. Forced collectivism has a draining effect on people's behavior, as it creates resentment and dependency.

What I find most interesting is that people think the US is so capitalist and free market oriented. The US is a mixed economy, sliding towards more govt enforced collectivism during this time of crisis.

"Never waste a crisis" in the exact words of Rahm Emanuel. What he means is have the govt take more control [over our lives] during times of stress when people are financially scared. It's amazing to me that people don't see the similarity of this immoral position in the same way we can see the immorality of the neocons in the past administration using 9/11 as their excuse for invading the Middle East. The invasion of Iraq by the Bush Administration and the power grabs over the entire US economy with the Obama Administration are paths down parallel roads.

To answer the OP more directly, is capitalism the best system? It's not perfect but it's better than any system ever tried or any that has been proposed. FYI, utopia does not exist and never will. There will always been winners and losers under any system. The more collectivist, the more everyone is the loser. Prime example: North Korea. And BTW, the US was ranked #6 or #7 in economic freedom in the world. Not much better than the 'socialist' economy of Denmark. There's more to free markets and capitalism vs. socialism than just tax rates. People here in the US think we have low taxes but we don't. There are all sorts of 'stealth taxes' in the US that rob us of our money.

X2! good post

Stalwart Steve
06-10-2009, 08:09 AM
Gas prices can also go down due to a glut in supply, and vice versa.

Yes, and any number of sneezes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand#Changes_in_market_equilibrium

anonymous
06-10-2009, 09:07 AM
Supply and demand is a man made fallacy. Why was it that gas was $4 a year ago and suddenly dropped to $2.50 when the economy became terrible? Is it because the supply increased or is it because the bourgeoisie realized they couldn't rip people off and still maintain their $100 million dollar houses? Why do you think life saving medicines (cancer/AIDS etc) cost thousands of dollars? Slaves with white collars...

less economic output = less demand for oil

also people were finding ways to conserve gas

anonymous
06-10-2009, 09:08 AM
Supply and demand is a man made fallacy. Why was it that gas was $4 a year ago and suddenly dropped to $2.50 when the economy became terrible? Is it because the supply increased or is it because the bourgeoisie realized they couldn't rip people off and still maintain their $100 million dollar houses? Why do you think life saving medicines (cancer/AIDS etc) cost thousands of dollars? Slaves with white collars...

those medicines would not have been developed if there was no incentive to develop them

frankenstein
06-10-2009, 09:16 AM
less economic output = less demand for oil

also people were finding ways to conserve gas

In before someone says "gas consumption didn't drop by half, so why did prices go down by half?"

Uggh.

SB_Stong
06-10-2009, 09:17 AM
USA is the only standing Superpower to this day. Why? Because of Capitalism.

It is not that hard to figure out.

frankenstein
06-10-2009, 09:23 AM
USA is the only standing Superpower to this day. Why? Because of Capitalism.

It is not that hard to figure out.

And our chance for slipping out of Superpower status is occurring at the same time our economy has been sliding towards socialist and economic fascist tendencies. Not a coincidence. This has already happened with the UK and Japan had it happen before they could get to being a superpower. The countries that are gaining ground towards becoming a Superpower (China and over a much longer timeline, India) have become much more capitalist than they once were.

SB_Stong
06-10-2009, 09:27 AM
And our chance for slipping out of Superpower status is occurring at the same time our economy has been sliding towards socialist and economic fascist tendencies. Not a coincidence. This has already happened with the UK and Japan had it happen before they could get to being a superpower. The countries that are gaining ground towards becoming a Superpower (China and over a much longer timeline, India) have become much more capitalist than they once were.

-America on the decline while becoming more socialist.
-China and India on the rise while becoming more capitalistic.

Never looked at it that way before.

java568
06-10-2009, 09:50 AM
Who here actually has a decent economic background and doesn't believe capitalism is the best system we've ever had?

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 09:52 AM
Who here actually has a decent economic background and doesn't believe capitalism is the best system we've ever had?

point us to the best system we've ever had please. I've asked this question multiple times in this thread with no answer (though I hear Cuba has great healthcare ;)).

Stalwart Steve
06-10-2009, 10:28 AM
Who here actually has a decent economic background and doesn't believe capitalism is the best system we've ever had?

I'm 2 terms away from graduating with an economics degree and I don't care that much for capitalism.

The current system is not capitalism.

BadMoulie
06-10-2009, 12:20 PM
those medicines would not have been developed if there was no incentive to develop them

Current capitalism consists of the notion of "how much can we charge and get away with it" (drug co. and gas co.) or "how little can we charge and how much can we exploit our workers" (Walmart). I'll construct a more thorough argument when I have the time.

Who?
06-10-2009, 12:32 PM
Laissez Fair Capitalism ...

Ideally= Yes
Practically= Yes

"If one rejects laissez faire capitalism on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." -Ludwig Von Mises

farquezy
06-10-2009, 12:36 PM
ANY form of economy sucks, always keeps the people poor and puts wealth in hands of few.

only good economy is NO ECONOMY!!

leafs43
06-10-2009, 12:42 PM
Horrible system, a few percent of the population control all the wealth.


Every capitalist system brings up the poorer people and creates a middle class.

You don't see middle classes in countries and societies that move away from capitalism.


In short, you're a moron.

Stalwart Steve
06-10-2009, 01:05 PM
Wealth distribution is only one criterion of evaluating an economy anyway, with the others being level of output, growth rate, efficiency, and stability, all of which are pretty good in a capitalism.

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 03:41 PM
Laissez Fair Capitalism ...

Ideally= Yes
Practically= Yes

"If one rejects laissez faire capitalism on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." -Ludwig Von Mises

Mises was a brilliant man.

But so was Hayek...

"The Scottish theorists (...) were very far from holding such naive views (...) as the "natural goodness of man" (...) or the beneficient effects of "natural liberty". They knew that it required the artifices of institutions and traditions to reconcile the conflicts of interest. Their problem was how "that universal mover in human nature, self love, may receive such direction in this case (as in all others) as to promote the public interest by those efforts it shall make towards pursuing its own" (Josiah Tucker). It was not "natural liberty" in any literal sense, but the institutions evolved to secure "life, liberty and property", which made those individual efforts beneficial. Not Locke, nor Hume, nor Smith, nor Burke, could never have argued, as Bentham did, that "every law is an evil for every law is an infraction of liberty". Their argument was never a complete laissez faire argument, which, as the very words show, is also part of the French rationalist tradition and in its literal sense was never defended by any of the English classical economists. They knew better than most of their later critics that it was not some sort of magic but the evolution of "well-constructed institutions", where the "rules and principles of contending interests and compromised advantages" would be reconciled, that had successfully channelled individual efforts to socially beneficial aims. In fact, their argument was never antistate as such, or anarchistic, which is the logical outcome of the rationalistic laissez faire doctrine; it was an argument that accounted both for the proper functions of the state and for the limits of state action."

F.A. Hayek, The constitution of liberty, p. 60

yoj
06-10-2009, 03:49 PM
its the Tragedy of the Commons. No other system is fueled by self-interest and greed, which just so happen to be fundamental parts of human nature. The idea of "from those according to their ability to those according to their need" is fundamentally flawed because human nature is such that ones 'need' is potentially limitless. A large scale system that relies on individuals to perform for any reason besides their own self interest is doomed to failure.

Penile_Dementia
06-10-2009, 03:51 PM
its the Tragedy of the Commons. No other system is fueled by self-interest and greed, which just so happen to be fundamental parts of human nature. The idea of "from those according to their ability to those according to their need" is fundamentally flawed because human nature is such that ones 'need' is potentially limitless. A large scale system that relies on individuals to perform for any reason besides their own self interest is doomed to failure.

true.

communes of 150 people or less can work efficiently in many different types of system, but it's pretty hard to organise a country into such divides. :D

yoj
06-10-2009, 03:57 PM
true.

communes of 150 people or less can work efficiently in many different types of system, but it's pretty hard to organise a country into such divides. :D

For sure. Once people start turning into nothing but numbers, people stop caring about the population as a whole. I mean when you hear that there are 'only' a couple thousand Iraq war casualties it doesn't phase most people too badly. But if that many of your neighbours and friends died, you wouldn't have anyone left to talk to. That is a LOT of people, but it just doesn't seem that way when you are thinking about a population of 300 million instead.

SB_Stong
06-10-2009, 07:01 PM
Every capitalist system brings up the poorer people and creates a middle class.

You don't see middle classes in countries and societies that move away from capitalism.


In short, you're a moron.

Seriously. Half of the world population would love to live in America and be called poor to our standards.

java568
06-10-2009, 07:08 PM
I'm 2 terms away from graduating with an economics degree and I don't care that much for capitalism.

The current system is not capitalism.

And what have your great studies in economics shown you to be a better replacement for capitalism? I hope those next two terms contain a lot of econ courses.

NJlifter88
06-10-2009, 08:08 PM
For sure. Once people start turning into nothing but numbers, people stop caring about the population as a whole. I mean when you hear that there are 'only' a couple thousand Iraq war casualties it doesn't phase most people too badly. But if that many of your neighbours and friends died, you wouldn't have anyone left to talk to. That is a LOT of people, but it just doesn't seem that way when you are thinking about a population of 300 million instead.

just shows its not in human nature to care about people you don't know. why someone should be responsible for a complete stranger makes no sense to me.

stealth_swimmer
06-10-2009, 08:39 PM
yes, but there needs to be a lot of government intervention to prevent monopolies and other problems.

Actually, turns out that most monopolies occur because of government, and many times the government intervenes it generally lessens competition or causes more harm than good. I also used to believe that htey should prevent monopolies, but there's nothing wrong with a technical monopoly that arose out of voluntary transactions and outcompeting all other businesses in its industry.


As for the question of the thread:

Based on the evidence, the conclusion I've reached is: Yes.

That doesn't mean our current system though. Most economies today are mixed economies. The US's total government expenditures equal 45% of GDP, for example, and yet many people refer to it as "capitalist" so you gotta look at the degree of capitalism since most economies are mixed economies.

Penile_Dementia
06-11-2009, 06:24 AM
point us to the best system we've ever had please. I've asked this question multiple times in this thread with no answer (though I hear Cuba has great healthcare ;)).

Anyone?

NJlifter88
06-11-2009, 09:12 AM
Actually, turns out that most monopolies occur because of government, and many times the government intervenes it generally lessens competition or causes more harm than good. I also used to believe that htey should prevent monopolies, but there's nothing wrong with a technical monopoly that arose out of voluntary transactions and outcompeting all other businesses in its industry.


As for the question of the thread:

Based on the evidence, the conclusion I've reached is: Yes.

That doesn't mean our current system though. Most economies today are mixed economies. The US's total government expenditures equal 45% of GDP, for example, and yet many people refer to it as "capitalist" so you gotta look at the degree of capitalism since most economies are mixed economies.

THIS.

for some reason, people always blame capitalism for monopolies. why then, hasn't walmart taken over all retail in the country? the answer is competition, the antithesis of government intervention.

and on the other side... why is it the government propping up big ass companies like GM? because they are involved in stifling competition in the name of propping up, even advancing, the people already in power.