What's wrong with Capitalism?

[Buffalow]

Can someone please give me a plausible reason as to why Capitalism is an unfair or unjust economic system?

[The-evil-bucket]

No system is perfect, and the grass is always greener on the other side.

[ABsoldier17]

At 2/15/08 08:35 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Can someone please give me a plausible reason as to why Capitalism is an unfair or unjust economic system?

Because the lazy don't benefit from it. Only the productive do. So nothing wrong

[Buffalow]

The "Grass is Greener" is what makes capitalism beautiful, you can pursue any idea or project you want without any government restrictions.

[Ansel]

Because it makes me cool to promote communism even though I don't have a clue what's happening.

[fli]

At 2/15/08 08:40 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: Because the lazy don't benefit from it. Only the productive do. So nothing wrong

*eye rollie*
How productive are the rich?

Not really--
It's not true otherwise the hardest working (usually... the poorest of our people) would be experiencing luxury... while the rich, who invest money that is usually blue-blood in origin, to compound more money.

Now there are certainly many rags to riches stories such as the original Hilton, and Oprah--
but to say that every rich person is this... well, that not true.

[Buffalow]

A main component to the Capitalist system is that not everyone can be rich. But look at the alternatives, Communism, Socialism? They all bring the rich down to the poor, not the poor up to the rich.

[ABsoldier17]

At 2/15/08 09:02 PM, fli wrote:

At 2/15/08 08:40 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote: Because the lazy don't benefit from it. Only the productive do. So nothing wrong

*eye rollie*
How productive are the rich?

we both know that money is inherited.

Not really--
It's not true otherwise the hardest working (usually... the poorest of our people) would be experiencing luxury... while the rich, who invest money that is usually blue-blood in origin, to compound more money.

Actually the hardest working are the middle class, they are the ones currently driving the economy. And the the newest crop of millionaires are small business owners.

Now there are certainly many rags to riches stories such as the original Hilton, and Oprah--
but to say that every rich person is this... well, that not true.

[Earfetish]

I do think being anti-Capitalist is bred out of a desire to not have to work at a job you hate for 'the man'. But it's not like they're providing a better alternative. I think they want a world where we can all be poets and artists, too.

[Musik-of-Anarchy]

What's wrong with capitalism? Ask the hundreds of people forced into working low-paying jobs because all the good jobs are shipped overseas. Those people who aren't given the same chance at school that richer people do. I admit, China, the USSR, Cuba, are cases where capitalism didn't work but it's because it was brought about at the wrong time. Many things we enjoy in the Us like the libraries, unions, police force, are all socialist things.

Feudalism leads to capitalism which leads to socialism. It's economic Darwinism.

[Buffalow]

At 2/15/08 11:04 PM, Musik-of-Anarchy wrote: What's wrong with capitalism? Ask the hundreds of people forced into working low-paying jobs because all the good jobs are shipped overseas. Those people who aren't given the same chance at school that richer people do. I admit, China, the USSR, Cuba, are cases where capitalism didn't work but it's because it was brought about at the wrong time. Many things we enjoy in the Us like the libraries, unions, police force, are all socialist things.

Feudalism leads to capitalism which leads to socialism. It's economic Darwinism.

This is about Capitalism, nowhere did I bring up American capitalism. And nobody forces anyone to work shitty jobs or go to shitty colleges (if they work hard). Capitalism is the concept of working hard for your money, and actually spending it wisely.

[Buffalow]

Cowspit. Corruption is in politics, not business. If anyone cheated money from a customer, the customer would want their head on a silver platter. Not to mention the countless government restrictions on certain things. I know that restrictions on business are more of a socialist policy, but Capitalism needs at least one or two other principles encouraging business to be more responsible for it's actions.

[Christopherr]

At 2/15/08 11:04 PM, Musik-of-Anarchy wrote: What's wrong with capitalism? Ask the hundreds of people forced into working low-paying jobs because all the good jobs are shipped overseas. Those people who aren't given the same chance at school that richer people do. I admit, China, the USSR, Cuba, are cases where capitalism didn't work but it's because it was brought about at the wrong time. Many things we enjoy in the Us like the libraries, unions, police force, are all socialist things.

The unions are the reason people lose jobs to foreign people. Corporations don't give a shit about you if you prance around acting as if you own the company and can therefore set your pay higher if they can just drop you and pay someone who will happily work for far less money.

It's an epic double standard, where they want to keep their unions, but they also want their jobs.

[jcorishas]

At 2/15/08 08:35 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Can someone please give me a plausible reason as to why Capitalism is an unfair or unjust economic system?

Well, I guess monopolies are a downer (and impossible to solve without government regulation), the supply and demand system could be abused, wealthy countries have upper hand on poorer countries, resources that could be used for a need are wasted on a luxury (farmland in Ethiopia used to grow cocoa for Hershey's chocolate to be exported instead of food, for example).

I think that's it.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

There is nothing wrong with Capitalism as such, inded at the moment its the best economic system we have, BUT we have to be careful we don;t go too crazy with it and get to the point where we get too radical with it,as then we end up in a situation where all the positive traits of capitalism are undermined and basically dissapear.

[GeneralCockup]

There os no reason.

It ia second only to hyper-democratic Communism...something which has yet to be acheived.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

Because it tends to screw over the small guy a LOT, hence why no modern nation practices it.

[whatty]

Capitalism benefits the rich.

College fees etc

[Buffalow]

At 2/16/08 07:37 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Because it tends to screw over the small guy a LOT, hence why no modern nation practices it.

Umm...?

[The-Hydra-of-Spore]

At 2/16/08 07:37 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Because it tends to screw over the small guy a LOT, hence why no modern nation practices it.

America? Most countries do capitalism...

[Angry-Hatter]

At 2/15/08 11:50 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Cowspit. Corruption is in politics, not business. If anyone cheated money from a customer, the customer would want their head on a silver platter.

Don't make me laugh. Corruption would somehow be less prominent in business than it is in politics? Please. That's just naive.

[Slizor]

I always have to wonder why people think that capitalism is meritocratic. How can any system where one person can earn more money in a second than people can earn in a year? Any idea of merit in this context certainly wouldn't involve the idea of hard work, unless someone wants to argue that there are indeed supermen who can work millions of times harder than other people.

[Buffalow]

At 2/16/08 10:03 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 2/15/08 11:50 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Cowspit. Corruption is in politics, not business. If anyone cheated money from a customer, the customer would want their head on a silver platter.

Don't make me laugh. Corruption would somehow be less prominent in business than it is in politics? Please. That's just naive.

Could you please give me an example, because corruption is a broad term. And I don't think that stock market exploitation counts as an entire business being corrupt.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 2/16/08 09:52 AM, The-Hydra-of-Spore wrote:

At 2/16/08 07:37 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Because it tends to screw over the small guy a LOT, hence why no modern nation practices it.

America? Most countries do capitalism...

Most countries do capitalism *to an extent*, there are no true capitalist countries that fulfill all requirements of capitalism, ie a truly free market economy with no restrictions, no welfare state or social security, both of which are socialist ideals.

Even the US, the most capitalist nation in the world, has welfare services, social security and public funded education and the like. If it were truly capitalist it would have none of these as they would all be privately run.

[skatin-andy]

What is wrong with capitalism is the same thing that is wrong with socialism: nothing. The problem with that is it only applies on paper.

In practice, greed takes over. Athletes get paid millions of dollars for doing what millions of other people do for a hobby. Then there are people that only come home 2 days a week and make 40,000 dollars doing something almost nobody else does for a hobby. Where is the logic in that?

Capitalism doesn't reward the "hard working" it rewards the lucky. There are about 500,000 new businesses started each month in the United States. 9 out of 10 of those will shut down in two years. That isn't rewarding people that try. Then you have the stock market. A person that won $10,000 could invest "smart" and come out a millionaire while a person that works his whole life struggles to make it by. That isn't rewarding the "hard working."

Capitalism is all about making money instead of living a decent life. We have people that have more money than they know what to do with, and 10 miles away is a person living in a box. Life shouldn't be about how much wealth you can acquire, it should be about living a life where you get everything you need and only some of the things you want.

[SmilezRoyale]

Wealth always is, and always will be, exponential.

1) The more money you have, the more money you have to use to invest; the more money you can get back. This is not a 'Result' of anything, it is a law, and it is the reason why 'The Rich get richer' It takes insane amounts of taxing and restrictions to keep this from working.

2) Individuals who know how to make money, will continue to do so. If you took all the money in the world and divided it up equally amongst everyone; individuals who were rich, in 5-10 years, would be back on top again; because they know how to use that money. You'll notice, in the animal kingdom, that there isn't a dynamic equilibrium between the food gathering capacity of all of the animals on a nature reserve, some manage to do better than others. Also notice that biologists aren't going crazy that this is happening, [WTF ANIMAL OPRESSION] because they know it's natural.

Capitalism, the invisible hand, is the first conceived economic evolution. It works best when restricted only to keep individuals from making upward social mobility impossible; because removing upward social mobility denies individuals who may have great thinking potential the opportunity to bring new innovations to the capitalist market. You had major problems with this in the early 20th and late 19th centuries.

[ABsoldier17]

At 2/16/08 01:57 AM, jcorishas wrote:

At 2/15/08 08:35 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

Well, I guess monopolies are a downer (and impossible to solve without government regulation), the supply and demand system could be abused, wealthy countries have upper hand on poorer countries, resources that could be used for a need are wasted on a luxury (farmland in Ethiopia used to grow cocoa for Hershey's chocolate to be exported instead of food, for example).

I think that's it.

Not quite. You see government can create their own monopolies, education system anyone?

You see in the capitalist systems the way you end a monopoly is by starting competition. And if that doesn't work monopolies eventually die. You see when you become a monopoly your product (whatever it may be) eventually suffers. Causing discontent to the consumer, which leads to less income, which leads to collapse. And when the mompoly collapses it gives smaller companies (yes plural) a chance to start, and guarantee competition.

[ABsoldier17]

At 2/16/08 01:41 PM, skatin-andy wrote:

Capitalism is all about making money instead of living a decent life.

Try making that decent life without making money and tell me how it goes in ten years

:We have people that have more money than they know what to do with, and 10 miles away is a person living in a box. Life shouldn't be about how much wealth you can acquire, it should be about living a life where you get everything you need and only some of the things you want.

And to live your life to the fullest you need money in order live. There is no sin in wealth or success. You can live life with wealth or without it. Whats great is the wealthy man and the poor man had the same education (free education system remember?) it's how they chose to live which dictated their living condition.

[carbanonzo]

While the flaws inherent in the capitalist system are many, both in it's real world manifestation and in it's theoretical form, i.e. it's requirement of inequeality, the radically dispraportionate distribution of wealth ("The top 5 percent of families own more wealth than the bottom 81 percent. The top .008 percent hold as many assets as the bottom half of the population"), it's total discouragement of community or solidarity in people (isolated individuals means more buying units). Perhaps the biggest flaw with capitalism is embodied in a longstanding criticism of it that it can only maintain during wartime, the disadvantages of which are obvious. However this criticism I do not believe entirely true. Capitalism can easily be maintained during times of war because those times encourage rapid econommic growth, and THAT is what maintains capitalism. It becomes obvious looking at the economic situation after the WW2. A fast paced economy was the only thing that could pull America out of the depression (just like it was the only thing that could plunge it into a deppression) WW2 provided that, all the men had jobs in the military, all the women had jobs in factories, but now with the war over johnny was marching home jobless. With the nation geared up to a fast paced wartime economy losing all the jobs that the war provided would plunge america into another deppression so essentially a commodity boom was facilitated. People were encouraged (even told it was "patriotic" or their "civic duty") to buy more and more trinkets (washing machines, new cars, etc.) in order to maintain and grow a giant economic machine that couldn't afford to shrink. The glaring flaw with this is that unlimited economic growth is a planetary impossibility. Another major flaw is that since trickle down economics don't make any real world sense, and just don't function in the manner it's supposed to the rich minority were getting richer, and the poor majority were getting poorer and thus couldn't afford to perpetuate the cycle of commodity culture.

[EndGameOmega]

At 2/16/08 04:34 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/16/08 01:57 AM, jcorishas wrote:

At 2/15/08 08:35 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

Well, I guess monopolies are a downer (and impossible to solve without government regulation), the supply and demand system could be abused, wealthy countries have upper hand on poorer countries, resources that could be used for a need are wasted on a luxury (farmland in Ethiopia used to grow cocoa for Hershey's chocolate to be exported instead of food, for example).

I think that's it.

Not quite. You see government can create their own monopolies, education system anyone?

Uh, the education system isn't a monopoly. People do still have choices like private schools and home schooling. Most wealth people ether send there children to private schools or get private tutors for them.

You see in the capitalist systems the way you end a monopoly is by starting competition.

Right you need competition to avoid a monopoly, and you need to keep companies from colluding (e.g. price fixing) with each other to keep oligopolies, which can be just as bad as monopolies, from forming.

And if that doesn't work monopolies eventually die.

No, not necessarily.

You see when you become a monopoly your product (whatever it may be) eventually suffers.

Yeah, and it stifles innovation, that doesn't mean a company will suddenly fall.

Causing discontent to the consumer, which leads to less income, which leads to collapse.

That doesn't always happen, and I can think of quite a few cases where it would be impossible to happen with out ether government intervention or an all out revolution against the monopoly. Take the case of ICs (integrated circuits), given that the barrier for entree is extremely high, and that for some market segment, i.e. CPUs, the few companies which are in it have such a large cash base to draw on they could easily cut prices. While the cut would temporarily hurt there profitability, it would almost completely cut out the compotation as they couldn't possibly hope to compete. This is basically what happened with VIA and it's processor branch, they couldn't compete with Intel and AMD despite offering a superior product low power CPU.

Intel basically undercut there profits to the point at which VIA just couldn't keep up. Hell Intel's doing it to AMD now that AMD is in the red and can't take the competition. It's causing AMD to "reorganize" it's higher end CPU segment, and might cause them to cut them out all to gether.

And when the mompoly collapses it gives smaller companies (yes plural) a chance to start, and guarantee competition.

For a very limited time, eventually one company will out perform the others and will use that small out performance to minimize compotation. Through various unscrupulous means.

Free markets are a nice idea, but they don't work well in practice.

At 2/16/08 04:50 PM, ABsoldier17 wrote:

At 2/16/08 01:41 PM, skatin-andy wrote:

Capitalism is all about making money instead of living a decent life.

Try making that decent life without making money and tell me how it goes in ten years

We have people that have more money than they know what to do with, and 10 miles away is a person living in a box. Life shouldn't be about how much wealth you can acquire, it should be about living a life where you get everything you need and only some of the things you want.

And to live your life to the fullest you need money in order live.

In our current economic system that's true, but it's not the only one possible.

There is no sin in wealth or success.

If it's earned fairly then, no there isn't. The problem is many times wealth is not fairly earned.

You can live life with wealth or without it.

Whats great is the wealthy man and the poor man had the same education (free education system remember?) it's how they chose to live which dictated their living condition.

No most of them didn't, the rich tend to send there kids to private schools or get tutors for them. Not to mention that not everyone can be rich. No matter how hard everyone works no matter how cleaver everyone maybe, not every one can be rich, it's just not possible.