Why do people say that Capitalism is good?

[Sonic Doctor]

Charites duh, in a "True Capitalist" Society Charites would help the homeless/sick/cripple but due to human nature we can't have this as most charites would be correpted or have no funds to sustain themselvs, so it must be balanced out with goverement and socialism which i'm fine with.

Are you aware how many charities there actually are in the US alone? There are amazing amounts of private charities everywhere in this great nation. Also, government is no less fallible than people that might be running those charities.

In fact I would almost be tempted to argue that the government would be MORE likely to be corrupted, but there is no actual evidence to support it, so I won't. Suffice to say, government in any country is subject to massive corruption, with private charities, at least you spread the risk out so that fewer people are affected if there are a few bad apples. When a government "sells its people down the river" each and every one of its people are truly screwed.

Yes and if it weren't for goverement programs regulating them then they would fall apart or become corrupt. I like Captilism and would love to see a True captilist society where people help other people due to there own free will and compasion, but most don't or make flimsly exucuse, sure a good number of them makes money but none of us can say for sure that when we donate to the redcross if its going to help people or buy some more coke for the big heads and even with govemement regulations its still iffy but thankful there will always be muckrackers out there(sorry lost my train of though).

What you are leaving out is that these government programs that you say are keeping these charities from being corrupt, are in themselves corrupt, and they in turn were created by our corrupt government, the vast majority of the elected officials. From what I have seen over the years, the majority of charities would be just fine and help people, but then these government programs come in and tell the charities well, "you are helping the wrong people"(which are actually the right people that will in turn give back to the community for getting help), and then the programs redirect the funds to the actual wrong people; the people that expect free money and help, and believe they will never have to pay it back. The reason these government programs direct the money that way is because, the people that created these programs know that by doing this, these actual wrong people, will re-elect them and they will be able to continue corrupting, because it gives them a stable job(Point being, have you ever wondered how representatives that are running their states and the country into the ground, still get elected each election: It is under this principle that Obama got elected. People thought they would get free stuff, he got elected. And now this country is spinning faster down the drain than it ever has.)

The problem is that the politics over the years has become so confusing with so many people pointing fingers at each other, that the majority of the public doesn't realize the ones pointing fingers at each other are both one in the same. The majority of the elected democrats and republicans in our government today, are progressives. As I have witnessed over the years how the two camps operate, the "democrats" are fast progressives(let's shove it through right now before the masses realize we are screwing them over) and the "republicans" are slow progressives(let's take things slow and try to figure out how to hide things from the public so that they don't find out we are screwing them over) The only way that this country will right itself, is if it wakes up and elects only true conservative representatives that will only do what is in the interest of preserving the freedoms of the people, with the minimalist amount of government involvement, meaning that it observes the private sector, and doesn't try to control it and tell it has been naughty.(Many of the economic problems that people say were caused by private sector companies and owners, were in fact caused by government interference.)

Okay I have went off on a tangent, but it has all been important to what I am getting to. To the OP, the reason that the capitalist system is bad at the moment and the bad things you talked about that occur in the system, occur, is because of government involvement. This is my personal yearly witness estimate, though it is an estimate I would bet my bank account and everything else I own on: I would say that only 10% or less of the economic problems that this country is facing, was caused by errors and or corruption in the private sector and free-market. The rest have been caused by our progressive leaders in the government, that know how to destroy the free-market and are doing so because they will be able to dictate how the market runs and in the end that will benefit them. Reiterating my first paragraph: They will benefit off the hard working people, and give some of those benefits to the lazy freeloaders that will in turn, re-elect the people creating the problems.

A progressive nation and government is a damned nation and government. It will not last and it will bring everything down with it, that especially includes our economy.

 

[mechanixis]

A capitalist system is no better in restraining one's dreams. One of the biggest reasons people drop out of university in the U.S. is financial trouble. This is with a fairly socialized university system.

The only difference is why they're limited. In capitalism, they're limited by their wealth, something they're born into. It's "Sorry, you don't have the money to go to Med school." In a socialist system it's "You're not smart enough to be a doctor."

You know, I grew up pretty damn poor. Lived in a shitty trailer that was falling apart inside of a shittier trailer park filled with meth labs, excons, and thieves.

I've had times in my life were we couldn't even afford food for days. This is the point in your argument that fails because I've clawed my way through poverty. I'm not going to let a bunch of pompous asses take that away by saying "It's not possible."

I am now attending college and working a fulltime job. You would think I'd be the spokesman of a world where money didn't rule all.

You know why I fought? Hope. If someone had come by and gave me everything at anothers expense I wouldn't be the MAN I am today.

I see the world for what it is. I do value human life, but I also understand the circle of life. If everyone were to survive no matter what there would be huge repercussions. Food shortages, riots caused by having no space, and etc...

It's sad to think of such a thing but it is true none the less. Life is battle. Not some silly board game. You want to know why the Lion is the king of the Jungle? Because he's a badass who clawed his way to the top.

Things in this life are meant to weed out the dodos. If you can't hold down a job and earn your keep then you don't deserve to live. Just like that one Gazelle who was too slow. It's the nature of things.

You may not have hope and aspirations. You're probably a lazy kid who hasn't really had to work for a living.

In your perfect society there is no fight to the top. There's nothing to strive for, nothing to live for even. You're just there.

Even if life were just a game. What's the point of playing if everyone's a winner?

Maybe I'm alone here, but I like the fact that it's a dog eat dog world out there.

You all know Einstein couldn't do simple math right? Well in your society he would not have become the world renown genius he is today. They probably would have made him a janitor. What about Stephen Hawking? How about Bill Gates?

Every system has it's fault but capitalism is the only one I see that allows one to accomplish their dreams.

I don't look at this from a political view. I look at it from a psychological one, which I am majoring in psychology, and human nature prevents the kind of society you support. No one would ever accept a position designated to them and happily live with it. No kid's going to say "Mommy mommy, they told me what I was going to be when I grow up. I'm going to be a fry cook!"

A meritocracy would fall completely apart in no time. Same with a socialist one. Capitalism will eventually fail, but it still holds the record for longevity. People happen to flourish in a capitalist nation more than anywhere else. I see new stores popping up everyday despite the so called "recession". Some of them will make it big, some will live comfortabley, and some will loose. That's the beauty of it. The way things are now money doesn't dictate what you become. Your willpower does. If you want something badly enough you'll get it. It's not going to be easy but those who do get it have earned it fair and square.

As for the kids dropping out of college due to financial issues are complete retards. Most of my classmates got in with grants and scholarships. Then there are some like myself who either got a job or a student loan.

College is expensive but I'm doing it just fine and I come from a very poor family.

You may think your ideals are smart and could work better than the way things are then you have never added human nature and common sense into the equation.

See, what I'm hearing is "I love this game because I'm winning."

 

[Lawyer105]

Capitalism isn't perfect. It's simply better, for more people, than any other system that we've currently got (socialism, communism etc.).

 

[Sonic Doctor]

A capitalist system is no better in restraining one's dreams. One of the biggest reasons people drop out of university in the U.S. is financial trouble. This is with a fairly socialized university system.

The only difference is why they're limited. In capitalism, they're limited by their wealth, something they're born into. It's "Sorry, you don't have the money to go to Med school." In a socialist system it's "You're not smart enough to be a doctor."

You know, I grew up pretty damn poor. Lived in a shitty trailer that was falling apart inside of a shittier trailer park filled with meth labs, excons, and thieves.

I've had times in my life were we couldn't even afford food for days. This is the point in your argument that fails because I've clawed my way through poverty. I'm not going to let a bunch of pompous asses take that away by saying "It's not possible."

I am now attending college and working a fulltime job. You would think I'd be the spokesman of a world where money didn't rule all.

You know why I fought? Hope. If someone had come by and gave me everything at anothers expense I wouldn't be the MAN I am today.

I see the world for what it is. I do value human life, but I also understand the circle of life. If everyone were to survive no matter what there would be huge repercussions. Food shortages, riots caused by having no space, and etc...

It's sad to think of such a thing but it is true none the less. Life is battle. Not some silly board game. You want to know why the Lion is the king of the Jungle? Because he's a badass who clawed his way to the top.

Things in this life are meant to weed out the dodos. If you can't hold down a job and earn your keep then you don't deserve to live. Just like that one Gazelle who was too slow. It's the nature of things.

You may not have hope and aspirations. You're probably a lazy kid who hasn't really had to work for a living.

In your perfect society there is no fight to the top. There's nothing to strive for, nothing to live for even. You're just there.

Even if life were just a game. What's the point of playing if everyone's a winner?

Maybe I'm alone here, but I like the fact that it's a dog eat dog world out there.

You all know Einstein couldn't do simple math right? Well in your society he would not have become the world renown genius he is today. They probably would have made him a janitor. What about Stephen Hawking? How about Bill Gates?

Every system has it's fault but capitalism is the only one I see that allows one to accomplish their dreams.

I don't look at this from a political view. I look at it from a psychological one, which I am majoring in psychology, and human nature prevents the kind of society you support. No one would ever accept a position designated to them and happily live with it. No kid's going to say "Mommy mommy, they told me what I was going to be when I grow up. I'm going to be a fry cook!"

A meritocracy would fall completely apart in no time. Same with a socialist one. Capitalism will eventually fail, but it still holds the record for longevity. People happen to flourish in a capitalist nation more than anywhere else. I see new stores popping up everyday despite the so called "recession". Some of them will make it big, some will live comfortabley, and some will loose. That's the beauty of it. The way things are now money doesn't dictate what you become. Your willpower does. If you want something badly enough you'll get it. It's not going to be easy but those who do get it have earned it fair and square.

As for the kids dropping out of college due to financial issues are complete retards. Most of my classmates got in with grants and scholarships. Then there are some like myself who either got a job or a student loan.

College is expensive but I'm doing it just fine and I come from a very poor family.

You may think your ideals are smart and could work better than the way things are then you have never added human nature and common sense into the equation.

See, what I'm hearing is "I love this game because I'm winning."

Not everybody in life will succeed. Everybody can't win. That is the way it is and the way it will always be. If the society you want was a sport, nobody would play it, because there would be know reason because there is nothing to gain, which makes it boring.

It is the same problem I see with all the government involvement(i.e: The bailouts and regulations of companies.) The term, too big to fail, was created by the government so it could gain a foothold and try and control the private sector. The actual way our economy, free-market, and the private sector company type areas should work is that companies that make the right decisions are successful, and ones that make bad decisions, like being fraudulent, will fail. It doesn't matter how big the company is or what it does, it should fail; it won't be the end of the world, their might be a bump in the road, but in the end, other companies or new companies will fill the void, or new management will take over the old failing companies and then turn them around. If it was allowed to work properly, the failing company would do something like file for bankruptcy and then be bought out by a rival company that will restructure it, which would actually save jobs that would normally be lost.

Look at Fannie and Feddy thing, and other government involved ventures; the failure was just slowed and propped up by the government, but in the end, they collapsed harder than they would have if they had been left alone.

 

[Mcupobob]

Charites duh, in a "True Capitalist" Society Charites would help the homeless/sick/cripple but due to human nature we can't have this as most charites would be correpted or have no funds to sustain themselvs, so it must be balanced out with goverement and socialism which i'm fine with.

Are you aware how many charities there actually are in the US alone? There are amazing amounts of private charities everywhere in this great nation. Also, government is no less fallible than people that might be running those charities.

In fact I would almost be tempted to argue that the government would be MORE likely to be corrupted, but there is no actual evidence to support it, so I won't. Suffice to say, government in any country is subject to massive corruption, with private charities, at least you spread the risk out so that fewer people are affected if there are a few bad apples. When a government "sells its people down the river" each and every one of its people are truly screwed.

Yes and if it weren't for goverement programs regulating them then they would fall apart or become corrupt. I like Captilism and would love to see a True captilist society where people help other people due to there own free will and compasion, but most don't or make flimsly exucuse, sure a good number of them makes money but none of us can say for sure that when we donate to the redcross if its going to help people or buy some more coke for the big heads and even with govemement regulations its still iffy but thankful there will always be muckrackers out there(sorry lost my train of though).

What you are leaving out is that these government programs that you say are keeping these charities from being corrupt, are in themselves corrupt, and they in turn were created by our corrupt government, the vast majority of the elected officials. From what I have seen over the years, the majority of charities would be just fine and help people, but then these government programs come in and tell the charities well, "you are helping the wrong people"(which are actually the right people that will in turn give back to the community for getting help), and then the programs redirect the funds to the actual wrong people; the people that expect free money and help, and believe they will never have to pay it back. The reason these government programs direct the money that way is because, the people that created these programs know that by doing this, these actual wrong people, will re-elect them and they will be able to continue corrupting, because it gives them a stable job(Point being, have you ever wondered how representatives that are running their states and the country into the ground, still get elected each election: It is under this principle that Obama got elected. People thought they would get free stuff, he got elected. And now this country is spinning faster down the drain than it ever has.)

The problem is that the politics over the years has become so confusing with so many people pointing fingers at each other, that the majority of the public doesn't realize the ones pointing fingers at each other are both one in the same. The majority of the elected democrats and republicans in our government today, are progressives. As I have witnessed over the years how the two camps operate, the "democrats" are fast progressives(let's shove it through right now before the masses realize we are screwing them over) and the "republicans" are slow progressives(let's take things slow and try to figure out how to hide things from the public so that they don't find out we are screwing them over) The only way that this country will right itself, is if it wakes up and elects only true conservative representatives that will only do what is in the interest of preserving the freedoms of the people, with the minimalist amount of government involvement, meaning that it observes the private sector, and doesn't try to control it and tell it has been naughty.(Many of the economic problems that people say were caused by private sector companies and owners, were in fact caused by government interference.)

Okay I have went off on a tangent, but it has all been important to what I am getting to. To the OP, the reason that the capitalist system is bad at the moment and the bad things you talked about that occur in the system, occur, is because of government involvement. This is my personal yearly witness estimate, though it is an estimate I would bet my bank account and everything else I own on: I would say that only 10% or less of the economic problems that this country is facing, was caused by errors and or corruption in the private sector and free-market. The rest have been caused by our progressive leaders in the government, that know how to destroy the free-market and are doing so because they will be able to dictate how the market runs and in the end that will benefit them. Reiterating my first paragraph: They will benefit off the hard working people, and give some of those benefits to the lazy freeloaders that will in turn, re-elect the people creating the problems.

A progressive nation and government is a damned nation and government. It will not last and it will bring everything down with it, that especially includes our economy.

Mighty fine point there sir mighty fine point. You win this debate but next you prolly would win again, I really ain't that smart.

 

[Danzaivar]

Secondly, in hardcore Capitalism, you need to pay for everything. This includes food, water, shelter, healthcare. Let's think about this for a moment. Without these things, we literally will die. So if you don't have money, you can't stay alive. Money = lifeforce. So if you're unable to work, or lose all your money in an unforseeable calamity - say, you've been robbed - you're fucked. Is it too much to ask that we not live on the fucking edge all our lives? Isn't the purpose of society in general to remove the burdens of survival through community?

Capitalism incentivizes the stealing of people's lifeforce.

And that's really the root of the issue here.

Which is why some companies provide a service known as 'insurance' to protect from vampires/thieves. Which then blows apart your strawman.

Yeah it sure is awesome how we can get all this free insuranOHWAIT.

Nothing is free. No matter what economic system you use.

 

[LetalisK]

I'm going to respond to the OP, even though this thread is 6 pages long. >.>

This is in response to the thread "Why do people say that Capitalism is 'good in theory'?" The fact that Capitalism, and its beloved nephew the Free Market, are held up as the greatest socioeconomic system by so many people confuses me to no end.

Okay, so first of all, let's talk about money.

Money is something you get for working to better society. It is a representation of how much you have contributed. This is the crux of Capitalism: the harder you work, the more money you get. And then you get to take that 'work' and translate it into goods - food, housing, a new car. So, with money as an incentive, it's believed that people will compete to be the best in their field, so they receive the most money.

So my first gripe is, money represents work. But it isn't work itself. You can acquire money without working. You can rob someone, for instance. In fact, if you can get away with it, it's much easier to rob someone than it is to make the same amount of money through your own labors. See investment loan scandals. Because money is an end in itself, there's no incentive not to steal it - in fact, there's an incentive to do so. It's the path of least resistance.

Outright theft is actually illegal and if your premise were true, then that's how most people would make their money, but it's not. As for things like investment loan scandals, that was wrapped in enough confusion that nobody really understood what was going on. Now that people have seen how it works, those kinds of operations are going to be watched more carefully.

The idea behind the free market is "If the market has no regulation, then people will only buy the best products, and therefore people will be incentivized to make better and better products." But it's so much easier to convince people of the superiority of your product than it is to make a genuinely superior one.

This is true. This is also why capitalisms institute regulations that enforce things like purity of food or honesty in packaging.

Secondly, in hardcore Capitalism, you need to pay for everything. This includes food, water, shelter, healthcare. Let's think about this for a moment. Without these things, we literally will die. So if you don't have money, you can't stay alive. Money = lifeforce. So if you're unable to work, or lose all your money in an unforseeable calamity - say, you've been robbed - you're fucked. Is it too much to ask that we not live on the fucking edge all our lives? Isn't the purpose of society in general to remove the burdens of survival through community?

I can't even think of a "hardcore" capitalism right now. Even America, one of the most capitalist nations, sees the value of a welfare safety net.

edit: to summarize, capitalism and regulation are not mutually exclusive

 

[Valiance]

I think this post needs to be moved to the separate "Religion and Politics" board that we have.

That said, even though every government system I've looked at is flawed, Socialism (ie: what you're suggesting) hasn't worked in the past, for various reasons including some of what you've mentioned - it has a lack of incentives, no reason to excel or work hard. While I am against wasteful uses of money which only take place in Capitalist systems (ie: compare the salaries of your favorite sports player with, say, a teacher.), the government cannot give what it has not taken first. Nothing is free. Work-hours, human effort, machine-operation, materials, logistics are all taken into account. Free healthcare isn't exactly free, as they take cash out of my paycheck for social security, for public schools, etc.

I do not like a system that does not champion the rights of the individual, because humans are sentient creatures, and everyone has different individual needs and should not be looked at as a number or quantity in a pile of worker ants. Once we get to the point of one nation, one earth, one race called "Humanity", then I'll agree to it. Anyway, if it wasn't obvious, I have never used most of what my taxes pay for. Police forces, fire departments, public housing, etc. That does not mean I don't think they should be exist. All I'm trying to reinforce is that the government takes before it can give. And some people would prefer to not be taken from for things they don't believe in. I could write a few essays about why public school in this country is a disgrace, and how wasteful it is, and how the socialized element just leads to more greed and corruption, but I'll just give you a couple highlights about the high school I went to.

1: We have a 16% graduation rate in 4 years. We had a 33% graduation rate overall last I checked, of people who take longer than 4 years. School taxes go up every year and results do not improve.
2: The school spent roughly $800,000 on a turf football field, while the football field still maintains a losing record (albeit 6-10 is better than 1-15), and most people do not care about the sport aside from the Principle forcing school spirit, giving in-school-suspension to my friends on several instances where they did not get in line for the tyrannical Principal and did not say the school pride message back.
3: You must give up your right of free speech in that high school.
4: Even though the new football field is very nice, my history textbook was from the 70s and still had East and West Germany in it. I would think this should be a higher priority.
5: About 300 old chairs and desks were thrown out of windows, piled in the courtyard of the school, by the teachers, with the following reason given: "If we meet our budget, then we won't get as much next year. You want new desks, right?"
6: Imagine point number 5, with computer equipment.
7: We have 4 separate wings, each with their own principal, assistant principals, secretaries, and an entire other department devoted to staff services, with its own principal and assistant principal. Each one of these are paid 6 digit salaries.

I could go on, but I see no need to.

But the issue is that part of my paycheck is going to perpetuate this situation, instead of helping fix it. I don't like that.

Anyway, while I obviously do not think Socialism is the best form of government, Capitalism promotes corruption, embezzlement, self-interest, and publicizing risk at private gain.

If the balance that America has was as good as it is in theory in reality, with salary caps and a bit more government regulation to protect the people from the greed of idiots, I would be supportive of it as the "best" government we can have, sans no government at all. However, since it's NOT, I guess I'll be moving to the Carpathians to live alone.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

See, what I'm hearing is "I love this game because I'm winning."

Because you "hate this game because you're losing."

You really shouldn't make wear arguments that are this easily reversed. It is intellectually dishonest.

 

[standokan]

Kapitalism isn't good but it just works the best for the economy.

 

[LordWalter]

Capitalism incentivizes the stealing of people's lifeforce.

And that's really the root of the issue here.

DAMN YOU SHINRA! I'M GOING TO BECOME AN ECO-TERRORIST AND BOMB YOUR MAKO FACTORIES WITH MY HILARIOUSLY STEREOTYPICAL BLACK FRIEND!

 

[Rakun Man]

Uumm because we had a war over it, the Cold War.
... and we won.

 

[Shynobee]

So my first gripe is, money represents work. But it isn't work itself. You can acquire money without working. You can rob someone, for instance. It's the path of least resistance.

Capitalism incentivizes the stealing of people's lifeforce.

And that's really the root of the issue here.

Your 1st problem is assuming that stealing is easier than working. In most non-third world countries, stealing is quite difficult. The US, Canada, UK, and most of Europe, have fairly competent law enforcement, (at least as far as I am led to believe.)

Plus, its a more risk = more reward scenario.

If you attempt any large scale theft, you are looking at some VERY hefty punishment if you don't succeed. Your are gonna be put away for a few years, minimum. There is no magic reset button for retrying if you screw up.

Also, for the people who do have money, they aren't just gonna leave it on their front lawn, they protect it, invest it, insure it, whatever.

As for investment scandals, now that is a more legitimate point. When you invest, you are making a deal, and it is reasonable to expect the other end to hold up their side of the bargain. BUT, its also not too far of a reach to expect people given that much power over your money to get greedy, that's human nature. So, you need to invest smart, don't put all of your eggs into one basket, as it were.

If a deal looks too good to be true, it probably is.

As for regulations of the market, that is a slippery slope. My personal belief is that regulations should be less of regulators, and more like observers. They should report to the public what is going on in the market, watch big buisness, check on them for corrupt practices, and make arrests when necessary.

What they should NOT do is make limits regarding the market. Any time in history where the market has been capped or limited, it has failed in the long run.

While I'll admit, capitalism has MANY glaring flaws, (ie, relying on human greed to to sustain the economy, risky risky...) you didn't really point any of them out in your original post.

 

[Mercurio128]

It's as if people here are wilfully ignoring the actual state of affairs, there are no fully capitalist economies, neither are there completely socialist or communist ones. Every time I hear someone say 'capitalism is teh Sux, we should be socialist!' I die a little. Most economies operate along a scale somewhere between full free markets and socialism, it's not a choice of one or the other, that's a false dichotomy. The decision is more one of choosing where on the scale we should be, what goods/services should we provide to everyone? how much should we regulate? HOW should we regulate? (This is more and more the crux of the matter) What is the role of government? should we act to prevent abuses of market power wholesale or should we take a case by case stance?

 

[Shycte]

Capitalism doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist.

The existence of the law does not reduce the value of ill-gotten money.

Yes, but it makes it less likely for people to do things we're they achieve ill-gotten cash.

If someone can gain ill-gotten money with no chance of getting in trouble, it doesn't matter what type of economic system you live in, 9/10 times people will do it.

Well, one approach to stopping theft is to punish the thief. Another is not to give him anything to steal.

If you can have everything you want or need for free, and don't feel compelled to acquire money for money's sake, you're not going to steal money.

Hey look it's John Lennon.

 

[Therumancer]

Without reading all 200+ messages here I will explain this, including how it was explained to me when I was in school.

Generally speaking Capitolism is simply the idea that people own their own property, and have the right to pursue a personal profit. Part of owning your own property includes the abillity to provide for your family and decide who you leave your wealth to when your gone.

The idea of "how hard someone works dictates how much they have" does not enter into the equasion. Rather it works as a more generalized form of competion, it leads to the best and most capable people having the most stuff and ultimatly leading society. "best and most capable" can mean a lot of things however. It can come down to physical abillity (pro athletes for example), intelligence, charisma, beauty, or simply ruthlessness. The idea being that those at the top of things either got there from being one of the best (in some way) or by being descended from someone who was. The nature of a competitive society also means that fortunes passed on to idiot descendants will be lost to people more capable than they are. Fortunes are squandered nearly every day by playboys and morons. The "shark tank" of society ultimatly being what balances out the whole "born with a silver spoon in your mouth" thing. Someone who inherits their money and manages to keep it at the very least has talent in surrounding themselves with good people, and maintaining their loyalty.

As it has been explained to me before, society works on a system of cycles. The central ideas of communism and capitolism have existed in some form (sometimes quite differantly) throughout history even if they were not easily recognizable (others can make that point much better than I could).

Simply put the way things generally work is that there are going to be more people at the bottom than at the top of ANY society by it's very nature. Systems like communism are unworkable on a large scale because in the end the world needs ditch diggers and manure shovelers, and nobody wants to do their job. One of the things that ruins "peoples rebellions" is that when everything is done the angry people who were at the bottom of the totem pole wind up going back to the bottom of the pile, because a society cannot work when everyone simply contributes in whatever fashion they want to, because in the final equasion there is a lot of backbreaking labour that NEEDS to be done. Basically if your a farmer at the bottom of the heap before the great communist/socialist revolution, your going to be a farmer at the bottom of the heap afterwards as well because society needs farmers.

The thing is though that the "everyman" always dreams of something better. In a capitolist system the guy at the bottom thinks it's unfair that they wind up having a fairly crummy lot in life while someone who was simply born smarter, prettier, or stronger than them gets to live a life of wonder and luxury. They think it would be a lot better if the goverment could come in, remove the property from those people, and distribute it more fairly among the people. Of course this inevitably leads to the goverment needing to make sure all the nessicary jobs are done, and distributing wealth based on what it feels your worth. Competition is effectively removed, as the people at the top of the totem pole running the goverment typically give all the best jobs to their friends and family. Instead of looking on at people like "The Donald" or whomever with envy, people look towards the politicians and those lucky enough to have those connections with envy.

People in this system of course look at things like Capitolism as a postive thing for similar reasons to why the people under a capitolist system look towards a socialist type system. Basically the people think they could do better if they were able to compete, and succeed based on their own abillities, rather than being held back based on what the goverment needs, and who you know. Of course given that it's a competition, the majority of people still wind up at the bottom, it's just who is at the top is determined differantly.

The basic point is that as things are now your ALWAYs going to have a majority of have-nots, and a tiny percentages of haves. Whatever TYPE of system is in power the have-nots are always going to lionize the other way of doing things. Whether it's a hatred of nobles and merchant princes, or a hatred of an oppressive political "party" the end result is that nobody is going to be happy digging ditches for the lowest possible share in society's wealth.

It *IS* possible that this could be changed with further scientific innovation and/or obtaining more resources, but that remains to be seen. The possibility is one of the reasons why I am not concerned about a "New World Order" type idea of global unity and one goverment, and as a result an expansion into space. I see that as being humanity's great hope.

Given the choice between the two extremes of goverment I prefer the Capitolist-type system because of the competition and we wind up with the best people on the top (whether anyone admits it or not), as I feel the best people are the ones most likely to fix things in the final equasion. It's not "fair" or "right" on a lot of levels, but I think it's better than a system where the goverment winds up having almost complete control over the distribution of wealth and resources, and personal abillity plays a lower role. In the end we wind up in the same basic place, and guys like me are going to be pretty close to the bottom being nothing but dead weight on society (I'm retired on disabillity).

This kind of thing can be argued endlessly, and there are pros and cons to both ways of doing things, and of course there are going to be exceptions (good and bad) in any system where humans are involved.

I will also say that one of the reasons why I lionize my own nation (America) where others criticize it, is that I feel it's achieved a good compromise on things. We have a decent social system if not an all encompassing one. People look at what the system doesn't do (things like the health care crisis) and tend to forget the things it does do (like the fact that with servere problems I have been able to retire and despite the dangers I'm not homeless yet). Also people tend to forget about how the US has policies to keep competition going, even if there have been problems with enforcement. Things like anti-monopoly laws and the like are decent safeguards in keeping a capitolist system fairly fluid. Given that fortunes are won and lost constantly in the US, and companies rise and fall, I think the system is working pretty well when you step back a bit and look at it overall.

 

[Danman1]

Isn't this why shelters and half way homes are made? To help those in need.

Many would rather die than live in those places!

 

[dashiz94]

And this is why we have a GOVERNMENT to prevent the Capitalist system from becoming completely laissez faire. Were there no regulations at all, people would probably manipulate the stock market to make as much money as possible, tank the country, then escape to some island they bought for themselves. And I am going to reiterate this point. NO SYSTEM IS PERFECT. Yes, there are flaws with Capitalism. And every system is good in theory, but in practice, Capitalism works best. It does for the most part tend to create better products for lower prices, and as long as government regulation prevents any monopolies from forming, it will work.

 

[Iron Mal]

Well, one approach to stopping theft is to punish the thief. Another is not to give him anything to steal.

If you can have everything you want or need for free, and don't feel compelled to acquire money for money's sake, you're not going to steal money.

While 'let's all have what we want for free' sounds like a good idea (in theory) it's held back by the major issue of it being impossible to implement.

Every day wars are thought over resoucres like fuel, food, water and other things nessercary to our survival, now if resources are contested enough that people will fight, bleed and die for them then how exactly are we supposed to make them freely avalible for everyone? You have idealistic images with no real grasp on reality.

Money itself has no inherant value, it's a representation of worth or value (because carrying around all the goods and services you can offer on your person is either really difficult or impractical) just like a credit card on it's own is only worth the plastic it's made of, we would only consider stealing it if we gave it value.

 

[martin's a madman]

This is in response to the thread "Why do people say that Capitalism is 'good in theory'?" The fact that Capitalism, and its beloved nephew the Free Market, are held up as the greatest socioeconomic system by so many people confuses me to no end.

Okay, so first of all, let's talk about money.

Money is something you get for working to better society. It is a representation of how much you have contributed. This is the crux of Capitalism: the harder you work, the more money you get. And then you get to take that 'work' and translate it into goods - food, housing, a new car. So, with money as an incentive, it's believed that people will compete to be the best in their field, so they receive the most money.

So my first gripe is, money represents work. But it isn't work itself. You can acquire money without working. You can rob someone, for instance. In fact, if you can get away with it, it's much easier to rob someone than it is to make the same amount of money through your own labors. See investment loan scandals. Because money is an end in itself, there's no incentive not to steal it - in fact, there's an incentive to do so. It's the path of least resistance.
The idea behind the free market is "If the market has no regulation, then people will only buy the best products, and therefore people will be incentivized to make better and better products." But it's so much easier to convince people of the superiority of your product than it is to make a genuinely superior one.

Secondly, in hardcore Capitalism, you need to pay for everything. This includes food, water, shelter, healthcare. Let's think about this for a moment. Without these things, we literally will die. So if you don't have money, you can't stay alive. Money = lifeforce. So if you're unable to work, or lose all your money in an unforseeable calamity - say, you've been robbed - you're fucked. Is it too much to ask that we not live on the fucking edge all our lives? Isn't the purpose of society in general to remove the burdens of survival through community?

Capitalism incentivizes the stealing of people's lifeforce.

And that's really the root of the issue here.

Well, you're incorrect that there are many incentives not to steal. If you steal, there's a good chance you'll be put in prison.

EDIT: Even if you weren't put in prison, those you're stealing from would quickly change in order to protect themselves. Meaning, you might die.