Why do people say that Capitalism is good?
- Thread starter mechanixis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A full Capitalistic society/Free Market Economy would never truly work. The wealth would be too unevenly distributed around the country. The rich would just get richer and you would have a more medieval society with families going into the same practise ie. doctor, carpenter, teacher, etc. People would forever be pidgeon holed into the social class they were born into.
Capitalism does have some pros though such as it helps prevent stagnation. It also generates a cut throat mentallity in businesses. This means more competition. Competition is good for the consumer as it means either lower prices or a higher quality good. This means that everything in the country would run more efficient.
Capitalism does have some pros though such as it helps prevent stagnation. It also generates a cut throat mentallity in businesses. This means more competition. Competition is good for the consumer as it means either lower prices or a higher quality good. This means that everything in the country would run more efficient.
The only people who say capitalism is good, are completely fools with a serious lack of empathy for those around them.
I refuse to partake in any reasonable discussion on the subject, as there are probably more idiots here than anyone cares to admit, and also people have been debating this for 5 pages - what could I possibly add, of value, to the thread?
I refuse to partake in any reasonable discussion on the subject, as there are probably more idiots here than anyone cares to admit, and also people have been debating this for 5 pages - what could I possibly add, of value, to the thread?
Which is why some companies provide a service known as 'insurance' to protect from vampires/thieves. Which then blows apart your strawman.mechanixis said:
----
Acting high and mighty tends to work better when you don't dismiss everyone who disagrees with you the sentence before that...s0denone said:
I know I said I wouldn't partake in the discussion about capitalism --- Luckily this argument is about liberalism and socialism, so I can easily go bother you people here.Skinny_Ninja said:
It's just a note: You're talking about liberalism. Not capitalism. While the two may be closely-knit, should either one every work in its ultimate form, in reality, these things are not the same.
I think you got that the wrong way around. I acted high and mighty, and then I dismiss the opportunity to take part in any discussion. It's a very well known tactic, called "I am right, you are wrong." It works in real life, too.Danzaivar said:
But I'm not just talking about pureform capitalism, I'd be arguing against any system of distributing wealth in their ultimate/most extreme form. One could argue that socialism in it's extreme would equalise communism, which would then, obviously, be only a little short of being a load of shit.
Just like liberalism simply doesn't work in it's purest form, neither does capitalism, socialism or any other kind of system of government, nor redistribution policies.
It is my personal opinion, however, that you should care for those around you, and be sure to offer as many possibilities to everyone, as you can. Yes, I am a socialist, and yes I am against capitalism and liberalism. This doesn't mean I cannot see the good inherent in either system, but it does mean I will work against them(work for socialism) when/if there is a vote.
Is this post more fitting? Just disregard my first one, and make some comment to this one, if you like. I'm not really in the mood of smart-ass people pointing out how smart-ass I am... Which is what you just did :--)
I would argue that the social-liberal system we have an Denmark, with the Scandinavian Healthcare System(Universal) works one million times better than what you have in America... And yes, it works. Denmark is the happiest country in the world.dathwampeer said:
Oh dear lord... You're blind. I did that short summary of Skinny_Ninjas post. It's a resumé of it. It isn't the actual post. Isn't that fucking obvious???dathwampeer said:
Come on man. That's ignorant to the point of being silly.
No, bad. Capitalism is not natural selection. Stop confusing the issue with your poor understanding of evolution. "Moving up the food chain" is not what natural selection is about. (Not to mention "the food chain" is really "the food web;" there is no strict hierarchy) Propagation and continuation of genetic material is what natural selection is about; it isn't individuals that are being selected for and against, but heritable traits and the genes which cause them.tobi the good boy said:
Now unless you have a GOOD analogy to genetics, stop comparing capitalism to natural selection.
The closest analogy I can come up with is: money is heritable. Descendants who inherit that "fit" money could be said to carry "rich genes." Poor people would constantly be striving for the attention of rich people for the purpose of taking their money. But rich people would know not to hobnob with the poor people, because their "monetary fitness" is too low. The poorest people would die out, because their "fitness" is lowest, thus preventing those "poor genes" from being passed on to their children.
Sounds like an aristocracy filled with fatcats, gold-diggers and dire poverty.
I find this somewhat unsettling. I'm guessing you never play any co-op games (or at lease any that you like). Are you suggesting that joy is only possible if it is at the expense of someone else's misery? That the ability to feel joy is contingent upon whether somebody else is suffering (or at the least, not also sharing that joy)? What's the point in playing if everyione's a winner? How about the comradery of sharing in the celebration of a mutual victory. If I apply your type of thinking to something like sex, it would seem that rapist is the optimal sexaulity, because, you know, what's the point of sex if the other person enjoys it? I prefer it if everyone's happy.Skinny_Ninja said:
If or when the US collapses it'll be because we have horrible, irresponsible politicians spending money like there's no tomorrow; NOT because it's capitalistic.mechanixis said:
No government would ever say "What do you like to do?" Then let you do that. If you give a government that much power the first thing they're gonna do is screw you and everyone else over. Just look through out current history at any government that has been given that kind of power Q.E.D. Soviet Russia (not modern Russia), China, North Korea, and Cuba Just to name a few. To quote Albert Einstein "You cannot try something 99 times with one result, and expect the 100th time to be different."mechanixis said:
The state would have no reason to turn all its great minds into janitors, especially if the only remaining motive is 'progress'.
Soviet Russia had plenty of great minds, but most of them fled Russia, and went to Europe, and America because Russia wouldn't allow them to live up to their full potential.
Here's an old Soviet joke for you from when jokes were banned in Russia (yes they really banned jokes). One day an official is touring a plant and he ask the plant manager "How are things progressing?" the plant manager answers "well this quarter we are expecting to make 50,000 units! next quarter we are planning to make 100,00 units! the quarter after that we are planning to make 500'000 units! During the final quarter of this year we plan on making 1,000,000 UNITS!" The official says "That is wonderful news. Tell me what do you make?" The plant manger replies "OUT OF ORDER signs."
If you want the most progress go to a free market society with little (not no there does need to be some) government control. Ideally the best thing would be a 90% Capitalist, and 10% socialist society. Just enough regulations so things don't go out of control, but the people still have their boots on the governments throat. Sincerely I am sympathetic to your situation, because I've been in a dead end job myself. If you don't mind me asking what are you going to college for?
Funnily enough, people who talk about capitalism also rants about how much "freedom" it gives to people. That is not the case. The more evenly capital is distributed, the more freedom people have, as simple as that.
I mean, think for yourself:
If you have insane amounts of money whilst most other people has almost none, that will lead to the market having to produce lots and lots of cheap, low-quality wares that most can buy, and thus you have problems spending your money on good, expensive good-quality wares, since there are so few. So then you can't choose, whereas, if everyone has roughly the same amount of money, the market must adapt and more things comes within a reasonable pricerange.
Thus, I cast my vote on the socialist site, not because it will work, but I think we should strive towards a society that promotes peoples well-being over business.
I mean, think for yourself:
If you have insane amounts of money whilst most other people has almost none, that will lead to the market having to produce lots and lots of cheap, low-quality wares that most can buy, and thus you have problems spending your money on good, expensive good-quality wares, since there are so few. So then you can't choose, whereas, if everyone has roughly the same amount of money, the market must adapt and more things comes within a reasonable pricerange.
Thus, I cast my vote on the socialist site, not because it will work, but I think we should strive towards a society that promotes peoples well-being over business.