Why do people say that Capitalism is good?

[liveslowdiefast]

What can i say, I love being upperclass.

 

[capnpupster]

I've read several pages of this and noticed one thing: you seem to be arguing against the established form of capitalism based on the assumption that people are perfect.

Before you argue against that, let me explain: it all lies in this quote from you:

My idea is an integrated system of Capitalism and Communism where needs are provided by the state and entrepreneurial and entertainment industries are controlled by the market. It's not as flashy or lucrative as Capitalism, but its more stable and still supports progress.

Now, the problem here is that if your needs are provided by the state, nobody has any real reason to work harder than anyone else. Thus, everybody works to the minimum of their abilities, which actually deters progress. We're looking at an entrepreneurial and entertainment industry where the people are liable, so the obvious course of action is to get a menial government job so you won't be held liable for the costs of your actions. Nobody wants to be a brain surgeon if their living arrangements are the same as the trash collector. How are you going to get people into the medical professions?

Also, it takes money to, say, start up a new business. Given that your system is 'not as lucrative', when someone manages to get together the money for his new entrepreneurship, why is he going to try to start his business?

If your response to either question is "to get more money for what he wants", then your system is extremely close to the current form of capitalism, to the point where you may seem to be arguing against yourself. If your response is "for progress" or "for the betterment of mankind", then you are an idealist and don't understand how much people consider 'risk v. reward' before making a choice.

Thank you for saying this! Thats my idea as well.
The best example of the Capitalism vs Communism is the Cold war. At the end of the war in the early 90's most industry in Russia and former USSR country were smoke stack industrys, which means they were low tech and took many people to produce a small amount of product. At he end of the war there were only 330,000 computers in all of Russia. In the U.S there were about 50,000,000 computers, not only that but the industry was much more advanced in the U.S ( and its allies ). The GDP per person, was much higher in the U.S than in Russia as well.

So what does this have to do with Capitalism? Almost everything. The biggest thing you get from capitalism is innovation. The U.S is one ( at least once was ) of the most Capitalistic nations in the world! They produce more patents per person than any other nation. If everything was given out for free, then no one would try to change it.

As for water, food, and "healthcare", if you wont work for it, then maybe you shouldnt have a "life force", if you cant work turn to the church. Trust me if you can move you can work, there is a man down my street that as only one arm and no legs, he is a carpenter, and it is amazing to watch him work. He is a veteran, but he never takes money from the VA. So if your 20-something and your back "hurts", and your unwilling to work, put a bullet in your brain and do us all a favor.

Except Russia wasn't really a communism, they were a totalitarian dictatorship that used communism as an excuse to control every aspect of their peoples lives, the same way theocracies use God. To my knowledge no industrialized nation has ever tried an actual communism. So your great "communism vs. capitalism" war was more about which bureaucracy was more efficient, not some war of economic ideals.

 

[martin's a madman]

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.

No monopoly has ever formed without Government support.
Not that I'm bashing your political opinion, I'm just stating that.

Read up on the post Civil War railroad monopolies. Those formed completely out of a lack of government regulation.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Even the project to build the Transcontinental railroad system was supported by the US Government.

You can read up about it here if you'd like more information.
The government tried to regulate it afterwards to avoid a monopoly, but ultimately, their land and money grants handed railroad companies monopolies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad

But, if you are certain I'm incorrect you could provide me with actual links to information proving your point, that would be helpful in correcting my mistake.
I could be wrong.

 

[Mcface]

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

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

There is crime in every society, regardless of who or what it is run by.

 

[Mcface]

I've read several pages of this and noticed one thing: you seem to be arguing against the established form of capitalism based on the assumption that people are perfect.

Before you argue against that, let me explain: it all lies in this quote from you:

My idea is an integrated system of Capitalism and Communism where needs are provided by the state and entrepreneurial and entertainment industries are controlled by the market. It's not as flashy or lucrative as Capitalism, but its more stable and still supports progress.

Now, the problem here is that if your needs are provided by the state, nobody has any real reason to work harder than anyone else. Thus, everybody works to the minimum of their abilities, which actually deters progress. We're looking at an entrepreneurial and entertainment industry where the people are liable, so the obvious course of action is to get a menial government job so you won't be held liable for the costs of your actions. Nobody wants to be a brain surgeon if their living arrangements are the same as the trash collector. How are you going to get people into the medical professions?

Also, it takes money to, say, start up a new business. Given that your system is 'not as lucrative', when someone manages to get together the money for his new entrepreneurship, why is he going to try to start his business?

If your response to either question is "to get more money for what he wants", then your system is extremely close to the current form of capitalism, to the point where you may seem to be arguing against yourself. If your response is "for progress" or "for the betterment of mankind", then you are an idealist and don't understand how much people consider 'risk v. reward' before making a choice.

Thank you for saying this! Thats my idea as well.
The best example of the Capitalism vs Communism is the Cold war. At the end of the war in the early 90's most industry in Russia and former USSR country were smoke stack industrys, which means they were low tech and took many people to produce a small amount of product. At he end of the war there were only 330,000 computers in all of Russia. In the U.S there were about 50,000,000 computers, not only that but the industry was much more advanced in the U.S ( and its allies ). The GDP per person, was much higher in the U.S than in Russia as well.

So what does this have to do with Capitalism? Almost everything. The biggest thing you get from capitalism is innovation. The U.S is one ( at least once was ) of the most Capitalistic nations in the world! They produce more patents per person than any other nation. If everything was given out for free, then no one would try to change it.

As for water, food, and "healthcare", if you wont work for it, then maybe you shouldnt have a "life force", if you cant work turn to the church. Trust me if you can move you can work, there is a man down my street that as only one arm and no legs, he is a carpenter, and it is amazing to watch him work. He is a veteran, but he never takes money from the VA. So if your 20-something and your back "hurts", and your unwilling to work, put a bullet in your brain and do us all a favor.

Except Russia wasn't really a communism, they were a totalitarian dictatorship that used communism as an excuse to control every aspect of their peoples lives, the same way theocracies use God. To my knowledge no industrialized nation has ever tried an actual communism. So your great "communism vs. capitalism" war was more about which bureaucracy was more efficient, not some war of economic ideals.

This is what everyone says when anyone brings up ANY failed communist or socialist government in history. "Oh, well they weren't REALLY communists so it doesn't count"

 

[Canid117]

People say that capitalism is good because it works better than communism.

Social mobility.
The freedom to take a hole in the market you perceive and try to profit from it.
The ability to quickly and easily keep production high or adjust it if the demand falls.
THe risk is fun for some people.
The freedom to use your abilities to the fullest or least potential.
People can dream big. This is my biggest one. Carnagie, to Gates, to the rest of them trhoughout history(sorry I dont' really know any foreigners who have money earned instead of, "old money") inspire us all.

You do realize that Gates started Microsoft with money from a trust after dropping out of an Ivy League school. He's emphatically not a rags to riches story, if anything he's the biggest story of "the rich get richer." That isn't to say that he's not intelligent, and that he didn't earn his money. It's just to say that, had he been middle class he may have never started Microsoft or made his vast riches. In before "Free to starve" quotes against capitalism and such.

Okay how about a story about a poor orphan who grew up with very little money? Steve jobs.

 

[kazekagesama23]

Showing that capitalism doesn't care for society in general, it only caters to a very small minority...

The motivated, hard working kind?

 

[mechanixis]

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.

Well, no, that's not the case. I was born fortunate and am likely headed towards a comfortable career soon, so I'm 'winning' too. But you see, if the vast majority of people are losing, then it is a bad game that doesn't benefit mankind.

 

[Kailat777]

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.

Well, no, that's not the case. I was born fortunate and am likely headed towards a comfortable career soon, so I'm 'winning' too. But you see, if the vast majority of people are losing, then it is a bad game that doesn't benefit mankind.

I'm curious: most people seem to be making ends meet well enough, so why is 'the vast majority' losing?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The motivated, hard working kind?

Nope. More like the "above middle class, and already born with adequate financial and social background" kind.

"Hard work" and "motivation" doesn' guarantee advancement in the slightest. In that case a publicly educated janitor slaving away for ten years keeping his workplace clean would be a fucking trillionaire by the time he decides to retire.

In real life, that never really happens.

I could support a capitalist society on one condition though, and that is if all money are personalized.

Yes, that means that while you might have acquired wealth that would put cave dragons to shame, that wealth can't ever really be applied to your children or spouse. You might be able to buy a burger at mcdonalds with YOUR curreny, but if that currency ever get sinto the hands of someone else it will be registered as worthless an the person trying to buy a burger with your money will promptly be turned down.

This would in turn make society into a place where exactly EVERYONE, regardless of parents or other family background will be forced to start out from rock bottom. Then we'd see how well the current burgeois children would be at becoming as rich as their parens are as opposed to the hardworking children of all the janitorsout there.

 

[JWW]

And when in Capitalism someone is stupid, he will pay the price.
In Socialism, price will be paid by everyone.

Brilliantly put.

 

[capnpupster]

And when in Capitalism someone is stupid, he will pay the price.
In Socialism, price will be paid by everyone.

Brilliantly put.

Except if everyone is paying and the price is the same, each individual is paying far less, perhaps even to the point where it becomes a trivial cost.

 

[kazekagesama23]

Ultimately, I think, the economic model or you support comes down to your view of human nature. Capitalism is optimistic about peoples basic nature believing that when given power or money, people will choose to use it wisely. Communism/Socialism believes that every person is inherently dishonest and corrupt and therefore must be regulated.

Neither side is completely correct, as no two human beings are exactly the same. There are people who when they are successful, become charitable beyond belief and others short shortsightedly horde their money and try to grasp more.

 

[JWW]

And when in Capitalism someone is stupid, he will pay the price.
In Socialism, price will be paid by everyone.

Brilliantly put.

Except if everyone is paying and the price is the same, each individual is paying far less, perhaps even to the point where it becomes a trivial cost.

How many stupid people do you know?

To paraphrase Yahtzee: All of the little problems keep coming back time and again.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

Berlin in the 1960s proved capitalism to be better than communism, and is why so many people tried to get into West Berlin during that time.

Also, communism collapsed, capitalism has not so... yeah.

I guarantee you within the century people will be saying Capitalism doesn't work because America collapsed.

so if communism collapsed, and capitalism collapsed, are we all just doomed to financial apocalypse?

now that would be... interesting (and people reckon it will happen)

Well if capitalism ultimately fails it is said it will be replaced with socialism. Okay the socialist system doesn't work quite as well as capitalism but it's got SOME good ideas and it's better than nothing.

 

[Grant Sturman]

Thank you, for say that! Thats what i was going to say.
The thing is they were Communist. But to have communism work at all you need a totalitarian government. Its the same way in china. They have few rights, but they are getting more rights as the country moves towards capitalism.

 

[Grant Sturman]

I've read several pages of this and noticed one thing: you seem to be arguing against the established form of capitalism based on the assumption that people are perfect.

Before you argue against that, let me explain: it all lies in this quote from you:

My idea is an integrated system of Capitalism and Communism where needs are provided by the state and entrepreneurial and entertainment industries are controlled by the market. It's not as flashy or lucrative as Capitalism, but its more stable and still supports progress.

Now, the problem here is that if your needs are provided by the state, nobody has any real reason to work harder than anyone else. Thus, everybody works to the minimum of their abilities, which actually deters progress. We're looking at an entrepreneurial and entertainment industry where the people are liable, so the obvious course of action is to get a menial government job so you won't be held liable for the costs of your actions. Nobody wants to be a brain surgeon if their living arrangements are the same as the trash collector. How are you going to get people into the medical professions?

Also, it takes money to, say, start up a new business. Given that your system is 'not as lucrative', when someone manages to get together the money for his new entrepreneurship, why is he going to try to start his business?

If your response to either question is "to get more money for what he wants", then your system is extremely close to the current form of capitalism, to the point where you may seem to be arguing against yourself. If your response is "for progress" or "for the betterment of mankind", then you are an idealist and don't understand how much people consider 'risk v. reward' before making a choice.

Thank you for saying this! Thats my idea as well.
The best example of the Capitalism vs Communism is the Cold war. At the end of the war in the early 90's most industry in Russia and former USSR country were smoke stack industrys, which means they were low tech and took many people to produce a small amount of product. At he end of the war there were only 330,000 computers in all of Russia. In the U.S there were about 50,000,000 computers, not only that but the industry was much more advanced in the U.S ( and its allies ). The GDP per person, was much higher in the U.S than in Russia as well.

So what does this have to do with Capitalism? Almost everything. The biggest thing you get from capitalism is innovation. The U.S is one ( at least once was ) of the most Capitalistic nations in the world! They produce more patents per person than any other nation. If everything was given out for free, then no one would try to change it.

As for water, food, and "healthcare", if you wont work for it, then maybe you shouldnt have a "life force", if you cant work turn to the church. Trust me if you can move you can work, there is a man down my street that as only one arm and no legs, he is a carpenter, and it is amazing to watch him work. He is a veteran, but he never takes money from the VA. So if your 20-something and your back "hurts", and your unwilling to work, put a bullet in your brain and do us all a favor.

Except Russia wasn't really a communism, they were a totalitarian dictatorship that used communism as an excuse to control every aspect of their peoples lives, the same way theocracies use God. To my knowledge no industrialized nation has ever tried an actual communism. So your great "communism vs. capitalism" war was more about which bureaucracy was more efficient, not some war of economic ideals.

This is what everyone says when anyone brings up ANY failed communist or socialist government in history. "Oh, well they weren't REALLY communists so it doesn't count"

Thank you, for say that! Thats what i was going to say.
The thing is they were Communist. But to have communism work at all you need a totalitarian government. Its the same way in china. They have few rights, but they are getting more rights as the country moves towards capitalism.

 

[Grant Sturman]

And when in Capitalism someone is stupid, he will pay the price.
In Socialism, price will be paid by everyone.

Brilliantly put.

Except if everyone is paying and the price is the same, each individual is paying far less, perhaps even to the point where it becomes a trivial cost.

How many stupid people do you know?

To paraphrase Yahtzee: All of the little problems keep coming back time and again.

So true, if we pay for all the stupid people in the world we would all starve to death my the end of the week.

 

[azncutthroat]

Capitalism incentivizes the stealing of people's lifeforce.

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

It's human nature to want to own stuff. People dig owning stuff. Any system that doesn't allow you to own stuff has a short future.

It's also human nature to have sexual intercourse with anything they find attractive. But we have systems in place that prevent people from operating on that nature, don't we?

Not a very convincing argument there.

 

[azncutthroat]

Spoiler

I've read several pages of this and noticed one thing: you seem to be arguing against the established form of capitalism based on the assumption that people are perfect.

Before you argue against that, let me explain: it all lies in this quote from you:

My idea is an integrated system of Capitalism and Communism where needs are provided by the state and entrepreneurial and entertainment industries are controlled by the market. It's not as flashy or lucrative as Capitalism, but its more stable and still supports progress.

Now, the problem here is that if your needs are provided by the state, nobody has any real reason to work harder than anyone else. Thus, everybody works to the minimum of their abilities, which actually deters progress. We're looking at an entrepreneurial and entertainment industry where the people are liable, so the obvious course of action is to get a menial government job so you won't be held liable for the costs of your actions. Nobody wants to be a brain surgeon if their living arrangements are the same as the trash collector. How are you going to get people into the medical professions?

Also, it takes money to, say, start up a new business. Given that your system is 'not as lucrative', when someone manages to get together the money for his new entrepreneurship, why is he going to try to start his business?

If your response to either question is "to get more money for what he wants", then your system is extremely close to the current form of capitalism, to the point where you may seem to be arguing against yourself. If your response is "for progress" or "for the betterment of mankind", then you are an idealist and don't understand how much people consider 'risk v. reward' before making a choice.

Thank you for saying this! Thats my idea as well.
The best example of the Capitalism vs Communism is the Cold war. At the end of the war in the early 90's most industry in Russia and former USSR country were smoke stack industrys, which means they were low tech and took many people to produce a small amount of product. At he end of the war there were only 330,000 computers in all of Russia. In the U.S there were about 50,000,000 computers, not only that but the industry was much more advanced in the U.S ( and its allies ). The GDP per person, was much higher in the U.S than in Russia as well.

So what does this have to do with Capitalism? Almost everything. The biggest thing you get from capitalism is innovation. The U.S is one ( at least once was ) of the most Capitalistic nations in the world! They produce more patents per person than any other nation. If everything was given out for free, then no one would try to change it.

As for water, food, and "healthcare", if you wont work for it, then maybe you shouldnt have a "life force", if you cant work turn to the church. Trust me if you can move you can work, there is a man down my street that as only one arm and no legs, he is a carpenter, and it is amazing to watch him work. He is a veteran, but he never takes money from the VA. So if your 20-something and your back "hurts", and your unwilling to work, put a bullet in your brain and do us all a favor.

Except Russia wasn't really a communism, they were a totalitarian dictatorship that used communism as an excuse to control every aspect of their peoples lives, the same way theocracies use God. To my knowledge no industrialized nation has ever tried an actual communism. So your great "communism vs. capitalism" war was more about which bureaucracy was more efficient, not some war of economic ideals.

This is what everyone says when anyone brings up ANY failed communist or socialist government in history. "Oh, well they weren't REALLY communists so it doesn't count"

Thank you, for say that! Thats what i was going to say.
The thing is they were Communist. But to have communism work at all you need a totalitarian government. Its the same way in china. They have few rights, but they are getting more rights as the country moves towards capitalism.

Totalitarianism and communism are incompatible concepts, since one of the tenets of communism is statelessness (no government). Learn2politicalscience.