Capitalism

[The Void]

Do you agree with it? Or do you believe it is inherently broken?

 

[Dakotah]

Like any other concept conceived of by humans, it has its positives and negatives. However, put into practice by those same humans, it invariable becomes corrupted by human nature which is inherently selfish and self-destructive.

 

[Lord Kraith 2]

I'm ok with it. Not perfect but at least it is a lot better than the evil principle of communism.

 

[Dakotah]

I'm ok with it. Not perfect but at least it is a lot better than the evil principle of communism.

Like I said, there are positives to every concept created by humans. And that includes communism. But unfortunately, when these concepts are put into practice they become corrupted by greed and selfishness. There hasn't been a single economic or political movement that hasn't become corrupted in some form or another. Even a popular concept such as democracy has its negatives.

No concept is inherently evil (not even dictatorship). But rather how it's implemented can be considered evil.

 

[Sir Codin]

To me, it's certainly the most stable system currently around, simply because it takes the fact that humans are greedy and runs with it.

 

[The Void]

To me, it's certainly the most stable system currently around, simply because it takes the fact that humans are greedy and runs with it.

You're right in that it surpasses socialism in that respect. But the fact that it exploits human greediness is precisely why I think capitalism is just morally flawed. So is capitalism really a necessary evil? I don't think so.

 

[Sir Codin]

You're right in that it surpasses socialism in that respect. But the fact that it exploits human greediness is precisely why I think capitalism is just morally flawed. So is capitalism really a necessary evil? I don't think so.

So the concept of wanting something is morally reprehensible?

I want the new Pokemon Gen III remakes. That right there is greed. So I guess that means I'm a terrible person.

 

[Oryx]

So the concept of wanting something is morally reprehensible?

I want the new Pokemon Gen III remakes. That right there is greed. So I guess that means I'm a terrible person.

The way I read that is that instead of encouraging us to be good human beings that look out for each other, it encourages us to be selfish human beings that reduce the well-being of other people for profit. See any company that actively harms a community for profit, and then denies it hoping they can't get the proof together to sue (see Erin Brockovich). See basically any company anywhere; they all do shady things that harm people to get more profit. This is why capitalism worked well when the country was full of small businesses; the people-to-people connection reduced the tendency of capitalism to push people towards their most self-centered personalities. But when we work with massive corporations who with a wave of their hand can dismiss thousands of people, harming them for a million bucks in profit and never see a single face, we have a very different situation.

 

[Sir Codin]

This is why capitalism worked well when the country was full of small businesses; the people-to-people connection reduced the tendency of capitalism to push people towards their most self-centered personalities. But when we work with massive corporations who with a wave of their hand can dismiss thousands of people, harming them for a million bucks in profit and never see a single face, we have a very different situation.

This is why I hate big business as much as I hate big government.

Personally, if I had it my way, it would all burn down.

 

[shortsboy]

Capitalism is mostly good. It's built around factor endowment and resource efficiency. It's most effective way a society can produce goods. The more goods produced, the more we can consume.

There's nothing wrong with profit either. Profit either goes to shareholders who then spend their capital in society which produces jobs. Or if a company is privately owned, these people will either reinvest their profit to the company creating jobs or put in a bank or other investment, which again gets invested and creates jobs.

The generous welfare systems of western nations are only possible because of the capitalist system which produces so much national income.


Two criticisms I will make are

Firstly, Inherent wealth. I think a person's consumption should equate to what they produce. But if they are born wealthy this won't be the case.

Secondly, if anybody is exploited by capitalism it is underdeveloped economies where they do not have anything to offer other than their labor. In this case they compete amongst themselves based only on price, it becomes a race to the bottom and their conditions are not ethical. Again, I would like to see their income be in line with the value they produce. But the world is a much better place in this regard compared with early globalization.

 

[Dakotah]

This is why I hate big business as much as I hate big government.

Personally, if I had it my way, it would all burn down.

The only way you effectively "kill" a business is for it to no longer offer a product or service that the public needs/wants. Businesses thrive when there is demand for what they offer. The more there is demand, the larger a company gets. Walmart is a prime example of this. The owners saw a need, filled it, became very successful at it, and as a result the store grew from what'd be considered a small business into the mega-multinational corporation it is today.

The same, in a sense, holds true for government services. New departments and new services are offered based on the demand of citizens. The more people demand the more government is forced to respond which invariably leads to government growing. You're only going to stop the growth of government by changing the needs of the population. That means reducing or eliminating poverty (support programs for low-income or no income families), finding an easy to swallow pill to cure all ailments (healthcare), ending world conflict (the military), etc. So long as there is a growing need for a government service, the government will have to continue to grow to fill that need.

It's basic logistics.

 

[Sopheria]

This quote by Herbert Hoover sums up my view on capitalism quite nicely.

"The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism."

In other words, in capitalism there's always going to be people who game the system to gain an unfair advantage over others, but that's not a problem with capitalism itself. Socialism, on the other hand (note: I'm not trying to make a false dichotomy, I know there's more systems than just capitalism and socialism but I think all other systems fall somewhere on a spectrum between the two) is an inherently flawed concept. Capitalism doesn't work for everybody, but socialism by its very design can't work for anybody.

 

[Dakotah]

This quote by Herbert Hoover sums up my view on capitalism quite nicely.

"The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism."

In other words, in capitalism there's always going to be people who game the system to gain an unfair advantage over others, but that's not a problem with capitalism itself. Socialism, on the other hand (note: I'm not trying to make a false dichotomy, I know there's more systems than just capitalism and socialism but I think all other systems fall somewhere on a spectrum between the two) is an inherently flawed concept. Capitalism doesn't work for everybody, but socialism by its very design can't work for anybody.

I don't think you can accurately make that argument though. Because to some degree there are socialist programs in every government program in every government in the world. Food assistance programs, welfare, medical care programs, etc. for those less fortunate are primary examples. And make no mistake, these are all socialist ideals. But they are also ideals shared by other systems as well.

I think the best system is one that incorporates the best of all systems, dictatorship, socialism, nationalism, capitalism, etc., and discards the ugly parts.

Now there are some who would argue that Canada, the country in which I live, is a very socialist country. We, after all, do have a single payer healthcare system and very generous welfare and food assistance programs. But it would be very short-sighted of them to think that that is all Canada is and does.

 

[The Void]

This quote by Herbert Hoover sums up my view on capitalism quite nicely.

"The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism."

In other words, in capitalism there's always going to be people who game the system to gain an unfair advantage over others, but that's not a problem with capitalism itself. Socialism, on the other hand (note: I'm not trying to make a false dichotomy, I know there's more systems than just capitalism and socialism but I think all other systems fall somewhere on a spectrum between the two) is an inherently flawed concept. Capitalism doesn't work for everybody, but socialism by its very design can't work for anybody.

I partially agree with this. The problem with socialism is it fails to see that humans are humans -- they want, and they greed.

The idea I do support is distributionism. The idea of economic justice as a paradox in itself has always enticed me. The problem with this is that it is old and outdated, and would need reforms to fit modern mass consumerism.

 

[Dakotah]

The idea of economic justice as a paradox in itself has always enticed me. The problem with this is that it is old and outdated, and would need reforms to fit modern mass consumerism.

All systems need to be reformed to fit the changing times. It doesn't matter what system that is. Society changes as it matures, and what was once acceptable one day could be completely not the next.

 

[The Void]

All systems need to be reformed to fit the changing times. It doesn't matter what system that is. Society changes as it matures, and what was once acceptable one day could be completely not the next.

Yes, but I'm talking about an almost 200-year old system that has never been put into use.

 

[Dakotah]

Yes, but I'm talking about an almost 200-year old system that has never been put into use.

Yes, but that's not entirely accurate is it? I say this because these days governments really operate using a mix of different systems, some of which include capitalism, communism, and even dictatorship. And quite surprisingly, they actually mesh together quite well. Where things go wrong is when one group within the government attempts to assert a certain ideology, elevating one sub-system over the others and thus creating an imbalance. The system can only work when all the parts within it are working in harmony with each other rather than competing with the others.

So for example, if a conservative leaning government attempts to enhance conservative ideals within the system, it creates an imbalance. Likewise if a liberal leaning government attempts to enhance liberal ideals within the system, that creates an imbalance too.

In order for government to run smoothly, fairly, everything has to run harmoniously with the other. No one system can take precedence over another.

The problem is, a conservative government will almost always push for conservative ideals and a liberal government will almost always push for liberal ideals. This is where we run into problems and why people are so frustrated with government. There is no stability. If there was, if everything was kept in harmony, people would know exactly what they can expect of their government and plan their lives accordingly. It's this instability that causes such resentment because from one day to the next, people have no idea which way the government is going to turn.

 

[Oryx]

Yes, but that's not entirely accurate is it? I say this because these days governments really operate using a mix of different systems, some of which include capitalism, communism, and even dictatorship. And quite surprisingly, they actually mesh together quite well. Where things go wrong is when one group within the government attempts to assert a certain ideology, elevating one sub-system over the others and thus creating an imbalance. The system can only work when all the parts within it are working in harmony with each other rather than competing with the others.

So for example, if a conservative leaning government attempts to enhance conservative ideals within the system, it creates an imbalance. Likewise if a liberal leaning government attempts to enhance liberal ideals within the system, that creates an imbalance too.

In order for government to run smoothly, fairly, everything has to run harmoniously with the other. No one system can take precedence over another.

The problem is, a conservative government will almost always push for conservative ideals and a liberal government will almost always push for liberal ideals. This is where we run into problems and why people are so frustrated with government. There is no stability. If there was, if everything was kept in harmony, people would know exactly what they can expect of their government and plan their lives accordingly. It's this instability that causes such resentment because from one day to the next, people have no idea which way the government is going to turn.

The perfect kind of government, in my opinion, it not one that stands on fragile legs, failing if any one person pushes too hard; it's a robust government that had checks and balances that keeps any one group from taking too much power. The problem is, everyone in a government belongs to a group, and since they're all basically always vying for power they'll never push for a government that's meant to check them from getting too much power. When a conservative or liberal group is in power, their goal is to take advantage of it, not try to restructure so the parties can't be "in control" of the government any longer.

When the American government was made from the ground up, because no one filled these positions and therefore no one wanted one position to inherently be more powerful, the system of checks and balances was worked out well. That would be the best way to do it now - start over. I'm not sure it's possible at the moment though.

 

[Dakotah]

The perfect kind of government, in my opinion, it not one that stands on fragile legs, failing if any one person pushes too hard; it's a robust government that had checks and balances that keeps any one group from taking too much power. The problem is, everyone in a government belongs to a group, and since they're all basically always vying for power they'll never push for a government that's meant to check them from getting too much power. When a conservative or liberal group is in power, their goal is to take advantage of it, not try to restructure so the parties can't be "in control" of the government any longer.

When the American government was made from the ground up, because no one filled these positions and therefore no one wanted one position to inherently be more powerful, the system of checks and balances was worked out well. That would be the best way to do it now - start over. I'm not sure it's possible at the moment though.

Probably not feasible, or even wise to attempt. More likely than not, staring over would create such chaos that the end result would be temporary anarchy and definitely civil conflict. It would, for a short time, probably result in a forced government to maintain some semblance of civilization.

 

[Sopheria]

I don't think you can accurately make that argument though. Because to some degree there are socialist programs in every government program in every government in the world. Food assistance programs, welfare, medical care programs, etc. for those less fortunate are primary examples. And make no mistake, these are all socialist ideals. But they are also ideals shared by other systems as well.

I think the best system is one that incorporates the best of all systems, dictatorship, socialism, nationalism, capitalism, etc., and discards the ugly parts.

Now there are some who would argue that Canada, the country in which I live, is a very socialist country. We, after all, do have a single payer healthcare system and very generous welfare and food assistance programs. But it would be very short-sighted of them to think that that is all Canada is and does.

Yes, I agree that those are socialist ideas. And I agree that there's good and bad in every system, and it is entirely possible to incorporate elements of every system. But as far as capitalism goes, I think it's the one system that gives an individual the most control over his or her own success or failure. On any other system, an individual's success or failure is dependent on how competently the people in power implemented it--i.e. factors that are beyond the individual's control.

For example, in my country, medicare and social security in particular are going bankrupt, and a lot of people entire their retirement years worried that their social security money will be gone or they won't get enough to live on. As for welfare, I think that it's a great thing to have when we have the money for it, but at the moment we don't and we're constantly having to borrow money in order to fund it. I'm sure this isn't the case in other countries, but still, the quality of healthcare/food benefits/retirement money people get is dependent on factors beyond the control of the individuals receiving them.