Capitalism pretty much sucks

Uhhhh yeah.


Preemptive edit Stoned.............

Get out of here commie.

Capitalism does suck.

[quoteaa62461aa0="Jake"]Capitalism does suck.[/quoteaa62461aa0]

Says the man whose company's business model proves the power of financial incentive.

[quote1756ef5876="KeithA"][quote1756ef5876="Jake"]Capitalism does suck.[/quote1756ef5876]

Says the man whose company's business model proves the power of financial incentive.[/quote1756ef5876]

When 80% of the world lives in abject poverty, I'd say my statement has some merit.

[quote633a4990ad="Jake"][quote633a4990ad="KeithA"][quote633a4990ad="Jake"]Capitalism does suck.[/quote633a4990ad]

Says the man whose company's business model proves the power of financial incentive.[/quote633a4990ad]

When 80% of the world lives in abject poverty, I'd say my statement has some merit.[/quote633a4990ad]

That's a dubious stat (the UN pegs it at 23%), but regardless, I think it's difficult to argue that capitalism is the root of poverty. Capitalism may not have proven itself a solution to world poverty, but poverty certainly didn't begin with capitalism.

I have my criticisms of capitalism too, but it's important not to dismiss it outright.

I wish I weren't so busy at work today so I could spend more time discussing this...

[quote71348c93fc="KeithA"]
That's a dubious stat (the UN pegs it at 23%), but regardless, I think it's difficult to argue that capitalism is the root of poverty. Capitalism may not have proven itself a solution to world poverty, but poverty certainly didn't begin with capitalism.

I have my criticisms of capitalism too, but it's important not to dismiss it outright.

I wish I weren't so busy at work today so I could spend more time discussing this...[/quote71348c93fc]

It would be nice to discuss at length but, yeah, work gets in the way.

I am not so sure about the 23% figure. That seems suspect to me but I can't be sure.

I don't dismiss it outright but it certainly has serious failings that are not being addressed except by groups that are marginalized and considered 'extremists.'

http//www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/ngo/940913171137.html[]http//www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/ngo/940913171137.html

Here's where the 23% figure comes from. It's a little outdated, but a 60% shift in 10 years seems unreasonable.

[quoteb3e25fc1cb="KeithA"]http//www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/ngo/940913171137.html[]http//www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/ngo/940913171137.html

Here's where the 23% figure comes from. It's a little outdated, but a 60% shift in 10 years seems unreasonable.)[/quoteb3e25fc1cb]

Oh I didn't doubt the fact that the UN published that statistic, I just wonder how accurate it really is.

For example

India has 1 billion people. 300 million people make up the middle class. So that leaves 800 million who are living in various degrees of poverty.

Lets not even begin with Africa.

China has similar issues. They are a developing world power with a growing middle class but the middle class represents less than half the overall population (I've read between 200 and 400 million people make up that category), the rich are probably between 1 and 5 percent of the population and the rest are poor.

Just observations...

Keep in mind that the U.N. is defining poverty as "households that
earn less that a dollar a day." By their definition, no working person in our country is living in poverty, so I wouldn't say that's a very accurate statistic.

[quote1b927b1957="ilanbg"]Keep in mind that the U.N. is defining poverty as "households that
earn less that a dollar a day." By their definition, no working person in our country is living in poverty, so I wouldn't say that's a very accurate statistic.[/quote1b927b1957]

The U.N's defination of alot of things are screwed.

I refuse to get into a big discussion on a public forum, since most know more about the TOS of a freebie site, and are more upset about a change in how they get freebies, then whats going on in the real world, and the changes made to our laws that effect everyday life.

-Done

[quote6e63471622="nextlevel"][quote6e63471622="ilanbg"]Keep in mind that the U.N. is defining poverty as "households that
earn less that a dollar a day." By their definition, no working person in our country is living in poverty, so I wouldn't say that's a very accurate statistic.[/quote6e63471622]

The U.N's defination of alot of things are screwed.

I refuse to get into a big discussion on a public forum, since most know more about the TOS of a freebie site, and are more upset about a change in how they get freebies, then whats going on in the real world, and the changes made to our laws that effect everyday life.

-Done[/quote6e63471622]

meh, the patriot act has no effect on my life roll

[quotea95e81a6f7="Aprout"]Uhhhh yeah.


Preemptive edit Stoned.............[/quotea95e81a6f7]

You know that weed you're smoking?
That's thanks to capitalizm

[quotea76564bbd4="MightyMouse"][quotea76564bbd4="Aprout"]Uhhhh yeah.


Preemptive edit Stoned.............[/quotea76564bbd4]

You know that weed you're smoking?
That's thanks to capitalizm[/quotea76564bbd4]

Nah, that was discovered long before capilalism was put into place. Even still, you don't need capitalism to get it for yourself. It grows on its own.

[quote3ea8eaca4f="Jake"][quote3ea8eaca4f="MightyMouse"][quote3ea8eaca4f="Aprout"]Uhhhh yeah.


Preemptive edit Stoned.............[/quote3ea8eaca4f]

You know that weed you're smoking?
That's thanks to capitalizm[/quote3ea8eaca4f]

Nah, that was discovered long before capilalism was put into place. Even still, you don't need capitalism to get it for yourself. It grows on its own.[/quote3ea8eaca4f]

No one would be smuggling it into the country or growing fields of it if they weren't going to make a buck off it. That's capitalism.

Weed itself has existed before capitalism, but the whole underground economy built around drugs is more or less the same system as the one above ground.

[quoteed06f264b0]America's first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, Virginia in 1619. It was a law "ordering" all farmers to grow Indian hempseed. There were several other "must grow" laws over the next 200 years (you could be jailed for not growing hemp during times of shortage in Virginia between 1763 and 1767), and during most of that time, hemp was legal tender (you could even pay your taxes with hemp -- try that today!) Hemp was such a critical crop for a number of purposes (including essential war requirements - rope, etc.) that the government went out of its way to encourage growth.[/quoteed06f264b0]

Pretty funny how before we were forced to grow it, sounds like Cuba, China, or even Afghanistan.. Problems arise when we start to wake up..

They only made it illegal, because they knew they would make more off of it on the black market, with no real competition, and total control.

If we legalized drugs, the economy as we know it would collapse. FLAT-OUT we are in to deep. Even though not much tax is paid on illegal drugs, there is to many things that function because of the drugs being illegal.

So without the 1, there can not be hundreds if not thousands of others functioning..

Things like this also play into the reasoning of why medicine doesnt cure, why things break after a warranty, and why we don't come up with other sources of energy. [bed06f264b0]NO PROFIT[/bed06f264b0]

Weed could be produced socialistically. It can only be stated that capitalism provides it because there is not method of avoiding capitalism. The priniciples of capitalism control everything.

Jake, have you read "Looking Backward," by Edward Bellamy? I think you would like it if you haven't read it, but I bet you already have. Certainly flawed, but it's a good counter capitalist book.

[quote1cbaa6bc9f="Jake"][quote1cbaa6bc9f="KeithA"]http//www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/ngo/940913171137.html[]http//www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/ngo/940913171137.html

Here's where the 23% figure comes from. It's a little outdated, but a 60% shift in 10 years seems unreasonable.)[/quote1cbaa6bc9f]

Oh I didn't doubt the fact that the UN published that statistic, I just wonder how accurate it really is.

For example

India has 1 billion people. 300 million people make up the middle class. So that leaves 800 million who are living in various degrees of poverty.

Lets not even begin with Africa.

China has similar issues. They are a developing world power with a growing middle class but the middle class represents less than half the overall population (I've read between 200 and 400 million people make up that category), the rich are probably between 1 and 5 percent of the population and the rest are poor.

Just observations...[/quote1cbaa6bc9f]

Let's talk about India for a second.

They have the fastest growing middle class in the world. Why?

Economic reform and good leadership.

Your right that there is over a half a million people living well below the poverty line in India but with the improved infrastructure and economy these people finally have hope.

This reform is beneficial to everyone in India as they become independent and self sufficient. Americans, or the western world, don't have to come to India and drop millions in aid and expect nothing back in return like some African countries. Great we solved the aids epidemic in Africa but they still can't read. In India any money coming in will be seen in reciprocal terms.

Although there is a lot of gov't regulation and intervention which may stunt growth, Indians are very intelligent/resourceful people and have brought new innovations to the the technological world.

An interesting read I just found that says how India is saving capitalism

http//www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/04/01/collabnet/index_np.html

Ok China on the other hand. Growing economy while remaining strict authoritarian.

Everything looks all rosy on the surface but as witnessed by the Tienammin square(shoot me on spelling) people in China are looking for democratic and economic reform.

Simple way to put it.

Capitalism/free market - Builds innovation, provides motivation for the worker, encourages competition.

Communism - govt decides innovation, no motivation for the worker, gov't regulates what companies are in buisness and decides who will be a competitor.

Which would you choose?

Let's not forget about the right to choose your religion.

oh ya and drugs are neither capitalist, socialist or communist. There just drugs. How you sell and distribute them may decide their economic ideology.

Yes, I agree with alot of stuff that good2speed said. i am not saying capitialism is great, but it is the baisis of the american economy. without capitialism, we would not have the america we do today...and as there are some problems, i hope you would say that it isn't as bad as other places...

[quotee938c854ec="good2speed"]
Simple way to put it.

Capitalism/free market - Builds innovation, provides motivation for the worker, encourages competition.

Communism - govt decides innovation, no motivation for the worker, gov't regulates what companies are in buisness and decides who will be a competitor.

Which would you choose?
[/quotee938c854ec]

Neither.

Free markets don't really exist. If you wonder what I am talking about, then read about the perfectly competitive model of markets (which is what free market ideology is based on) and tell me how many of the assumptions which that model depends on actually hold up in real life.

Don't forget, Adam Smith was really a socialist. He may have come up with the idea of the invisible hand of the market but he also said that people were the most important thing to consider when building an economy. He wasn't a social darwinist like some people seem to believe.

Capitalism is destroying our living environment in the pursuit of more crap. The endless pursuit of profit and increased output have enriched a minority with the spoils going to the rabble. There is a more benign form of capitalism out there but it has not yet been explored aside from in a few books.

Communism - or authoritarian socialism wasn't any good either. I lived under a communist regime for the first few years of my life and it was bad too. Nobody had anything and everyone struggled to get by. Even still, I'd say people were actually happier living simpler lives compared with those here who have everything they could ever imagine but are still miserable. We can point out countless examples of this phenomenon right here on the board.

Real communism has only been explored in a few small instances throughout history but usually crushed by the power structures which were afraid of it.

Libertarian Socialism is the way to go.

I am not sure where the connection is between capatalism and the rest of the worlds poverty

I mean alot of the world your refering to being in poverty was long before america was even around

I'd also go as far to say that countrys who have become captalists are doing alot better now then they were say 20 years ago I don't feel like looking it up but I think you learn that in any basic economics class or international business class

[quotee0565bb541="Jake"][quotee0565bb541="good2speed"]
Simple way to put it.

Capitalism/free market - Builds innovation, provides motivation for the worker, encourages competition.

Communism - govt decides innovation, no motivation for the worker, gov't regulates what companies are in buisness and decides who will be a competitor.

Which would you choose?
[/quotee0565bb541]

Neither.

Free markets don't really exist. If you wonder what I am talking about, then read about the perfectly competitive model of markets (which is what free market ideology is based on) and tell me how many of the assumptions which that model depends on actually hold up in real life.

Don't forget, Adam Smith was really a socialist. He may have come up with the idea of the invisible hand of the market but he also said that people were the most important thing to consider when building an economy. He wasn't a social darwinist like some people seem to believe.

Capitalism is destroying our living environment in the pursuit of more crap. The endless pursuit of profit and increased output have enriched a minority with the spoils going to the rabble. There is a more benign form of capitalism out there but it has not yet been explored aside from in a few books.

Communism - or authoritarian socialism wasn't any good either. I lived under a communist regime for the first few years of my life and it was bad too. Nobody had anything and everyone struggled to get by. Even still, I'd say people were actually happier living simple lives than those here who have everything they could ever imagine but are still miserable. We can point out countless examples of this misery right here on the board.

Real communism has only been explored in a few small instances throughout history but usually crushed by the power structures which were afraid of it.[/quotee0565bb541]

Obviously we're a work in progresss and have not always adhered to the fundamental underlying principles of an ideal capitalist society. I still feel however that our system works pretty well..

While you may be correct that an economic divide does exist, America still provides every citizen the right to become or do anything they want (as long as it's legal)

Think about it. What's the phrase?

Only in America?

A place where Don King can make millions of dollars.

A place where Arnie can become governor of Calif.

A place where Marion Barry can be re-elected mayor after being caught smoking crack.

A place where Mark Cuban can become a billionaire overnight and buy a professional sports franchise the very next day.

A place where Trump can go bankrupt 25 mil times and still be associated amongst the most wealthy.

Now these examples may be outrageous to many the underlying fact is that in this free democratic free market economy

You can do anything you want and become anything you want if you work hard at it.

Communism has never been properly implimented. Everyone says it can't work, but an economy has never been set up according to the true principles set forth by marx and engels. You can also say the same thing for practices like supply side economics. Either way, individual socialistic economies cannot be successful because the rest of the world remains entirely capitalisitc. ............Capitalism is just an anitquated practice. It seems contridactory that as we have evolved and become more intelligent (as society and as individuals) that we still operate completely in self-interest.

[quote12b857721c="Aprout"]Communism has never been properly implimented.[/quote12b857721c]

that's because communism cannot be properly implemented. human nature will nauturally make people want more or less. if they are paid the same and told what to do...they have no motivation (Office Space D). communism takes away the individual rights and lacks motivation all together.

so, even if capitialism is an anitquated practice...communism is much much worse.

goodspeed-
what you listed proves the absurdity of capitalism. Why should a society allow such extremes to exist when so many suffer.

Side note- I just read that the academy award presentors recieve a gift package worth about $200,000. A main problem with capitalism it that it supports such exessiveness and wanton self indulgence. How can things like this be justified when the median income is still under $30,000.

[quote156cb12548="good2speed"]
Obviously we're a work in progresss and have not always adhered to the fundamental underlying principles of an ideal capitalist society. I still feel however that our system works pretty well..

While you may be correct that an economic divide does exist, America still provides every citizen the right to become or do anything they want (as long as it's legal)
[/quote156cb12548]

I wasn't strictly referring to America here. There is a lot of economic opportunity in the US and probably more here than anywhere else in the world. That is true.

However the situation isn't as simple as 'they can accomplish anything they want to.' You have to understand the circumstances that the more disadvantaged people face when they try and raise themselves up and how their life situation makes it more difficult for them to accomplish the same thing than someone who is better off (eg not as poor).

I for one, don't subscribe to the "if they're poor, its their fault" theory.

You can't fully understand anyones life and the difficulties that they face until you have walked a mile in their shoes, so to speak.

My parents were part of that group of Europeans who came to North America to make a better life for themselves and us. We had the opportunities which enabled us to do so. I think it is a gross oversimplication to think that everyone is equally as fortunate.

Anyway,

I was talking about the world. There are a lot of people out there who don't have lives anything like we have here. Their lives are difficult, they have no economic opportunity and in some cases are being exploited for their resources by the more powerful economies. Jamaica essentially got raped by the global capitalist cabal. Tanzania has tons of perch in their river but its all for export! So the people are starving when their water is full of fish. More examples of these phenomena exist.

[quote7aa26c66c3="megotcash"][quote7aa26c66c3="Aprout"]Communism has never been properly implimented.[/quote7aa26c66c3]

that's because communism cannot be properly implemented. human nature will nauturally make people want more or less. if they are paid the same and told what to do...they have no motivation (Office Space D). communism takes away the individual rights and lacks motivation all together.

so, even if capitialism is an anitquated practice...communism is much much worse.[/quote7aa26c66c3]

We only know that in a capitalistic enivornment there is no motivation when placed in a socialistic setting. We cannot assume human nature is completely self-centered and incapable of non material motivation when there has never been a proper environment that has attempted to alter our apparent egocentricity.

[quotebe22ffcfad="megotcash"]
that's because communism cannot be properly implemented. human nature will nauturally make people want more or less. if they are paid the same and told what to do...they have no motivation (Office Space D). communism takes away the individual rights and lacks motivation all together.
[/quotebe22ffcfad]

It can be. Read some more about it. You'll find out how...

The majority of people still get paid mediocre wages and always get told what to do.

[quote30d11e6a1f="Jake"]The majority of people still get paid mediocre wages and always get told to do.[/quote30d11e6a1f]

i assume you talking about this in the sence that this happens in America and the Capitialistic society anyways --->

therefore, people who get paid those wages choose to or always have the ability to get out of it. in a communisitc society you don't have the choice.

even if people don't realized that communism is right or wrong, to those outside of communism, does it truly seem right? to take every person's ability to be individual and seperated? we already feel like we are only a single person in a big world, but in a world you had no control over...that'd be horrible.

[quote9f34f22bec="Aprout"]goodspeed-
what you listed proves the absurdity of capitalism. Why should a society allow such extremes to exist when so many suffer.

Side note- I just read that the academy award presentors recieve a gift package worth about $200,000. A main problem with capitalism it that it supports such exessiveness and wanton self indulgence. How can things like this be justified when the median income is still under $30,000.[/quote9f34f22bec]

I don't know maybe to give a kid hope.

Why not rewards those based on pure merit. For example

#1 Person drops out of hs and decides to drive trucks to bring in income. Doesn't get HS degree and years later he decides he wants more money. Guess what your merit as driving a truck doesn't register to more money.

#2 Person drops out of HS and decides to sell drugs to earn money. Years later decides income isn't enough or job security/hassles aren't worth the risk and wants another job. He's gonna need other skills and better education as employers don't reward those with solid drug dealing accounting practices.

#3 Person comes from low income housing. Goes through school while struggling and gets a decent but not well paying job out of college. Works hard at new company and with in a few years is promoted to a management position.[/color9f34f22bec]

Ok now I gave you three different examples. Now which one based on merit would you hire?

And as far as extremities let's not kid ourselves. As there may be a lot of not wealthy Americans they still live way better than the poverty stricken citizens of the rest of the world.

A poor war tested militant from Africa laughs at what Americans call poverty.

Poverty is when there is no running water, no electricity, disease in the water, malnutrition, high levels of illiteracy.......

The way I see it even those not welll off in America are still living the life of luxury compared to the real poverty stricken.

[quote79619dc14f="megotcash"]
i assume you talking about this in the sence that this happens in America and the Capitialistic society anyways --->

therefore, people who get paid those wages choose to or always have the ability to get out of it. in a communisitc society you don't have the choice.

even if people don't realized that communism is right or wrong, to those outside of communism, does it truly seem right? to take every person's ability to be individual and seperated? we already feel like we are only a single person in a big world, but in a world you had no control over...that'd be horrible.[/quote79619dc14f]

I think you are seeing communism in the wrong light. The form of communism most people are used to is nothing like what some socialist writers had in mind.

Some of those writers thought that top-down control was the solution but Lenin and Stalin turned that into a nightmare for millions and that is the image of communism that has endured.

There is a better way. It is just not as obvious. ;)

I don't understand what you are saying about the merit associated with those three examples. I wasn't only referring to poverty in america, but would you want to live like the people who are "not well off" in america? Capitalism does not recongnize that humans are not all equal. Not everyone can achieve was is needed to live comfortably.

[quotea0a9850194="Aprout"]I don't understand what you are saying about the merit associated with those three examples. I wasn't only referring to poverty in america, but would you want to live like the people who are "not well off" in america? Capitalism does not recongnize that humans are not all equal. Not everyone can achieve was is needed to live comfortably.[/quotea0a9850194]

agree to disagree

You both seem to have this idealistic concept of commuinism that you'd like to see be implemented.

I feel that a free market is the best solution. As there are some who will always fail in any society.

Obviously I'm not saying capitalism works for every country but for certain countries it is very effective.

The world can only help so much at some point citizens of the less wealthy nations are going to have to become self sufficient. So I will not buy into the school of thought that capitalistic behavior leads to worldwide poverty.

What exactly is Libertarian Socialism?

[quotec66e3a72bf="tylerc"]What exactly is Libertarian Socialism?[/quotec66e3a72bf]

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism

I like the idea because it combines the maximization of freedoms which libertarian philosophy entails while caring about the people who who belong to the society - in essence being socialist at the same time.

Its an intriguing idea.

Perfectly captured on Wikipedia
[quoted69a259aca]Capitalism has been defined in various ways.[1] In common usage, it means an economic or socio-economic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit. The prices of goods, services, and labor are affected by the forces of supply and demand. Decisions regarding investment are made privately, and control of production and distribution is primarily in the hands of companies each acting in its own interest.[/quoted69a259aca]
First, many incorrectly make the assumption that pro-capitalist members of an economy are money-grabbing, evil, and bent on running everyone into the ground who is not like them. This is equivalent to making the assumption that all african americans are criminals, all jews are excessively miserly, and all white men can't jump.

Second, you assume that just because a capitalist has successfully secured money in a viable economy that they should exchange all that money for goods and services to assist others around the globe. If it were this easy then the world's problems would have been solved already. In reality, these 'third-world countries' are bound by the culture, values, and stereotypes set forth by their ancestors. Many areas are strongly group-oriented and any attempts to better oneself as an individual are looked down upon. Competition is sacrificed in favor of community, even at the expense of innovation and self-fulfillment. Attempts to simply hand over money, food, and goods has resulted in anger and hatred when more money, food, and goods are not delivered. A "you owe me"-mentality is fostered instead of teaching them how to utilize the resources they have.

The entire world (and life itself) is based on competition. The poorer parts of the world compete for food, land, and mates. The richer parts of the world compete for your money. The poorer parts will probably remain poor because of the negative stereotypes they have associated with commercial markets and western culture. Until a culture can embrace competition on an individual level it is destined to stay primitive.

[quote481b9db98a="RoBsTaMaCk"]Perfectly captured on Wikipedia
[quote481b9db98a]Capitalism has been defined in various ways.[1] In common usage, it means an economic or socio-economic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit. The prices of goods, services, and labor are affected by the forces of supply and demand. Decisions regarding investment are made privately, and control of production and distribution is primarily in the hands of companies each acting in its own interest.[/quote481b9db98a]
First, many incorrectly make the assumption that pro-capitalist members of an economy are money-grabbing, evil, and bent on running everyone into the ground who is not like them. This is equivalent to making the assumption that all african americans are criminals, all jews are excessively miserly, and all white men can't jump.

Second, you assume that just because a capitalist has successfully secured money in a viable economy that they should exchange all that money for goods and services to assist others around the globe. If it were this easy then the world's problems would have been solved already. In reality, these 'third-world countries' are bound by the culture, values, and stereotypes set forth by their ancestors. Many areas are strongly group-oriented and any attempts to better oneself as an individual are looked down upon. Competition is sacrificed in favor of community, even at the expense of innovation and self-fulfillment. Attempts to simply hand over money, food, and goods has resulted in anger and hatred when more money, food, and goods are not delivered. A "you owe me"-mentality is fostered instead of teaching them how to utilize the resources they have.

The entire world (and life itself) is based on competition. The poorer parts of the world compete for food, land, and mates. The richer parts of the world compete for your money. The poorer parts will probably remain poor because of the negative stereotypes they have associated with commercial markets and western culture. Until a culture can embrace competition on an individual level it is destined to stay primitive.[/quote481b9db98a]

Great point and I totally agree.