Capitalsim

thrawn2112

United States6918 Posts

July 21 2012 07:19 GMT

I've seen a lot of hate for capitalism lately but I haven't seen any arguments against it other than people pointing towards the generally downhill direction our country is going as evidence that capitalism is bad. To me that seems intellectually very lazy; you shouldn't rely on vague cynicism to win an argument. From my limited knowledge it looks like the examples people use to show the failures of capitalism are really just the failures of recent US policies concerning the relationship between the government and the economy, and the moral failures of the people most in charge of the economy. If I were trying to argue against capitalism I would say the problem with it is that it allows, and not necessarily promotes, personal greed to cause decisions to be made that only consider the interests of the people with the most economic power. Is that a strong enough reason to condemn capitalism? I'm undecided about that because I don't trust people with power to not abuse their power, however I don't like accepting a arbitrary set of economic restrictions just to prevent too much power from going into the wrong hands.

So, what are your thoughts? Capitalism, good/bad? Reasons why? Is it worth removing in favor of a more regulated system where wealth is distributed more evenly at the cost of such regulations?

If something I said is factually incorrect and you are POSITIVE that you know the correct information please correct me.

edit: lol spelling

zalz

Netherlands3704 Posts

July 21 2012 07:27 GMT

Capitalism at its most basic form is almost universally accepted:

Allowing individuals to own and operate the means to production for the purpose of earning personal wealth.

The capitalism that people have a problem with is the socialist-hybrid where banks privatize their gains and collectivize the losses. There is a limit to how much the average worker is going to put up with seeing his hard work being literally stolen by people who are not only better at the market game, but are actively rigging it in their favor.

Meanwhile they have so much money that they club any attempt to hinder their ridiculous position to death with an army of lawyers that earn 10x what you can earn when working for the government.

People aren't sick with the idea of being able to start their own business, they are sick and tired of seeing their hard work be destroyed by 30-yeard old yuppies that couldn't contribute to the economy in a positive fashion if their life depended on it.

Meanwhile those people will never see the inside of a jail whilst tons of people lost their homes over this shit.

Capitalism just gets ingrained with bankers. They stole the world blind and not a soul went to jail for it. Meanwhile it is the average person that ends up paying for the screw up, and just a few years after, the bankers are hauling giant bonusses.

People have trouble accepting that someone can live so big on the profits of others, literally being too big to fail too big to go to jail.

thrawn2112

United States6918 Posts

July 21 2012 07:36 GMT

so you would agree with what i said about how people are placing blame on capitalism when the blame should be placed on greed and the strong involvement of the government in the economy? and in your opinion are those good enough reasons to condemn capitalism, because humans have proven too immoral for the freedoms of capitalism?

zalz

Netherlands3704 Posts

July 21 2012 08:12 GMT

On July 21 2012 16:36 thrawn2112 wrote:
so you would agree with what i said about how people are placing blame on capitalism when the blame should be placed on greed and the strong involvement of the government in the economy? and in your opinion are those good enough reasons to condemn capitalism, because humans have proven too immoral for the freedoms of capitalism?

I think that it is hard to deny that an economy that is run from the bottom-up is superior to one that is dictated by the government. It promotes risk taking and innovation, both of which are crucial if you want to outperform other companies.

The problem isn't greed, that is putting it too simple. It sells well in papers because people recognize it is a sin, but in reality the problem is far greater, and the rot runs deeper.

The problem is that we have a class of super rich bankers which not only add nothing to the economy, but they are in fact detrimental to the economy. There is a need for someone to bring together the people that need money and the people that want to put their money up for investment.

Despite what some may say, the banking sector does serve a purpose, but I don't remember anyone ever asking for all these idiotic economical constructs that they are selling. These creations are not only too complex for the average person to understand, they are so complex and obscure that nobody has a clue what is in them. Then you get rigging where the people trusted to inspect these things are giving false ratings to rake in more money themselves.

The entire industry is just corrupt from top to bottom. Any industry that is that corrupt would crumble, and eventually it did. Ooh, surprise, turns out we are so integrated into the world economy that you are going to have to pay for our fuckups.

People haven't proven to be too immoral for the freedom of capitalism. The banking sector is a poluted industry filled with people that promote this insane culture where they are actively seeking to rig the game in any way possible.

Is the guy down the road that owns a pizza shop too immoral for capitalism? No, he never did anything wrong, but it is him that is paying for this shit whilst the people on wall street are holding their hands up for their yearly bonus.

There is too much money flowing through that industry for it to become anything other than corrupt.

The solution is simply holding these people responsible. Start throwing people in jail for life. If you rob a bank you get 20 years, so why doesn't the banker that robs a million people have to see the inside of a cell? I'd even support death penalties for the leading people that were responsible for that whole subprime mortgage mess.

But what do they get? Right now they are sitting in a house that the average person couldn't even rent for a month if he worked his whole life. They are riding high and what are they adding to the economy? Why are they earning so much money whilst being a drain on the economy?

No, capitalism isn't the problem. The entire banking sector needs to be garroted and bled out.

It's the bankers that are giving capitalism a bad name. It should be made obvious that such corruption has nothing to do with capitalism, but people only see that money reigns and these criminals are literally untouchable by the law.

The government should act against it before capitalism, the best system, loses too much face.

Blazinghand

United States25551 Posts

July 21 2012 08:14 GMT

The proletariat is docile and refuses to rise up... the 99% movement shall seize the means of production as the vanguard of the revolution... change is coming and with it the withering-away of the police industrofinancialmilitary state.

People don't understand that the 1% will take and take. The trickle down is a lie. Mainstream media distract you with the false choice of electing 2 groups of the same politicians..

Roe

Canada6002 Posts

July 21 2012 08:15 GMT

On July 21 2012 16:27 zalz wrote:

Allowing individuals to own and operate the means to production for the purpose of earning personal wealth.
.

isn't that the definition of socialism?

Blazinghand

United States25551 Posts

July 21 2012 08:20 GMT

I think zalz hits the nail on the head I agree with a lot of his ideas

zalz

Netherlands3704 Posts

July 21 2012 08:36 GMT

On July 21 2012 17:14 Blazinghand wrote:
The proletariat is docile and refuses to rise up... the 99% movement shall seize the means of production as the vanguard of the revolution... change is coming and with it the withering-away of the police industrofinancialmilitary state.

People don't understand that the 1% will take and take. The trickle down is a lie. Mainstream media distract you with the false choice of electing 2 groups of the same politicians..

The proles will never revolt.

Isn't that the definition of socialism?

No.

Socialism is just redistributing the wealth from rich to poor, believing that that is either economically wise, or morally demanded. The degree to which this is done can vary, though on average the goal is not to destroy the rich class, only to make life easier for those who have least.

Socialism and capitalism are not, despite what people sometimes claim, on directly opposing ends of the spectrum. It is perfectly possible to have a capitalist/socialist society, like Sweden (and really most of the Scandinavian region).

Socialism stands directly oppossed to laissez faire capitalism, but not ordinary capitalism.

Communism, which abolishes private property, is not compatible with capitalism.

Roe

Canada6002 Posts

July 21 2012 08:51 GMT

On July 21 2012 17:36 zalz wrote:

Show nested quote +

The proles will never revolt.

Show nested quote +

Well I took my definition from Noam Chomsky among others, but I guess we can all just move around the definition in whatever way we like, just how we do with conservatism and liberalism. I'm not really sure what would be the best way to pin down one definition of a political ideology.

United States6173 Posts

July 21 2012 08:56 GMT

#10

Capitalism fundamentally and inseparably promotes inequality and oppression. That's alleviated by government regulation so it never becomes heinous. There are always winners and losers with the system. On the flip side, when regulated, controlled capitalism manifests more as a meritocracy.

As long as capitalism is properly regulated so that the individuals at the bottom are reasonably protected, I think it's good. It promotes growth and rewards ambition and progress. I don't think that balance has been hit right now, however.

BreakfastBurrito

United States893 Posts

July 21 2012 10:34 GMT

#11

Adding on to the bank points, which I agree with, another thing that hurts capitalism and our economy is credit. Irresponsible credit / lending practices have caused problems in the US all the way back to around the founding of our country.
in 1797, 1857, 1929, and just a few years ago, debt, speculation, and lending have caused some serious problems.

Vivax

21972 Posts

July 21 2012 10:49 GMT

#12

The problem is rather the high dependance of our economies on individual consumption (U.S. GDP roughly made of 70 % private consumption, german of ~60 %), making the production of durable, sustainable goods not suitable for this system (the companies would just die). You need to create goods that break quickly and are costly to repair, but cheap to buy newly.

Then the option for private banks to create money through debt. Money creation should be task of a national institution imo, not a right for private organizations.

These are just a few reasons ofc. But I think that solving them, especially point 1, would fix a lot of things. But the implementation of point 1 needs a pretty hardcore form of socialism providing enough subsidies for it to work, since you don't produce these goods to compete on the global market, but to satisfy an individuals' interests within a nation.#

Just imagine if you buy one cell phone at your national high-tech-store, and it gets repaired throughout your whole life, for really small fees. As it is now most people get a new phone every year, so you have an idea of what I'm talking about.

Implementation of option 1 would require the government to care for people who don't have a job, since you are destroying the competitive economy in favor of a sustainable national monopoly.

FrogOfWar

Germany1406 Posts

July 21 2012 10:50 GMT

#13

On July 21 2012 17:36 zalz wrote:

Show nested quote +

The proles will never revolt.

Show nested quote +

Nonsense. You're using a definition of socialism that right-wingers use as an insult but which has nothing to do with the political theory of socialism. Sweden is not a socialist country. And socialism does not mean re-distribution of wealth because it would mean that wealth wouldn't be distributed so unevenly in the first place. The mechanisms that allow for the accumulation of wealth in private hands being in place in a given country is a clear indicator of it not being socialist. However, of course there may be people, including politicians, in such a country who would like socialism and promote redistribution of wealth because it is the best (in their eyes) they can realistically do.

Communism does not abolish private property. It abolishes private ownership of means of production. Huge difference.

ParkwayDrive

United States328 Posts

July 21 2012 10:57 GMT

#14

its objectively the best economic system. people have to have choices and freedom to flourish. they need reward for motivation.

the problem people have with capitalism is that it cannot fix our evil human tendencies and like any system it can be abused. this is very shortsighted. get mad art awful people, not the system that has taken us this far

HallBregg

134 Posts

July 21 2012 11:59 GMT

#15

Capitalism and free market are ok, but it needs to be regularized so things don't go out of control, i.e we don't want monopolies, or or companies of the same sector pacting prices. However in a globalized economy local goberments are losing the ability to efectively regulate capitalism. What we need are global institutions, but that is very difficuld, see for example the difficulties of the EU to create joint financial/fiscal institutions even facing the thread of an iminemt colapse of the eurozone.

Iyerbeth

England2410 Posts

July 21 2012 13:44 GMT

#16

I'm opposed to capitalism not because of it's failures and contradictions (which are numerous, and not all the result of US policy, in fact one could argue much US policy is a result of them) but because even if it could somehow overcome all of them, it is still a diseased system of unfairness in which the working class are exploited by the rich.

Djzapz

Canada10681 Posts

July 21 2012 14:22 GMT

#17

On July 21 2012 22:44 Iyerbeth wrote:
I'm opposed to capitalism not because of it's failures and contradictions (which are numerous, and not all the result of US policy, in fact one could argue much US policy is a result of them) but because even if it could somehow overcome all of them, it is still a diseased system of unfairness in which the working class are exploited by the rich.

It's easy to be opposed to stuff because of its imperfections if you don't bring anything to replace it. All the other systems have failures and contradictions - more so than capitalism, I would say.

And if you can think of the perfect system, don't forget that hypothetical societies are hypothetical. There are plenty of arguments against communism and anarchy, even though some people like to make those look good on paper by omitting a bunch of facts.

Caller

Poland8075 Posts

July 21 2012 15:15 GMT

#18

Capitalsim

[image loading]

Communsim

Capitalsin

[image loading]

Thundercats

koreasilver

9109 Posts

July 21 2012 16:27 GMT

#19

On July 21 2012 23:22 Djzapz wrote:

Show nested quote +

I suppose this is kinda where I am. I dislike capitalism as far as I hate communism, in the sense that the "pure" forms of both are absolutely insane, not to mention unrealistic.

Djzapz

Canada10681 Posts

July 21 2012 17:08 GMT

#20

On July 22 2012 01:27 koreasilver wrote:

Show nested quote +

I suppose this is kinda where I am. I dislike capitalism as far as I hate communism, in the sense that the "pure" forms of both are absolutely insane, not to mention unrealistic.

I don't see the relevance in disliking "pure" forms of economic systems when we all know that those are, like you said, unrealistic. They don't actually happen anywhere in the world. Every country in the world runs an heavily modified form of some "ism" which sometimes poorly represents the system,

I personally don't hate capitalism or communism at all. Capitalism is in large part what allows me to have a high standard of living, thanks in large part to Canada and its economic system. I absolutely love the spirit of communism, the idea behind it - but I don't think it can work in today's materialistic world.

So to the people who hate the forms of capitalism that we have in the West, understand that this economic system allows us to have the highest standard of living ever reached by people. The middle class lives better than kings and nobles did hundreds of years ago.

Capitalism may very well be unfair, but as much as I'd prefer an egalitarian society, we can't deny what it did for us. I for one don't believe that any other system could lead to as much technological progress - the progress which allows us to have all this shit. I consider myself to be a liberal, and many of my friends like to hate rich entrepreneurs. Many of them do suck, but many of them, admittedly greed-driven in most cases, do give us good stuff... Capitalism plays on that greed and gets those people to do big things.

Would people have as much of an incentive to get shit done in a communist society or in any other kind of society? I personally don't think so.

1 2 3 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Capitalsim

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming