[Closed] Capitalism

can i point you here for a forum of folks who will eat up that kind of question.

http://www.greylabyrinth.com/discussion

"I hate capitalism" = "I hate people with more money than I do, especially football players".

Capitalism is aimed at making most people poor, not making people wealthy. The ultimate goal is to own it all. It is essentially anti-social.

I think no singular ideology will work, a mix is needed.

The Shock Doctrine on 4OD at the moment gives a few good examples of 'real' capitalism and its consequences

1) Yes
2)Yes greed need not be the only motivation for selling things
3) yes but greedy people always get to the top and want more than their fair share. Would you let someone have 95 % of a cake and then accept the rest be shared out amongst hundreds of you? that is called a workplace I believe.
4) The history of capitalism is the history of boom and bust.
5) Perhaps not for each individual as some would be worse off. However I would rather live in a fair world. i would extend that wealth out globally as we are the sixth richest country on the planet.

In capitalism for there to be the odd wealth winners there must be millions/billions of loosers do you think that is fair? Most of those in this country have inherited their wealth down the centuries as well and it is a long way from a meritocracy of wealth. IIRC the top 1% own 95% of the wealth of the world.

Capitalism is aimed at making most people poor

That implies that capitalism is like some sort of franchise that we sign up to. Surely it is in fact the principle that any surpluses from our labours can be used to invest where we choose.

Unless done by co-ercion, capitalists can only take what they are given, surely?

Capitalism is aimed at making most people poor, not making people wealthy. The ultimate goal is to own it all. It is essentially anti-social.

utter cockwash.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-QfUaGIeTUeo7bmKnbGv0j17ZRAD9I8V4I82

The share of the population of developing regions whose people live in extreme poverty is expected to fall to 15 percent by 2015, down from 46 percent in 1990, according to the United Nations. The gains stem largely from robust economic growth in countries such as China and India, the world's two most populous countries.

That would be [i]capitalist[/i] driven economic growth....

Now you can bitch all you want about relative poverty in the shape of inequality (as the Left is inclined to do so - "aspiration" being anathema to the Left. Shin-kicking envy being more their thing)

But absolute poverty is reduced through economic growth.

well you need to feed your workers to exploit them dont you stoner 🙄

Surely it is in fact the principle that any surpluses from our labours can be used to invest where we choose.

I bow my head in shame for disliking inequality I should be more selfish I should be more selfish I should be more selfish. No need to insult people who disagree with you. Imagine wanting things to be shared out evenly ...certainly not a message we teach our children now that one.

I think we have ample evidence that capitalism as currently formulated is a busted flush 🙁 You only have to look to the record bonuses still being paid to see it's hopelessly corrupt 🙁

If comunism is the politics of socialism?

What are the politics of capitalism?

Its not Fascism, the economics of that would be capitalism with a strong government, as opposed to the tories (and nu-labour) laises-faire attitude. But then arguably comunism is a strong government involvement in a socialist economy?

Is it possible to be capitalist without beign fascist?

In capitalism for their to be the odd wealth winners there must be millions/billions of loosers do you think that is fair

I think that the reason we have such massive inequalities is not a syptom of the inherent nature of the free market but rather a symptom of the government interventions we have to deal with on a daily basis. If you want to start a tv company, you have to buy a licence costing a fortune, companies have the protection of the governement through corporation status, governments can control huge swathes of money by extorting it from us and spending it on weapons. Protectionism ensures that most markets are far from free.

I think we have got rather carried away with the idea of capitalism as the root of all evil.

Imagine we are a tribe. Each day we go out and pick berries but we can only carry enough to fee us for one day. Then some bright spark forsakes a couple of days worth of berries and creates a basket. Now he can pick enough berries to keep him going for a few days or... even better he can swap other peoples berries for baskets that he has made. Now, I don't want to get into the intricacies of how many berries we can take from the forest before it starts to damage the forest but surely by making baskets we actually give people more time to innovate and make bigger better baskets.

That of course is until such tome as someone comes along and demand half our berries and baskets so they can give them to someone else.

Simplistic I know but you get the point.

You only have to look to the record bonuses still being paid to see it's hopelessly corrupt

Hopelessly corrupt indeed. Now, if those corporations did not have the protection of ltd status and the directors had to pay the deficits out of their own pockets, potentially going to jail for what they have done, things would be a lot different. But whose fault is that, the bankers or the government?

@ Stoner

From the article you posted:

In India, the government runs a massive social welfare program that guarantees all rural families 100 days of work a year at a wage of 100 rupees (about $2) a day.

Hardly a capitalist policy

That implies that capitalism is like some sort of franchise that we sign up to.

It implies nothing of the sort.

Unless done by co-ercion, capitalists can only take what they are given, surely?

Coercion doesn't have to be directly applied. Advertisers targeting parents through through emotional manipulation by their children could be considered (mild) coercion.

Imagine wanting things to be shared out evenly

This may be the worst thing I could possibly say but... we are not all equal. I certainly believe in safety nets, but not handouts.

Lifer - and where do you think the state funds come from to pay for such largesse? The Indian tax code is the largest in the world....

Economic growth in the country as a whole has enabled India to do more for those outside of the concentrated development areas. Taxation is a redistributive mechanism both economically and geographically.

A $2bn tax windfall from a recnt Vodafone corporate deal will help too I think. Capitalism is the mechanism that is funding social security again.

Low taxation is not a pre-requisite for capitalism. High taxation can kill off capitalism though.

[

the reason we have such massive inequalities is not a syptom[sic] of the inherent nature of the free market but rather a symptom of the government interventions we have to deal with on a daily basis

Children working and dying as it was cheaper as one example of the unfettered market in operation.

I agree, but I would argue that that was a crime and one of the few useful roles of government is to stop crimes being perpetrated upon innocent people.

Without the industrial revolution we would be still be working the land.

Advertisers targeting parents through through emotional manipulation by their children could be considered (mild) coercion.

Advertisers do not force anyone to do anything. If people cannot say no to their kids, that is their problem.

Junkyard, I think this article could have been written just for you:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-industrial-revolution-working-class-poverty-or-prosperity/

Advertisers do not force anyone to do anything. If people cannot say no to their kids, that is their problem.

I didn't say that they did. Saying that something shouldn't happen is not the same as saying that something doesn't happen.

Capitalism is fine as long as it's regulated. For unregulated capitalism, look no further than the drug trade in Mexico...Having said that, you can't enshrine in law a profit motive in companies, and then expect them to act morally...

redistribution of wealth...depends if you're having the wealth distributed to or from you really, doesn't it?

Let me clarify, coercion is the process of making people do things against their will. Advertisers cannot force people to do anything therefore they do not coerce, even mildly.

"aspiration" being anathema to the Left.

Really? Care to try to prove this?

Typical selective quoting from you there Stoner. That same article also suggests that poverty rates are actually rising in other areas. One being the Middle East, an area ravaged by recent war and instability. I'd hazard a guess that ****stan will see an enormous increase in poverty and suffering. I can't see rampant Capitalism helping that region any time soon.

In fact, it is Capitalism that has caused much of today's poverty, or at least exacerbated it. Much of Africa lies in extreme poverty, yet corporations have gained incredible wealth from the exploitation of it's people and resources.

Not surprised that an accountant is defending Capitalism though. 😀

drug trade in Mexico

Surely the international pressure to create laws that restrict the sale and production of drugs creates one of the least free markets there is?

As for which direction the distribution is going, it benefits humankind to redistribute to a certain extent as it helps to prevent crime and keeps consciences clean. I currently do one weeks work per year purely for charity. If I had more control over the fruits of my labour (ie wasn't robbed for half of my productivity) I would certainly be able to afford to do more.

Let me clarify, coercion is the process of making people do things against their [b]will[/b]. Advertisers cannot force people to do anything therefore they do not coerce, even mildly.

Interesting subject that. Loads of arguments in there I'm sure. But maybe advertisers/ing break down peoples' [i]will[/i], so that they have little power left when making economic judgements.

The drugs trade although heavily policed is conducted entirely outside all regulations. Huge profits untrammelled by any Govt. interference, it's essentially the only properly 'free' market

but not handouts

except to banks and bankers ?

yet corporations have gained incredible wealth from the exploitation of it's people and resources

Under the oh so charitable and watchful eyes of the IMF, the World Bank (both supposed free market entities who exist purely as a result of the sanction of governments), Governments from around the world and the corrupt goverments of the countries that have been exploited. Not to mention the state interventions across the world in wars and protectionism. All done with our cash. Nice.

I like Capitalism, all your sentences run into one another otherwise.

except to banks and bankers?

Do what? As said before, without the protection of the Governments of the world, things would be very different for the bankers and I for one wish they were.

But maybe advertisers/ing break down peoples' will, so that they have little power left when making economic judgements.

So we should ban advertising?

Huge profits untrammelled by any Govt. interference

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan ]
Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since the downfall of the Taliban in 2001[/url]

Drugs are used to criminalise and control and are one of the many weapons of Government against free people. There are thousand of sources to support that. The fact that you get put in proson for dealing pushes up the price to the point where addicts turn to crime, and all sorts of other problems. Decriminalise the lot I say, I am sure the people of Mexico would thank you.

Decriminalise the lot I say, I am sure the people of Mexico would thank you.

Off topic, but why decriminalise instead of full legalisation? Or is that what you mean?

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Don't know
4) Probably
5) Possibly

Or is that what you mean?

Yeah, that is what I mean! Drug addicts may be sick but they are rarely criminals.

I like Capitalism, all your sentences run into one another otherwise.

😀

So we should ban advertising?

Interesting question. Tobacco and alcohol advertising is severely restricted in the UK and many other places, as it's deemed there is a link between advertising and health issues relating to tobacco and alcohol.

Supermarkets are criticised for using 'pester power' by putting sweets next to checkouts. Heavy duty merchandising influences children, for sure. They don't just want Lego, they want Harry Potter or Star Wars Lego. Indeed, commercialism influences popular culture: Computer games turned into films, films (Return of the Jedi) made simply to generate revenue from merchandising. Sports stadia carrying the names of their corporate sponsors (Emirates, Reebok and JJB stadiums). Our culture is so consumerist it's scary.

This website exists because of commercial interest.

Tricky one...

I have had the jingle from that !$$%^ Go Compare advert in my head all afternoon, driving up the ****ing wall but I would not deign to ban it.

[i]Yeah, that is what I mean! Drug addicts may be sick but they are rarely criminals.[/i]

Don't be dim...

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/faqs/faqpages/how-much-crime-is-drug-related.htm

and I for one wish they were.

sorry, mine was a drive-by remark!

From your link, the main source of drug related crime:

* People who use or supply illegal drugs getting caught – see How many people are convicted of drug offences?

* People who commit violent offences while under the influence of drugs, particularly alcohol. Drunkenness is associated with a majority of murders, manslaughters and stabbings and half of domestic assaults.

* Alcohol and drug-related driving offences.

* Violence involving drug dealers who may clash with rival gangs or be violent towards drug users who owe them money.

I would suggest it is not me being dim here...

and, for a bonus point it states on that link that...

Most people who use illegal drugs (the majority are non-problematic users) do not commit crimes to get money to pay for the drugs.

Do you read the daily mail? 😉

Answers [url= http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6iGskSr6GtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=marx&hl=en&ei=TeaYTO3eBZSSjAfqs9gl&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false ]here[/url]

Answers here

I thought it was pretty much agreed throughout the world that Marx did not supply the answer because it relied on the ability of individuals and the elite to wield incredible power responsibly.

I could be wrong...