Is Capitalism right?

Is capitalism right? I mean it's alright for people who's got lots of money ,rich and get plenty of it and they can buy and develop what they would like in life but I think it really sucks for like the 2/3rd's of the world because they havent any money and are poor. The Usa is sucking all the worlds resources through capitalism! I think this system is unfair and people that dont have money can't truely develop their life to there true potential. I think money restricts what you can and cannot do!

What are your opinions?

[edit on 22-1-2005 by Coolbreeze]

There are many economic systems that are workable solutions to the problem of managing large systems.

The Swiss are a good example of socialism, but they only have around 9 million people living there.

Any economic system (being man made) are going to have serious problems that need to be adjusted, increased, or decreased on a running basis to be workable and not oppresive.

There is no "right" aside from the honesty of the people maintaining it. There is only what form the people living under it choose to enable.

americans are doing what is good for america. If we go into a country for oil or another natural resource it doesnt matter. In my view we are simply expanding into other markets. Britian did the same thing for almost300-400 years. Even some of the jewels in the British Crown come from INdia. The rest of the world was poor back then too. We have to do what is best for america not the guy sitting in latvia.

Originally posted by benedict arnold
Britian did the same thing for almost300-400 years. Even some of the jewels in the British Crown come from INdia. The rest of the world was poor back then too. We have to do what is best for america not the guy sitting in latvia.

I thought we were supposed to be more civilised nowadays, with global travel and commerce. We can't just ignore or 'use' countries like Latvia or we just prove ourselves to be as barbaric now as we were centuries ago.

Originally posted by benedict arnold
americans are doing what is good for america. If we go into a country for oil or another natural resource it doesnt matter. In my view we are simply expanding into other markets. Britian did the same thing for almost300-400 years. Even some of the jewels in the British Crown come from INdia. The rest of the world was poor back then too. We have to do what is best for america not the guy sitting in latvia.

Apparently you don't give a damn about human rights.. profit comes first right? Profit that this war is not giving to you.

Right as in moral, or right as in the correct system?

As someone who has read most sides of the rhetoric out there, I have mixed feelings about capitalism. I observed an interesting social system out in the working world that made me question a few things about the underlying principles of capitalism. Here was the situation:

At most Dillard's stores, the sales people work an hourly wage that is adjusted every 90 days or so within -10%-+10% of their current wage (depending on their sales within that time period). Among selling their wares, their other responsibilities include mark-downs, setting up displays, folding clothes, and cleaning their respective departments. Within any given department there are 2-6 people that may be employed to work in that specific area, and major sales days there are at least 2 employees in an area.

Here was the observation:

Departments that worked together (i.e. shared their sales) collectively were docked 10% in their pay for nearly every time period; sharing the sales put none of them ahead of the other, and as a result, also put all of them below the line. On the other hand, departments that did not share their sales always had a few individuals that had their pay increased.

Sounds like a good reason not to work together, right? .. not exactly.

While the individuals that did not share were payed more, they were often viewed as rude and pushy by both employees and customers. Their work experiences were admittedly not very pleasurable, and they always had their minds stressed with respect to sales -- not many of their other responsibilities were fufilled.

Those that worked together built friendships, had fun at work, and found time to fulfill all of their other responsibilities.

I tend to think to myself, "what should human nature look like?" Most biologists tend to think humans are very social creatures, and as such, this scenario does not seem to support humans being social animals. It created more friction than cohesion. It also may come down to the notion of equality. If we all really accepted that everyone is equal, then capitalism fails. Capitalism requires inequality insofar as to say not everyone deserves the same income level per the market.

RedOctober90,
Ironically, colonial exploitation by the British tended to help more than it hurt. A quick example is the large British presence in some portions of Africa. Now, compare the living conditions of the once major British colonies in Africa (say, South Africa) to the relatively uncolonized other portions. If you go back and look at the imperialistic rhetoric, the intent was both for profit and to help the 'savages' living there. Suppose for a moment that not everyone accepts cultural relativism and support that some cultures are better than others. What would be a quick way to measure that? Perhaps we could look at the average lifespan of people in that culture.

Just some thoughts,
Radardog

radardog:

some of the blame for Africa's dismal state must be place upon the multinationals raping nations' natural resources without contributing to the welfare of the country itself.

For example: shell has been operating in Nigeria for a long time. An oil-rich state (admittedly not as rich as Iraq or Saudi Arabia) should be doing much better than they are now.

Originally posted by Coolbreeze
Is capitalism right? I mean it's alright for people who's got lots of money ,rich and get plenty of it and they can buy and develop what they would like in life but I think it really sucks for like the 2/3rd's of the world because they havent any money and are poor. The Usa is sucking all the worlds resources through capitalism! I think this system is unfair and people that dont have money can't truely develop their life to there true potential. I think money restricts what you can and cannot do!

What are your opinions?

[edit on 22-1-2005 by Coolbreeze]

I completely disagree. Capitalism is perfect for poor people just as well as rich people. Most of the self-made millionaires would tell you that there was a period in their life when they were really poor. Unlike communism, which forces everyone to be 'equally' poor regardless of how you work, capitalism is where you can take any idea you have, build it, and depending on how hard you work, get as much money as you want. My uncle on my dad's side is a perfect example. His family grew up dirt poor. They had NOTHING. My uncle started a landscaping business, sold it to start another business, grew that one and sold it for 20 million dollars. My dad owns a business, and we're doing quite well, although we're nowhere close to the millions. It's that attitude that "I'm being screwed by this evil system" that really keeps people down, not the system itself.

When you ask "Is Capitalism Right?" it is not clear, what the alternative choice would be. What then is your better solution? Also you should specify who it is right for, I assume you are referring to the United States.

I first recommend that you read this following excellent summary of ideologies before continuing to read the rest of my post:

www.nationmaster.com...


This came up in discussion recently with a friend of mine who is a political writer. You have a good question. It is not a new one, and freedom of speech defends your ability to question what is right and wrong. I commend you on this. However, I suspect you will find, that the answer is yes. It is right for us. Another question, raised by some other posters is "Is it right for other countries?" That's a separate debate thread, but also deserving credit.


Why? Let's examine the details.

According to the Nolan chart authoritarian societies completely control both the economy, and social rights. You are controlled in every step of your life. You are not aloud to decide what you want to do. You must do as the Government orders. Where you eat, where you defecate, and what toilet paper you use, are government issued. You are not aloud to use Puffy.

A capitalist market society provides for freedom of choice. Our modern Democratic Republic form of Government, and our modern political parties, fall in the middle of the Nolan chart. Libertarians believe in freedom for both economic and social decisions. Democrats and Republicans both favor free trade, to certain more detailed degrees. Modern Democrats favor more social choice such as abortion, than Republicans do.

Socialist states in Europe, as claimed by the previous poster, by imposing tolerable levels of social controls, in theory improve the morale of their people. By being less competitive they in theory are more harmonious, and are all walking around hand in and and loving each other and friendly and happy, and beautiful, and perfect. It looks nice on paper. Is that REALLY true? Who takes out their garbage? Who does the labor? There will always be a stratification of employment and wage.

The first question is, what is the right choice for the USA?

Clearly, as a nation founded on principles of freedom and equality, Capitalism is the correct choice for us. Yes there is stratification of income. But, at any given point, anyone in any income bracket can decide on their own accord with no Government regulation, to make a change in their life. Either by working hard and winning promotions, or by starting a small business and growing it, or by doing well in the stock market. There are countless stories of immigrants coming in with nothing and amassing large fortunes by hard work. The capitalist society is the society of choice. Why do I want lower taxes? So I can decide on my own where my money goes.

Socialist systems delegate the decisions to some higher authority. It seems to work on small scales with relatively low populations. It has never worked on large scales without significant corruption taking over and turning into an evil empire of control.

As long as we preach a free society, we must preach freedom of choice.

Yes, Capitalism is teh way to go.

Originally posted by Coolbreeze
Is capitalism right? I mean it's alright for people who's got lots of money ,rich and get plenty of it and they can buy and develop what they would like in life but I think it really sucks for like the 2/3rd's of the world because they havent any money and are poor. The Usa is sucking all the worlds resources through capitalism! I think this system is unfair and people that dont have money can't truely develop their life to there true potential. I think money restricts what you can and cannot do!

What are your

If you knew how to make your money work for you then I don't think you would be saying that, but you don't, so capitalism is unfair...

Plus your comments are empty if you can't back them up, do you mind elaborating on why you think the us is sucking all the world resources through capitalism?

I could go on about poor people and their money, but even they wouldn't have to work in a day in their life if they knew how to make their money work for them. Our society is totally uneducated on investing, it's dispicable. You could have anything you ever dreamed of if you only knew.

Originally posted by Herman
I completely disagree. Capitalism is perfect for poor people just as well as rich people. Most of the self-made millionaires would tell you that there was a period in their life when they were really poor.

Like this lady that was living in her car developed the head tinger and now has a profitable business www.allforlove.com worth over 10 million, or how about the welfare mom who turned self made millionaire with books and ebooks to the point where her 3rd yr in business is worth over 18 million?

You wouldn't see that in a communist country.

The opportunity isn't there because everybody is treated the same...
no better no worse.. u don't have a brain apparantly so don't try and use it to get ahead.

Unlike communism, which forces everyone to be 'equally' poor regardless of how you work, capitalism is where you can take any idea you have, build it, and depending on how hard you work, get as much money as you want.

This is true. I don't know why this is hard for people to understand.

It's that attitude that "I'm being screwed by this evil system" that really keeps people down, not the system itself.

The system works if you know how to use it right, if you learn what it's about, and how to get ahead. And it's not hard to do at all.. Even if you have no money to start out with 3,000 dollars could turn into 7,000, then 15,000 and so on and so on... Opportunity is all around you, you have to know where to look and how to think.

and you could be the stupidest person on the planet but if you know how to work the system you'll be fine.

Why do people assume that everyone will be "equally poor" in a communal based society? Thats the most pessimistic statement I've ever heard. If all your needs are met then how are you poor? Just because your not going to become obscenely wealthy doesnt mean your poor. Realistically the only legitimate beneficial sociological reason to obtain massive riches is to create further business opportunities theoretically for the benefit ot society. In a communal society opporunity is created through group effort so having consolidated wealth is redundant and no longer beneficial.

I dont see how consolidating wealth and opportunity in the hands of an elite few results in a benificial situation for me. All that results in is those same few elites having control over my life and cutting back on the freedoms I'm supposed to have under capitalism. Being able to work the system is meaningless when the system is being made to work against you by the forces in control.

Originally posted by boogyman
Why do people assume that everyone will be "equally poor" in a communal based society? Thats the most pessimistic statement I've ever heard. If all your needs are met then how are you poor? Just because your not going to become obscenely wealthy doesnt mean your poor. Realistically the only legitimate beneficial sociological reason to obtain massive riches is to create further business opportunities theoretically for the benefit ot society.

And retirement, and to live comfortably and buy material things that would make one's life fun and adventerous.

Also to point out your statement about "if all your needs are met then how are you poor, just because your not going to become obscenely wealthy doesn't mean your poor...

ok that right there is why I would never vote communist, who the hell are you to tell people that you don't need to have lot's of money in order to be rich? Not everybody thinks that way you know. I just don't agree with imposing your ideology onto others, look a cuba for christ sake...

damn...yeah viva la revolution

In a communal society opporunity is created through group effort so having consolidated wealth is redundant and no longer beneficial.

I'm sorry but if I wanted to create opportunity the first area I would be putting any effort into would be my education, expansion of knowledge, and going at it on my own. I put more trust in myself then a group who probably wouldn't get anywhere due to lack of agreement ect ect.. that list is long...

I dont see how consolidating wealth and opportunity in the hands of an elite few results in a benificial situation for me.

Then your lazy. If you can't create opportunity for yourself the way rich people do (because they are motived to do so) then you have a problem within yourself.

All that results in is those same few elites having control over my life and cutting back on the freedoms I'm supposed to have under capitalism. Being able to work the system is meaningless when the system is being made to work against you by the forces in control.

That is such horse#... go back to school and take a lesson business, entrepreneurship, and investing... damn

I say we decentralize our government and give power back to local governments. Not just states, but county and cities even. Counties and cities can even enforce unique styles of government to best fit their peoples' needs, instead of a few select people at the top deciding what's right for everyone. We could have everything from communism to capitalism to anarchy, and if you didn't like it, you could move a county or two over, and live your life just how you'd like. Nationally, we would still have an army, etc.

What do you get from a powerful, corporation-like centralized government, where decisions are made for everyone and lust for greed and power drive your country? The Bush Administration. Need anyone say more?

[edit on 20-7-2005 by bsbray11]

Capitalism will spell the death of the world, unfortunately. The system of capitalism requires an infinite amount of growth in order to survive. On a finite planet with a finite number of resources, capitalism will eventually have to come to an end before everything is consumed. Basic survival is at odds with the mechanics of capitalism and on the global scale as it is now, its only a short matter of time before things start getting worse. Global warming, extinctions, famine. They are the inevitable consequence.

Capitalism is probably the most 'moral' economic system available. If that is what you mean by right. The US has lived in a pseudo-capy style econ for nearly 400 years since the mercantile philosophy of the English while it was a colony.
The only great socialist endevours taken are FDR's New Deal which sank the US into a position only a full blown world war could solve and dragged the rest of the world into the depression. LBJ's wellfare and fight against poverty has developed a generation of lazys who tax payers must pay for.

Capitalism is ideal for Republicans, those who make around 30k-80k a year, which is why they have adopted to what amounts as the closest capitalist style economic policy amongst the two.

Besides, its counterpart, socialism, has only faired well in European countries such as France and Sweden where taxes will eat 40% of what you make. But countries like Sweden depend upon an oil and gas economy which threatens what little great socialism they have.

Who would want such government interference in their daily lives?

Originally posted by General Zapata
radardog:

some of the blame for Africa's dismal state must be place upon the multinationals raping nations' natural resources without contributing to the welfare of the country itself.

For example: shell has been operating in Nigeria for a long time. An oil-rich state (admittedly not as rich as Iraq or Saudi Arabia) should be doing much better than they are now.

But don't forget to mention the tribal conflicts that the Centralized European government solved(such as the slave trade, for the most part until it left). Or that these people were worse off than when Europeaners first arrived.
Do a quick search on worldbank.com to find out what is being done by the 'multinationals'.
Nigeria is oil rich, but the people are uneducated and as a result have had 500 oil spills over the past 15 years.

Originally posted by Frith
Capitalism will spell the death of the world, unfortunately. The system of capitalism requires an infinite amount of growth in order to survive. On a finite planet with a finite number of resources, capitalism will eventually have to come to an end before everything is consumed. Basic survival is at odds with the mechanics of capitalism and on the global scale as it is now, its only a short matter of time before things start getting worse. Global warming, extinctions, famine. They are the inevitable consequence.

whoever said resources is what carries captialism? I will agree with global warming, however, it's not capitalism that is responsible for that, it's each and every government around this world that doesn't raise their emission standards, it's not giving people incentives and benefits if they make the voluntary choice to switch to a car that doesn't run on gas...capitalism has nothing to do with that. look at the middle east, they have an abundance of oil, and their cars are so outdated, they are dirtier then modern day vehicles. and their government don't do anything about it.

so to blame global warming on capitalsm just doesn't make sense to me, plus I find it ignorant since your being so narrow minded.

Originally posted by TrueLies
whoever said resources is what carries captialism? I will agree with global warming, however, it's not capitalism that is responsible for that, it's each and every government around this world that doesn't raise their emission standards, it's not giving people incentives and benefits if they make the voluntary choice to switch to a car that doesn't run on gas...capitalism has nothing to do with that. look at the middle east, they have an abundance of oil, and their cars are so outdated, they are dirtier then modern day vehicles. and their government don't do anything about it.

so to blame global warming on capitalsm just doesn't make sense to me, plus I find it ignorant since your being so narrow minded.

Please. Capitalism in its current form and usage is precisely why we find ourselves in the predicament we are in. Our governemnts are to blame, and they are primarily capitalist governments.

[edit on 21-7-2005 by Frith]

[edit on 21-7-2005 by Frith]