It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: crazyewok
So does communism where everyone is "equal" but some are more equal than others.
All economic systems suck.
Capitalism is just the one that sucks slightly less.
Hopefully we can find a better system one day but until that time we are stuck with capitalism.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: JAY1980
You, like many americans, give capitalism too much credit. You have never actually even had it, nobody has, but you still laude it and want to attribute america's success to it.
You, like many americans, give capitalism too much credit. You have never actually even had it, nobody has, but you still laude it and want to attribute america's success to it.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: daskakik
You, like many americans, give capitalism too much credit. You have never actually even had it, nobody has, but you still laude it and want to attribute america's success to it.
You, like many americans, do not give it enough credit. You've never lived without it and have taken it for granted.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: lawman27
The OP's point is, since that is inevitable, we shouldnt blame the poor for being poor anymore than we should blame an old person for not being young.
Resources are not as finite as one might think, that is the point everyone is missing, and it is an excuse people latch on to. You bring up an interesting point... what is poor? Why is poor bad or good, same with wealthy? There is no blame game just reality that people do not achieve all they want to in life...There are happy people with little and sad people a much, so when someone complains about where they are in life that is something they need to get over.
I think we use the word poor too freely and we call 50% of America poor, but poor based on desires is a lot different than poor based on survival.
I'm not american so there goes that argument.
Free market capitalism has never existed at the national level of any country. Large businesses and governments always meddle in the marketplace and influence things.
You are correct. Our current form of "capitalism" relies on a cheap labor force and cheap materials in order to maximize profit. In return, it relies on socialism to care for their workforce because they are unwilling to raise their wages to the point where they can sustain themselves.
originally posted by: lawman27
I dont want to argue for the sake of it, but I think you will find resources are finite. In fact, thats the basis of our economy. If there was an infinite amount of gold, it would be worthless. The same is true of any resource you care to name, whether its water, land, chickens, whatever. Thats why inequality is inevitable. If you build yourself a 100 room mansion with 300 acres of garden, a lot of people will go homeless, because you have just raised the price of land beyond their means.
unless we come up with some way of making resources effectively infinite, more for you will always mean less for someone else.
Having said that, you make a valid point. Provided you have enough, happiness doesnt need to be linked to wealth. As yet, nobody has invented a system that provides a decent basic standard of living AND opportunity.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Sorry for the assumption. You like many westerners.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert
You are correct. Our current form of "capitalism" relies on a cheap labor force and cheap materials in order to maximize profit. In return, it relies on socialism to care for their workforce because they are unwilling to raise their wages to the point where they can sustain themselves.
Welfare is not socialism. Taxes is not socialism. Therefor, capitalism doesn't rely on socialism.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
I started off enlisted in the military, had roommates until my 30s, reset everything after a divorce at 39 and today I'm top 5% wage earner. How? Just kept going getting better and better though life.
I see so many young like the 99%ers who have the I want it all now! attitude. They expected that 100,000 job out of school...
They don't get it and it becomes an inequality thing...
originally posted by: jjkenobi
I love when people talk about minimum wage in the USA. I'm not sure if they realize how very few people actually make minimum wage. Wal-Mart, McDonalds, all hire in at above minimum wage. 3.3 million according to Google make Min wage (or less), but that includes workers who collect tips. So abouts 1%. And an unknown number of them receive tips that may or may not push them above min. wage.
Anyone who wants to in the USA can earn as much as they want. The key work is WANT to. In my opinion that's the key difference between Capitalism and the others.
originally posted by: Aazadan
$100,000 today has roughly double the purchasing power of what minimum wage had back in 1970, which would be the equivalent of $4/hour back then, or $8000/year. Back then, $100k was something impressive, but the $100k from back then is more like $1,000,000/year today.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert
You are correct. Our current form of "capitalism" relies on a cheap labor force and cheap materials in order to maximize profit. In return, it relies on socialism to care for their workforce because they are unwilling to raise their wages to the point where they can sustain themselves.
Welfare is not socialism. Taxes is not socialism. Therefor, capitalism doesn't rely on socialism.
I respectfully disagree. At it's basic root, welfare is socialist in nature. You are using the collective wealth of a nation to provide for those that are in need. Certain taxes are socialist as well.
No matter, this opens up into a topic I find very interesting and that is socialism vs. welfare capitalism. In doing so, you find the inherent problems with both systems and a need for a good mix between the two.