Unregulated Capitalism does not give opportunity to all

Originally posted by FIFIGI
Unregulated free market would acquire and make scarce everything, so they can sell it for higher price.

It probably would not "make scarce everything".

But please explain how you think it would.

*Also, making a profit is good - otherwise you are working for free; like a slave or a moron.



[edit on 10-1-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I very strongly object to the intellectually dishonest title "unregulated capitalism". Even though capitalism isn't regulated by the government it is strongly and far more efficiently regulated by the consumers themselves by using their dollars as votes and the stores as the ballot box.

My argument is the market-regulated capitalism most certainly does give opportunity to every man, woman, and child on the planet. The only thing that would stop those opportunities is a physical disability, and it would have to be quite extreme.

EDIT: I don't advocate unregulated capitalism because that is an impossible self-contradiction. What I advocate strongly is market-regulated (consumer-regulated) capitalism.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by truthquest]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The problem is that the difference between rich(subjective, i know) and poor(again, subjective) is divided by a gigantic gap.

Depending on the size of a family, I dont think that most people would consider making $100k rich. One single person making that much, maybe but a family of 4, would not be considered rich. Fed, clothed and entertained, maybe...but not rich. So based on the govts own stats(as of 2000, most current census data) roughly 12 million of the 105 million households make more than $100k per year. 12.3% make over $100k and the other 87.7% make under 100k. And 58.1% are making under $50k per year. Now keep in mind these are households, not individuals.

58.1% of households make under $50k/year, these are families, trying to feed, clothe and put their kids into college.

2.52 million households our of 105 million make over 200k.



I think what SG is trying to say is that it is a tiny percentage of the population that ever makes it to "rich" let alone comfortable. And while everyone may have the opportunity to become wealthy, the fact of the matter is that most will spend their whole lives working very, very hard only to find out as an old man or women, that they are still living pay check to pay check and will be on a very limited income when retirement time comes. We have social security because prior to its inception, many older people starved and froze to death in the winter because their age prevented them from a source of income. Reminiscing about the old days and complaining about kids these days does not pay very well.

SG is also making the point that capitalism cannot work without a large majority of workers underneath them to support the wealth at the top and that is FACT. But it is the happiness of that large majority that matters. What we have seen over the years is fluctuations in the "middle class". Most people expect very little out of life, food, water, clothing, transportation, and a feeling of safety and security for themselves and their children. When the majority of the people are within a "middle class" that provides them with all of these things, plus a little money into savings, i think most are content with the system. But when we enter into times where that middle class shrinks and we are left with haves and have nots, it becomes a serious problem.

I may be trashed on this thread for saying it but I think that income should be capped. I cannot say at what level but nobody NEEDS billions of dollars. They(myself included) may WANT it but I nor does anyone else need that much money. Greed is programmed into us, we are designed to hoard resources(money buys resources), in order to prolong and ensure our own survival. But as we gain more resources, eventually we begin to take from someone else. There is a finite supply of every resource, including monies. Wealth distribution is not a bad thing. Teachers are more important that actors but guess who gets paid more.

We cant all be managers or CEOs making huge sums of money. Who is doing the work that pays the managers salary? Now, if more businesses adapted a socialist system within the work place, you would see many more people happy with capitalism.

If a CEO decides that within his own company, that the top paid employee can only make 5% more than the lowest paid worker, you would have a large number of happy employees.

But a business is not held accountable by its workers, it is accountable to the share holders. And increasing profit margins to provide a better return(dividend) to the share holders is the main goal. If a CEO tried to do this the board and its shareholders would complain that the business was not being efficient enough because the janitor makes 5% less than the CEO or any of the other managers.

Capitalism is not perfect, communism is not perfect, socialism is not perfect. All of these economic theories have failed miserably at defining and calculating one important variable...people. People are programmed to be greedy and that is the downfall of all of those systems. On paper communism works, same with capitalism but once you implement the human element and greed, those systems become corrupted and flawed. The whole idea of implementing regulation in capitalism, is to try to curb greed, the major flaw that the invisible hand cannot touch.

Census Source

Wiki Link

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Capitalism does not require a "working class" in order to survive. Its survival is predicated on a free and unregulated market, massive competition and a stable currency backed by real wealth where everyone can agree on what the value is. It is the free and open exchange of goods and services in the market place and does not at all demand there be a working class in order to survive.

this is an excellent example how uneducated people are, and cannot comprehend even the basics...

if the working class is not needed, who would work then? who would go to factories every morning to create those goods that are traded in capitalism? brokers? mr. trump?



[edit on 10-1-2010 by donhuangenaro]

what is it when a elite rich (some with inherited money)group of non producers are able put whole groups of the working class on the unemployment lines.

what i am talking about is the big wigs behind the environmental movement and there bought off politicians.
and the stupid laws they have made that are wreaking the US.

Calif is a perfect example of this. they have wreaked the state by driving business out of the state to the point the state is going broke.

And Teresa Heinz is a example of the rich elite
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by donhuangenaro

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Capitalism does not require a "working class" in order to survive. Its survival is predicated on a free and unregulated market, massive competition and a stable currency backed by real wealth where everyone can agree on what the value is. It is the free and open exchange of goods and services in the market place and does not at all demand there be a working class in order to survive.

this is an excellent example how uneducated people are, and cannot comprehend even the basics...

if the working class is not needed, who would work then? who would go to factories every morning to create those things that are traded in capitalism?

This is an excellent example of how an education won't make you any better at thinking. If capitalism is predicated on massive competition then mathematically it can be deduced that there are multitudes of business owners who are operating their own businesses. Because there are numerous small businesses, the need for workers is not as prevalent as those operating their own businesses are more interested in keeping their costs down than perpetuating a mindless Marxist proletariat.

Of course, this is just simple math. Probably not a good idea to complicate the matter and begin discussing the math of supply and demand, or even more complicated by discussing supply side economics, as that would require some real thought.

reply to post by iamcamouflage


I agree, no system is perfect and whichever way you cut it there is one major variable - people.
People will always vary in their intelligence, skills, health, abilities, personality, advantages/disadvantages in upbringing, genetic inheritance, luck even... The list is endless.
A job interview I had a while back says it all. This was with a workers co-operative where everyone gets the same pay. The ultimate socialist dream? But even companies like that hold job interviews to weed out the more able, the more suited in terms of personality etc. And they acknowledged they were looking for one particular skill set at the time. Competition and selection are a fact of life..
The fact is there will never be a level playing field and you can't make it so. You can try to give out as many opportunities as possible but the above factors will always come into play.
Interesting notion about capping salaries though. But would this result in more money percolating down to the have-nots? Isn't this what higher rates of taxation are supposed to be about?



[edit on 10-1-2010 by unicorn1]

Oh yes, unregulated capitalism is the silver bullet to our problems? The "right," has been trumpeting this mantra for as long as I can remember. However, we see what their unregulated capitalism model has done to the country, and most recently I might add.

Look no further than, the Bush Administration and his deregulation campaign while in office. I applaud success and wealth acquisition, but the same people that are touting their ideal of unregulated capitalism are the same people that are in position to profit from it. Regulation is just a means to level the playing field, and to keep all avenues open for those who wish to ascend to a higher plateau in the economy.

Here is unregulated capitalism in a nutshell. For example, Larry makes widgets, however, he is tired of paying James to truck his goods to market, and Larry has more capital and collateral than James, so he uses his clout to buy him out. So, James loses his business and Larry corners the market further. Now the price of tires has gone up for Larry's trucking fleet, so he goes to some rubber producing country and buys the local rubber manufacturing company.

Yet, again, Larry continues to corner the market and liquidate the competition. This behavior continues until Larry owns everything in the arena of the widget business. Then anyone that wants to do business in widgets has to go through Larry or his heirs. Kind of difficult for an aspiring entrepreneur to get a leg up in that climate, when in an instant one puts their head up to test the waters, the big corporate juggernaut hacks off their head before they even have a chance.

That climate only shudders competition and ingenuity, for the sake of a few to increase production and wealth. Look no further at how unregulated capitalism works than with the Standard Oil anti-trust case at the beginning of the last century.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, the "so called right," say that they are out for a capitalistic economy were everyone has a fair chance to succeed. However, if that is the case, tell me why they condoned the banking bailout programs from a year ago? I thought the market dictates the survival of a company, rather than the government? If the market is the sole decider, as they would like to have, then every insolvent financial institution, auto maker, insurance company, or any other industry affected by the melt down, should have failed and gone out of business.

In capitalism, no company or corporation is too big to fail. However, that same one percent who have all the wealth and stature who have roles in government and corporate America would have lost a lot of money if they let those companies fall. So, as a result of that, they chose to meddle in the economy, and save their wealth. If the market was allowed to take its course, new companies would have arisen to take the place of the fallen and better than they were before.

Of course, times would have been hard for the working class, but if the economic correction was allowed to take its course it would have made the economy even stronger and nimble with time. New opportunities would have been born from it as well.

So, in other words, the anti-regulators were nothing more than regulators, and they regulated a collapse on who would survive and who would fail regardless of what the market dictated. Not to thrash the "right," exclusively, because this is not a finger pointing game. The "left," was involved in that bailout as well. Both sides profit one way or another by regulation or deregulation, because they have the power to manipulate the market at any given time.

So, to put it simply, what is lacking in capitalism is the notion of integrity, fair play, and an open market for upward mobility for all willing to try. However, all I see right now, is a select few, gobbling up every asset they can in the melee caused by the collapse, while repositioning themselves to profit from it, and corner the market.

My view on the subject is that all should have an opportunity for a seat at the table in a free and open market, not a select few who at times brush off crumbs to their underlings below. Sadly, with the bailout and other manipulations by government and the "Masters of the Universe" in corporate America it has destroyed the free-market and the very essence of capitalism.




[edit on 10-1-2010 by Jakes51]

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I very strongly object to the intellectually dishonest title "unregulated capitalism". Even though capitalism isn't regulated by the government it is strongly and far more efficiently regulated by the consumers themselves by using their dollars as votes and the stores as the ballot box.

My argument is the market-regulated capitalism most certainly does give opportunity to every man, woman, and child on the planet. The only thing that would stop those opportunities is a physical disability, and it would have to be quite extreme.

EDIT: I don't advocate unregulated capitalism because that is an impossible self-contradiction. What I advocate strongly is market-regulated (consumer-regulated) capitalism.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by truthquest]

The entire motivation behind pure capitalism is selfishness and greed. It accepts that in order for there to be winners there must also be losers. This is not a workable solution for a well-functioning society. Also, according to the "laws of marketing" any segment of the market will always end in 2 major players, and if monopolies were allowed, there would eventually only be one. A system of pure competition will end just like the olympics... one gold, one silver, one bronze, and all the rest losers.

Plus, you can't rely on the consumers to do what is best for the society or country... each man will only do what is good for them. There will be no social conscience or doing what is good for the "common good." Also, consumers are easily fooled by sophisticated advertising and mind-manipulation techniques, such as subliminal messages, and conversational hypnosis. This system breeds the very worst features of mankind, namely self-centered perspective, greed, pride, manipulation, lying, and irresponsible corporatism.

On the other hand, socialism kills the human spirit, and zaps the will to advance or innovate. It does nothing to enable individual progress or reaching one's potential.

The only system that will work over the long-haul is a well-balanced mixture of both extremes, for only that kind of system fulfills the needs of both the individuals and the collective.

Any workable system must highly encourage individual fulfillment and success, in the context of building societal progress, which must also be defined by the people themselves. Once the people decide the framework for how the societal needs should be met, regulations should be in place to ensure compliance. If society wants to change how things are done, there should be an inviolable and accessible mechanism for doing so.

In other words, what kind of society do the people want? Do they want an advanced and beautiful infrastructure? Do they want to give all people the opportunity for advanced education? Do they want to support artistic endeavors for the beautification of the society? Do they want to ensure that all people have a minimum standard of living? Do they want life to be protected? How do they want criminals to be dealt with?


[edit on 10-1-2010 by downisreallyup]

Capitalism in the form we know it is forever doomed to failure.

There is one thing that can cure that: STOPPING SENSE!

Until the business schools, and society in general come to understand that they must impress upon everyone the importance of stopping sense, of knowing how much is enough, of teaching ALTRUISM and not STINGINESS, then capitalism and capitalistic systems are destined to appear and after a couple of hundred years be destroyed by the masses who have had opportunity ripped from them by people who do not understand when to quit.

A Presbyterian pastor told me a story one time that has stuck in my mind as the best description of what happens:

Put 100 people in a room. In the room is a table with 10 chairs. The only rule is that you cannot eat unless you have a seat at the table. Common sense would say that 10 people would eat, then get up and give 10 more people the opportunity to eat. The current implementation of capitalism however when viewed in the context of the room shows that 10 people fight their way to the table, and you can come crawling up starving to death and the person with a seat will kick you away and keep eating. Eventually the 90 will rise up, and overpower the 10 at the table. It is difficult to do when starving and virtually powerless, however desperate men do desperate things and the masses eventually overcome.

This is the reason the wealthy and powerful want government control of everything. They believe they can retain power and wealth and hand it down through generations if only they can subvert freedom and exert physical and psychological control of the masses. History has proven it does not work. Currently about 95% or more of everything there is to own in the U.S. is owned by 1% of the population. As the wealth becomes more and more concentrated into the hands of a few, the anger will grow and the 99% instead of admiring the 1% for their success will come to realize they have been duped and rebel. The rebellion is fermenting these days as the wealthy attempt to take our freedoms while at the same time walling themselves up in protected communities. The two political parties are one and the same and are controlled by the super wealthy. That is becoming more and more apparent as time passes and they attempt to take our freedoms. What will be the spark that ignites the rebellion? The one thing that will trigger it? When they attempt to take the firearms from the people. It is the next step. It must not and will not be allowed. There will be blood flowing but it seems that is the only thing that will save the common man.

Originally posted by Stewie
Young friend,
You should be immensely thankful for the opportunities you have. They will not last, precisely because you do not realize their worth.
Easy come, easy go. YOU did not earn the opportunities you have, so...
Easy come, easy go.

I am not sure you will understand what I am saying, but I will try...

My father died when I was 5 years old, leaving 5 children under 10. He was an engineer and the sole breadwinner (my mom was busy with kids). This was years ago, before "no bum left behind", and I thank god he was a vet and my mom was strong.
STILL, we had to work hard if we wanted anything at all above the subsistence level.
I got up at 4 am for a paper route, before school, in any weather. I had to BUY the papers and collect money door to door to pay for them and keep some for ourselves. If someone skipped out, I didn't get paid.
I collected bottles for the 2 cents a bottle I could get redeeming them.
Long story short, I worked my way up, bought a small business on payments and eventually opened two more stores.
Many people said, you can't do it. You are just a poor guy from a poor neighborhood. Smoke some dope, you'll feel better. I have already outlived many of my friends, and I am under 55, because they had no hope, I guess....
The point:
I had opportunity. I was HUNGRY.
I was fortunate to have been born into a country where there was free commerce, or capitalism. I was never told it is unlawful to go into a certain business because of my family name. I was not forced into working for the "state", or on a farm hundreds of miles from a police-state township. It was a free market. It still is, for now.

Be a vista volunteer for a few years, then come back and we will chat.

I hear that.

I too was fortunate to of been hungry and made money by hard work and effort in a hostile environment.
I'm not even half-way there but I know the hard-work and commitment I've put in has stood me in good stead so far. I wouldn't be where I am now if it wasn't for capitalism.
Oh and to even get to this stage I started with nothing but the money I earned in a low-paid job and living 'on the road' so to speak.

Capitalism WORKS but it's got to be laissez-faire capitalism.
Even dyed in the wool socialists (albeit laissez-faire) agree that regulation is a bad thing in either a left or right-wing environment with capitalism.

LET IT BE!

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Its what Marx calls the false class consciousnes. we have the same in the UK. People are led to believe if they work hard they can share in the wealth created, they ignore the fact that they have not recieved the same advantages of those who hold the positions of power within our society.

I see a strange web:

1) A class that must support itself through inherited advantage that would not necessarily fare well in a level playing field. They actually fear real competition with individuals who might comprise 2) and 3).

2) A subgroup at this level (not all at this level) convinced that they're more like or have the opportunity to be like 1) and provided with 3) as individuals to look down upon, believing that 1) has actually earned its position by hard work, is essential and thus deserves it and 3) just doesn't deserve anything especially not at its expense. 2) gladly supports 1) in the same way 2) believes it supports 3). 2) also assumes itself to have a natural entitlement to survival thus is deluded into not seeing that they are also subject to being selected out. 2) May complain and campaign against assistance while simultaneously receiving it, likely under a more appealing name. Obviously there is some inherited advantage here over 3).

3) Those seen by 2) as beneath contempt while 1) really doesn't care about 2) or 3) except as a tool to pit against one against the other. "Have nots" or "just won'ts". 3) looks up to 2), 2) is in fear of 3) taking what it has. If the roadblocks are not there, look out 1) and 2). Alot of potential goes untapped here.

I hope you can make sense of all that mutual self-reference. I don't think it's quite complete but it gets my point across.

Originally posted by expat2368
Capitalism in the form we know it is forever doomed to failure.

There is one thing that can cure that: STOPPING SENSE!

Until the business schools, and society in general come to understand that they must impress upon everyone the importance of stopping sense, of knowing how much is enough, of teaching ALTRUISM and not STINGINESS, then capitalism and capitalistic systems are destined to appear and after a couple of hundred years be destroyed by the masses who have had opportunity ripped from them by people who do not understand when to quit.

A Presbyterian pastor told me a story one time that has stuck in my mind as the best description of what happens:

Put 100 people in a room. In the room is a table with 10 chairs. The only rule is that you cannot eat unless you have a seat at the table. Common sense would say that 10 people would eat, then get up and give 10 more people the opportunity to eat. The current implementation of capitalism however when viewed in the context of the room shows that 10 people fight their way to the table, and you can come crawling up starving to death and the person with a seat will kick you away and keep eating. Eventually the 90 will rise up, and overpower the 10 at the table. It is difficult to do when starving and virtually powerless, however desperate men do desperate things and the masses eventually overcome.

This is the reason the wealthy and powerful want government control of everything. They believe they can retain power and wealth and hand it down through generations if only they can subvert freedom and exert physical and psychological control of the masses. History has proven it does not work. Currently about 95% or more of everything there is to own in the U.S. is owned by 1% of the population. As the wealth becomes more and more concentrated into the hands of a few, the anger will grow and the 99% instead of admiring the 1% for their success will come to realize they have been duped and rebel. The rebellion is fermenting these days as the wealthy attempt to take our freedoms while at the same time walling themselves up in protected communities. The two political parties are one and the same and are controlled by the super wealthy. That is becoming more and more apparent as time passes and they attempt to take our freedoms. What will be the spark that ignites the rebellion? The one thing that will trigger it? When they attempt to take the firearms from the people. It is the next step. It must not and will not be allowed. There will be blood flowing but it seems that is the only thing that will save the common man.

Well stated! Flag for you!

reply to post by iamcamouflage


I, quite frankly, don't understand why you people who rail against capitalism use the old canard that only a few get rich. There is no time in history when the "working class" ever got rich, and there never will be a time when they will. One has a much better chance of prosperity by developing their own business that they control than relying upon someone else to provide them with a living. Does this really need to be explained?

You can point to all the figures and percentages you want to illustrate the wealth gap and it won't make the "working class" any wealthier. Furthermore, as I have all ready stated, there are countless people who have chosen to go into professions such as teaching who did not go into to this profession to get rich. They did so because they had a passion, or at the very least an interest in teaching.

Their success is not measured by how much money they make but by how influential they were with their students and all your facts and figures that aim towards defining success in terms of top 10% wealth, do a great disservice to all those teachers who have served your community well. What utter disregard you show them by pretending that they are not successful simply because they are not rich.

The same goes for the nursing profession, or mechanics or pool cleaners, or landscapers, or exterminators, restaurateurs, small grocery store proprietors, furniture proprietors, and so on. All of these people will provide a necessary and valuable service to your community, providing need products but will not get rich doing so, some might, but most won't. Even so, you would gladly dismiss their efforts as unsuccessful simply because they don't fit into the top 10% of wealthy individuals.

You further make the erroneous assumption that the O.P.'s simplistic assertions need explaining. I fully understand what the O.P. is trying to say and I think that poster is not just wrong, but is relying upon fallacious arguments in order to convince people such as you that the simplicity he or she is relying upon is valid.

If you are trashed in this thread for suggesting a income cap it would be because your suggestion is anti freedom and tyrannical. Economies are not pies with a limited amount of slices to go around for everybody, and they are as malleable and as productive as the effort put into them. They operate on simple dictates such as supply and demand, but even then can be worked so that supply side economics can create even more wealth if predicted properly.

If you want to be a worker yourself this is your choice, but you have no right to limit the choices of others and insist that all they can ever hope to accomplish is to work for somebody else. The only way such a scenario could ever be true is by prohibiting or so heavily regulating business as to not allow anyone except for the insanely wealthy to enter the market place.

If you don't want to go into business for yourself, you don't have to, but what right do you have to declare that everyone else does not deserve a life any better than a worker? If labor wants to really know the true value of labor then let the worker go into business for his or herself and let them sign paychecks on the front rather than the back of those checks. Then, and only then, will they know the true value of labor.


[edit on 10-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

america, the failed experiment.


STEP ! = lock up all lawmakers into one building with all they need.
STEP 2 = don't let them out until they can write all the laws down word for word.

will they be able to recall all the laws before they die?

if they die before they can write down all the laws, then no american child should be expected to comply with all the laws, since they can't live long enough to learn them all anyways.

translation = america is a lawless nation, with no laws, no rules

and, any honest individual who is a follower of leaders,
you are not permitted to play the game of life until you learn all the rules of the nation you live in.

huh, don't like america?
go live somewhere else?
where can i go to live "free"

domocracy, socialism, communism, facism,


blah blah blah, yada yada yada,
IT WAS ALL THE SAME LIE, just different scenery

and, by the way ...

friends don't tell friends that there are so many rules to a perfect friendship you will never live long enough to be a perfect friend.
family doesn't tel family that there are so many rules to a perfect family member you will never live long enough to become a perfect family member.

thus, no person in any country is a friend.
thus, no person in any country is a family member.

thus is the way of "civilization"

i learned this back when we carved the pacific ocean to look like a primate's face from current day "alaska" to southern tip of south america, if you look at a flat world map..


same problems, too many rules, not even all the law makers know them all, yet they keep making them..... because that's what the sheeple pay them to do...


WHO MAKES THE RULES?????
RULERS MAKE THE RULES!!!!!!

WHO MAKES THE RULERS?????

followers?

followers just point the finger at the leaders

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal
How does freedom constrain opportunity?

Hmmm...

It doesn't?

Anyway, you need to truely have it first. When we're mature enough, free markets will in fact be such. Political solutions are non-solutions. Any system will operate under the nature of the humans comprising it. Naturally, the 99% haven't yet had the chance to discover fully what monsters they might become if in the top 1%.

[edit on 1/10/2010 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by just some thoughts


The US constitution is only 6 pages. It can be done.
STEP1 = stop blaming everyone else
STEP2 = go look in a mirror

reply to post by expat2368


Here again we have yet another idealist who believes that altruism is a viable method and that humans would actually act in selfless ways. The fact of the matter is that there is no species on the planet that acts selflessly and humans are no different. Every species acts in a selfish way and this should not be held up as some sort of evil act. Selfish has a tendency to be defined as a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others. However, if people are the social beings they have demonstrably shown themselves to be it should be clear that having regard for others is in ones best interest and it does not require selflessness or altruism to show this regard for others.

Again the little parable about an economic pie where only a few can eat but there are countless more than a few who need to eat. This is not how the world works and it is a false representation of reality. Let us just look at the parable your pastor presented:

We have a hundred people in a room with just one table and 10 chairs and all who can find a chair at the table can sit and eat while the remainder can not. How many people would stick around and sullenly watch those ten people eat while they go hungry? Wouldn't you just leave that scene and find a better option? Oh no, instead you would join the mob and rise up against the ten and bully them, but then what? Will you continue to devour each other until there are only ten of you left? Would all of you be so mindless as to not consider there are greener pastures and better opportunities outside this room?

It is always the same and in order to explain these simplistic notions of economy there is always some ridiculous hypothetical that has nothing to do with reality presented in order to convince those who don't buy the simplicity that they are correct. They can't ever point to the real world and use real world situations to illustrate their point, it is always some variation of the three men in the middle of the ocean with only a two man life boat to survive scenario.

Perhaps you and a few others in this room filled with one hundred people genuinely lack the imagination necessary to first leave and find a more preferable scenario, and then create that reality, but then it would just be a few of you left and most likely the ten at the table will toss you a bone and some bread scraps if that's what makes you happy. The rest won't settle for bones and bread scraps nor will they resort to thuggish mentalities and bully each other in some insane king of the hill game just to get something to eat. There are far easier ways to provide sustenance than this.

Some of you would benefit from this thought experiment:

Picture a simple economic system that allows people to trade with one another and to keep what they earn from this commerce. This will naturally result in resource inequality. Some will amass more than others. Group the least wealthy 1/3 and call them the "lower class".

Now ask yourself if there will always be a "lower class". Of course there will be. Now ask yourself if this is necessarily a bad thing. It's as simple as that.

*Calling the U.S. economic system capitalism is like saying a MacDonald's hamburger is diet food. They do have some things in common, but the label doesn't fit. What little the U.S. does borrow from capitalistic theory has benefitted it tremendously.

*Capitalism has become a smear word. Case in point: Ask 10 people if they think capitalism is a good system. Then ask these same people if a system where people can engage in free commerce with one another is a good system. Compare the results. It's all in how the question is phrased.



[edit on 10-1-2010 by Guidance.Is.Internal]

I think those that think capitalism is so bad should propose a 'better' system. Maybe if you put forth some specific ideas we could see what can be done. Just bashing a system and calling it bad gets us nowhere.

So what would work better? What system would you use? (details of operation not just a name)