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.

 

Why Capitalism Fails

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I agree, I just see colonialism and mercantilism that they African colonies suffered under as the progenitor of modern monopoly capitalism which has the world in a stranglehold of anti-innovation and anti-competition. Most of the time these leaders were chosen by western profiteers because they found indigenous people who were more than willing to pocket foreign loans and accept ridiculous foreign rule leaving their countries in ruin. Just look at Haiti. Over a hundred years of western intervention and they're still poor as all get out because western bankers gave loans to Haitian leaders at extortionist rates knowing that most likely the leaders would take the money and run, leaving the debt on the shoulders of the Haitian people. I mean just look at the formation of Haiti; the French gave them an ultimatum after they revolted in the spirit of independence: either give the French goods and money equal to $21 billion today or have all their coastal cities bombarded by the French fleet.

It's just my personal belief that the middle class is essential for the health of a society and that the unregulated free market with a small government unable to intervene on the behalf of the public is unlikely to create such middle class. Middle classes are the result of an increase in the ratio of wealth to population which can only be achieved either by a plague reducing the population; making survivors richer, by the discovery of new resources; increasing the wealth in the system making everyone richer, or through keen social legislation; such as the American constitution.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by MajorDork]




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Capitalism allowed me to pull myself out of poverty. It allowed me to succeed by working hard and building a business from nothing. It allowed me to be my own Master and self determine the outcome of my life.

I did nothing that any other person could not do. I studied and learned a business from people who had already done the same. I worked hard for them and they rewarded me by helping me start my own business. They were happy to help me.

Since no system has ever worked as well as Capitalism in the history of man, how can you take the argument it is a bad system seriously?

Obama preaches what you are saying. He however used Capitalism to make millions of dollars last year. Over five million in fact. How did he do that? He paid somebody else to write a book for him and signed his name to it. Why is his name so powerful the could do that? Capitalism!

Al Gore preaches the same but he somehow, on a Professors salary, made over one hundred million dollars in just a few years. We know he had a net worth of only a half million when he left office. So how did he do that? Capitalism! Hypocrite, you betcha!

Carter is a strong advocate of Socialism. How did he get his money and power. Capitalism through Farming. He is the only man to ever buy the Presidency and he did it with money made from Capitalism.

Celebrities preach Socialism, but none of them practice it. They have fabulous wealth from Capitalism and live in luxury and decadence while telling you it is wrong to do exactly what they are doing themselves.

Open your mind and look at the truth around you. Why is it all those preaching Capitalism is wrong are so wealthy from Capitalism? Because they are liars and frauds is why. They don't want you to succeed. They think only they are smart enough or special enough to deserve the wealth they possess. They look down their noses at you and laugh at you behind closed doors.

Most Capitalists are good an decent hard working people. The bad guys use the tiny number of corrupt ones in the news to convince you they are all bad. It simply is not true. Capitalists give the most to charity, help other the most, provide jobs to others. You ever worked for a poor Socialist?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
In any system you will have the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. The difference is that in a capitalistic system you have the opportunity to become a 'have'.

I've seen in this thread a number of times the claim that in a capitalistic system you can work hard and become successful, with the counter claim that the average worker who works hard does not become successful.

Though opposite claims are made they are both true and false.

The confusion comes, I feel, when people against capitalism think that everyone should be successful. Not that they have an opportunity to be, but that they should be. There is no such system.

There will never be a society where everyone is successful. Let's face it. No matter if it's not very nice to say, there will always be those who are lazy, unintelligent, unmotivated, content with a mediocre existence, etc ...

However, in a capitalistic system you have the potential to be successful. The mistake people are making is using the term "hard work". Hard work will make you some money but isn't going to make you rich. Working smart and being persistent is what makes success. Digging graves all day is very hard exhausting work. Designing a better shovel or a machine to make your job easier can make you very wealthy if you market it to others who may have to dig holes for whatever reason. If you are content to stay there digging with a crappy shovel, don't blame capitalism.

The smart people who make something of themselves are not content to stay working 'hard'. They may start out that way but instead of doing it for 45 years and retiring broken and poor, they watch, listen, and learn. They look for, or make their own, opportunity.

Another thing I see in this thread mentioned more than once is a very high or even 100% inheritance tax. Really? So you think that if someone becomes a success that their kids don't deserve to have it but someone else who had absolutely nothing to do with this person does?

Capitalism isn't bad. Corruption within the system is. Corruption and government regulation to restrict capitalism while creating an advantage to those creating the laws is what ruins the system.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDork
 


I get you now. You're talking about Crony capitalism. Ruling class capitalism. Corporatism. I prefer an Adam Smith Free Market with a modern Mises and Hayek filter.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDork
 


So you want to use Somalia as an example to refute capitalism hey?

Lets look at the facts:


Despite experiencing civil unrest, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, based mainly on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies, and telecommunications.[1][2] Due to a dearth of formal government statistics and the recent civil war, it is difficult to gauge the size or growth of the economy. For 1994, the CIA estimated the GDP at $3.3 billion.[3] In 2001, it was estimated to be $4.1 billion.[4] By 2009, the CIA estimated that the GDP had grown to $5.731 billion, with a projected real growth rate of 2.6%.[1] According to a 2003 World Bank study, the private sector grew impressively, particularly in the areas of trade, commerce, transport, remittance and infrastructure services, in addition to the primary sectors, notably livestock, agriculture and fisheries.[5] In 2007, the United Nations reported that the country's service industry is also thriving.[6] Anthropologist Spencer Heath MacCallum attributes this increased economic activity to the Somali customary law (referred to as Xeer), which provides a stable environment to conduct business in.[7]


Somalia's "informal" economy is growing because:

1. an informal system of private law has been instituted

2. the government is not meddling in that particular area of the economy.


Further:


"In 2009, Transparency International ranked Somalia in last place on its annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI),[100] a metric that purports to show the prevalence of corruption in a country's public sector. "

"In 2010, the UN International Monitoring Group (IMG) published a report accusing the Somali government's security forces of being ineffective and corrupt, and claimed that up to half of the food aid that was destined for the conflict-stricken parts of the country were being misdirected. It also accused Somali officials of collaborating with pirates, UN contractors of helping insurgents, and the Eritrean government of still supporting rebel groups in southern Somalia despite earlier sanctions imposed on the former. "


The Somali government is a corrupt group of pirates.

The reason why the overall Somali economy isn't prospering is because the corrupt government is still in there hosing things up.

They are the ones operating militia groups and looting the public.

If we look at the airline industry:


In 1991, before the collapse of the government, the national airline had only one airplane. Now there are approximately fifteen airlines, over sixty aircraft, six international destinations, and more domestic routes in Somalia. Private airlines, including Air Somalia and Daallo Airlines, serve several domestic locations as well as Djibouti, the United Arab Emirates, Paris and London. According to a 2005 World Bank report, the "private airline business in Somalia is now thriving with more than five carriers and price wars between the companies."[18] Mohammed Yassin Olad, owner of Daallo Airlines, has stated that the absence of government has led to both difficulties and benefits, and commented that "corruption is not a problem, because there is no government…We build the airports and we service the airports and we only fly when we are sure it's safe".[18] A small fishing village prior to the fall of the state, Bosaso developed a lucrative import/export trade of U.S. $15 million per year out of its port during the 1990s.[19] The population grew in eight years from 5,000 to 150,000, sustained by public services provided on a competitive basis by private enterprise, and court systems, schools and a university founded by the local community.[19]
The expansion of the aviation industry has been accompanied by the disruption of road transport; many roads are frequently blocked by militia checkpoints which demand payment (between $3 and $300, depending on goods carried) in order to allow the cars to continue their journey. A BBC report claimed there were seven such checkpoints in the 50 km between an airstrip and the capital, Mogadishu. Most of the money is used to buy khat, a drug used by the militiamen.[18]





Free markets are the only thing that lifts people out of poverty.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


This says it all.

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER This one is a little different... . Two Different Versions... ......... ....

Two Different Morals


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away..

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

America Today's MODERN VERSION


The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It's Not Easy Being Green.'

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome " . Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share..

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his re troactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I love this quote:

"private airline business in Somalia is now thriving with more than five carriers and price wars between the companies."[18] Mohammed Yassin Olad, owner of Daallo Airlines, has stated that the absence of government has led to both difficulties and benefits, and commented that "corruption is not a problem, because there is no government…We build the airports and we service the airports and we only fly when we are sure it's safe".


Sure sounds like a glowing endorsement of government to me.

I'm sure Olad is just begging for more government.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by astrogolf
 


Holy crap, haha! That should be in a book or released somewhere so you can make some money off of that. That was hilarious and all to true.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Primordial

Another thing I see in this thread mentioned more than once is a very high or even 100% inheritance tax. Really? So you think that if someone becomes a success that their kids don't deserve to have it but someone else who had absolutely nothing to do with this person does?


If you cant be bothered to follow the whole argument and its reasoning, you dont deserve a repeat. There are functional and mechanical reasons this would be necessary in a free market. And I would be absolutely open to any reasoned suggestions that provided a solution without such a feature. But just saying "Pfft. I dont like it" is not a reasoned suggestion. And yes, really, in a free market or in natural selection, either, just because an individual becomes a success does NOT mean their children get to have it. Welcome to America, its why we specifically did away with hereditary monarchy and aristocracy.


Originally posted by Blaine91555
Capitalism isn't bad. Corruption within the system is. Corruption and government regulation to restrict capitalism while creating an advantage to those creating the laws is what ruins the system.


Capitalism isnt good either. Its just private individuals owning the means of production, which could mean a lot of things, from oligopoly, to fascism, to monopoly. Are you arguing all of them are good? Or do you have some specific type in mind? It would seem, since you recognize "corruption" is bad, that you dont find all forms equally desirable and good. So how do you propose to end corruption of the system you do find "good?" Identifying the problem is a step, the next step is figuring out why it is a problem, how it arose, and what to do about it. Share with us.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Capitalism can not result in a monopoly.

Capitalism by is very definition means anyone can start up a company and compete.

If a corporation is pricing goods above market, a competitor will enter the market and offer the goods at a lower price.

It is literally impossible for a monopoly to form.

Oligopolies could form, but they would quickly be over-run by market forces.

Examples of this include the railroads and oil industry.

Both of which eventually, after several failed attempts, did gain cartel powers by using government to block competition and get special favors, such as land grants.

In all of human history, where there have been free markets, monopolies have not formed and the few oligopolies that did form did not last for long without using government to create barriers to entry.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I love this quote:

"private airline business in Somalia is now thriving with more than five carriers and price wars between the companies."[18] Mohammed Yassin Olad, owner of Daallo Airlines, has stated that the absence of government has led to both difficulties and benefits, and commented that "corruption is not a problem, because there is no government…We build the airports and we service the airports and we only fly when we are sure it's safe".


Sure sounds like a glowing endorsement of government to me.

I'm sure Olad is just begging for more government.


I think this is from wiki. You left out these parts


the same article noted however, that "doing business in anarchy has its drawbacks, like having to pay off a different pack of thugs every block or two."

or

The international aid group Médecins Sans Frontières stated that the level of daily violence during this period was "catastrophic".[9] A statistic from 2000 indicated that only 21% of the population had access to safe drinking water at that time, and Somalia had one of the highest child mortality rates in the world with 10% of children dying at birth and 25% of those surviving birth dying before age five.


Anarchy in Somalia

I know that the quote you show says there is good and bad but your comment downplayed the bad part. Sure it's great to not have to go through a bunch of red tape to set up a business, build something or offer a service but there are also negative aspects.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by daskakik]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


This is why we need to enforce the Constitutional Government we are supposed to have. We need to restore principles. The Federal Government should be doing only what is listed in their Constitutionally enumerated powers. The government does NOT have rights, it has powers. Those powers include the general safety and welfare of the The People, the collective military defense of the United States, the enforcement of Contracts(all of this also falls to the states individually as well), and to protect and enforce the rights of the individual and of the people as a whole.

I don't think mnemeth is calling for NO government, only that government is limited to it's Constitutional power only. Anarcho-Capitalists are a bit different as the lure of a Market driven by the people and protected by the people. Fraud is usually discovered and dealt with by the people. The government always starts the investigation late anyway.

Everyone has inherent rights, but no one has the right to take your rights away.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by projectvxn]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I agree with what you say but mnemeth1 has made it clear in other posts that he is against all government. I remember him telling someone to look at his avatar when it was still the anarchy symbol.

Plus it's a diservice to the other members to filter the info to prove our point. We get enough of that from the MSM.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Primordial
Another thing I see in this thread mentioned more than once is a very high or even 100% inheritance tax. Really? So you think that if someone becomes a success that their kids don't deserve to have it but someone else who had absolutely nothing to do with this person does?


I think it's more accurate to say that I believe if somebody is lazy or otherwise does poorly within the capitalist system, their children should not have to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions or bad luck.

If you want to get anywhere in life before the age of 30 you have to be born into a wealthy family... that's the simple truth of it these days. Things don't work like they did in the 50's or in the 70's. Even an undergraduate college degree is practically worthless now. The cost of an education advanced enough to get you into a good job is so high that unless you're already wealthy you'll be paying off your tuition loans for the next 10 to 20 years after you graduate.

Please ask anyone in their early- to mid-twenties. If they aren't from a wealthy family they will be either struggling from the lack of a college degree or buried 6 feet under a tombstone of college debt.

The main difference here is that you believe it's okay for someone to have an advantage or disadvantage based on the family they were born into. I am proposing that someone's success in life be measured solely by their own merits.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Primordial

Another thing I see in this thread mentioned more than once is a very high or even 100% inheritance tax. Really? So you think that if someone becomes a success that their kids don't deserve to have it but someone else who had absolutely nothing to do with this person does?


If you cant be bothered to follow the whole argument and its reasoning, you dont deserve a repeat. There are functional and mechanical reasons this would be necessary in a free market. And I would be absolutely open to any reasoned suggestions that provided a solution without such a feature. But just saying "Pfft. I dont like it" is not a reasoned suggestion. And yes, really, in a free market or in natural selection, either, just because an individual becomes a success does NOT mean their children get to have it. Welcome to America, its why we specifically did away with hereditary monarchy and aristocracy.


I read the whole thread and have heard all the arguments already, no need to be condescending. It is a simple question that I've never heard a satisfactory answer for.

Does someone, whether it be an individual, government or society, deserve to take the fruits of someones life while their children do not?



Originally posted by Blaine91555
Capitalism isn't bad. Corruption within the system is. Corruption and government regulation to restrict capitalism while creating an advantage to those creating the laws is what ruins the system.


Capitalism isnt good either. Its just private individuals owning the means of production, which could mean a lot of things, from oligopoly, to fascism, to monopoly. Are you arguing all of them are good? Or do you have some specific type in mind? It would seem, since you recognize "corruption" is bad, that you dont find all forms equally desirable and good. So how do you propose to end corruption of the system you do find "good?" Identifying the problem is a step, the next step is figuring out why it is a problem, how it arose, and what to do about it. Share with us.



We already have the system, we just don't follow it. Corruption has ruined it. It's what we all bitch about daily on ATS.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Actually, capitalism does not mean monopoly cannot form. Monopolies can, and do form in capitalist systems.

You are talking about a specific type of capitalism.

en.wikipedia.org...


Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned; supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions in the free market, rather than through state planning or democratic planning; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses. Capitalism also refers to the process of capital accumulation.



Variants of capitalism include: anarcho-capitalism, corporate capitalism, crony capitalism, finance capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism, late capitalism, neo-capitalism, post-capitalism, state capitalism, state monopoly capitalism and technocapitalism.


en.wikipedia.org...


A free-market economy is an economy where all markets within it are unregulated by any parties other than those players in the market. In its purest form the government plays a neutral role in its administration and legislation of economic activity neither limiting nor actively promoting it (for example neither regulating industries let alone owning economic interests nor offering subsidies to businesses let alone protecting them from internal/external market pressures). Such an economy in its most radical form does not exist in developed economies, however efforts made to liberalise an economy or make it "free-er" attempt to limit the role of government in such a way. The theory holds that within an ideal free market, property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property rights without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor are they coerced by a third party (such as by government via transfer payments) [1] and they engage in trade simply because they both consent and believe that what they are getting is worth more than or as much as what they give up. Price is the result of buying and selling decisions en masse as described by the theory of supply and demand.


One of the problems with arguments like these is you have many people using the same word to mean very different things. You have to be more specific, not out of nit-pickyness on my part, but because, clearly, not everyone is talking about the same thing when they say "capitalism" or even "a free market." The two are not the same thing, though they can go together. They dont, however, usually go together.

In a free market, (truly free,) you would be right, you should not see monopoly or oligopoly. In a capitalist system those can absolutely be features. Because capitalism does not equal free market. It equals private ownership of the means of production.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by zroth
 


When people make money its rarely by themselves. When Bill Gates wrote DOS and successfully marketed it he created several millionaires. Its estimated That by the year 2000 there were over 10000 millionaires created by Microsoft and there stock options for there employees.
[edit on 7/13/10 by dragonridr]


Thank you for validating my point. Let's do some math.

10,000 Millionaires making an average of $2 Million = $20,000,000,000

That is roughly 1.5 years of the company's total revenue, considering the average of $16 billion per year (R&D spend is 5 billion alone last year) . The other 19 years is $380,000,000,000. Even if we assume a profit margin of 10%, we are still talking about $38 billion dollars and we know the margin is closer to 40%. I realize these are general numbers but it illustrates the point.

So we have 10,000 lucky souls and conservatively 750,000,000 enslaved souls.

That means that ~ .000013% of the user population came out on top!

Where exactly did capitalism help?



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


So do you think he wants more government?

Drawbacks yes, but do you think he wants to go back to the old system?

And if you looked at the problem more than skin deep you would realize that the militias aren't funding themselves through "highway tolls"

They are armed and operated BY THE SOMALI GOVERNMENT AND THE RIVAL SURROUNDING GOVERNMENTS.

www.foxnews.com...


Ethiopia sent troops into Somalia in 2006 to topple the Islamists but withdrew a year ago amid concerns their presence was only fueling the conflict. Both Ethiopia and its archenemy Eritrea have repeatedly been accused of using Somalia to fight a proxy war.


I mean did you miss the UN report?


"In 2010, the UN International Monitoring Group (IMG) published a report accusing the Somali government's security forces of being ineffective and corrupt, and claimed that up to half of the food aid that was destined for the conflict-stricken parts of the country were being misdirected. It also accused Somali officials of collaborating with pirates, UN contractors of helping insurgents, and the Eritrean government of still supporting rebel groups in southern Somalia despite earlier sanctions imposed on the former. "


Does this sound like anarchy to you?

If governments were not involved there, the people would rule themselves through their own system of private law.

The insurgency has nothing to do with anarchy and EVERYTHING TO DO WITH GOVERNMENTS.


Do you know what would happen if there was anarchy? The people would hire private security agencies to deal with the "militia" problem. The militias are rouge groups funded and operated by the government itself, and by rival governments.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magnus47

Originally posted by Primordial
Another thing I see in this thread mentioned more than once is a very high or even 100% inheritance tax. Really? So you think that if someone becomes a success that their kids don't deserve to have it but someone else who had absolutely nothing to do with this person does?


I think it's more accurate to say that I believe if somebody is lazy or otherwise does poorly within the capitalist system, their children should not have to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions or bad luck.

If you want to get anywhere in life before the age of 30 you have to be born into a wealthy family... that's the simple truth of it these days. Things don't work like they did in the 50's or in the 70's. Even an undergraduate college degree is practically worthless now. The cost of an education advanced enough to get you into a good job is so high that unless you're already wealthy you'll be paying off your tuition loans for the next 10 to 20 years after you graduate.

Please ask anyone in their early- to mid-twenties. If they aren't from a wealthy family they will be either struggling from the lack of a college degree or buried 6 feet under a tombstone of college debt.

The main difference here is that you believe it's okay for someone to have an advantage or disadvantage based on the family they were born into. I am proposing that someone's success in life be measured solely by their own merits.


Their children aren't suffering their bad decisions just because they might be poor. Being poor doesn't equate to suffering.

Yes, life is unfair. If you are born poor you have the opportunity to make something of yourself. Some will succeed and some will certainly fail. I don't judge myself based on what someone else possesses. If I choose to stay at my dead end job and complain about how unfair it is that I am stuck here while some rich kid gets everything handed to him, whose fault is it if I stay poor?

The problems with our (the U.S.) system comes form government intervention in areas it was never meant to interfere with while skirting it's true responsibility and allowing banks to take over and run our economy. Banks are a business and like any other will work for their best interest rather than that of the people. Capitalism didn't fail, it was bastardized into what we have today. The system, while maybe not perfect, was working just fine for a while.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Capitalism can not result in a monopoly.


Capitalist IS a monopoly. Private owners of the means of production have a monopoly on the manufacture and distribution of resources.


Capitalism by is very definition means anyone can start up a company and compete.


Really? OK let's say everyone opens up their own business, who would work for you? You would have a world of one person businesses, you think that would work?

You will always need labour, no matter how you spin it to look good for everyone. You can not have capitalism without a labour force to produce profit for the capitalist. What good is owning a factory if you have no one to work it?


If a corporation is pricing goods above market, a competitor will enter the market and offer the goods at a lower price.


It's like you've never had any real life experience, you've lived in a box with nothing but capitalist propaganda to read.


It is literally impossible for a monopoly to form.


Again capitalism IS a monopoly.

But aside from that you are soooo wrong. For example, Starbucks bought out all the coffee houses in my town, then closed the ones not making a profit. Starbucks gains the monopoly. Wallgreens did the same thing. Now we have Starbucks and Wallgreens on every corner, and they are more expensive than the stores they replaced. Where is your coffee house that opened to sell coffee cheaper than Starbucks?
There isn't one because they can not compete with Starsucks.


Oligopolies could form, but they would quickly be over-run by market forces.


Hmmm ran over by larger companies like Wallgreens.


In all of human history, where there have been free markets, monopolies have not formed and the few oligopolies that did form did not last for long without using government to create barriers to entry.


You still think capitalism is 'free-markets'. Sorry but there is nothing free about capitalism, the market is controlled by the interests of the capitalists (owners of the means of production). If you make money selling on the 'free-market' it doesn't make you a capitalist. Capitalists make money off of their 'capital', manufacturing, rent etc.

You are fooling yourself if you really think everyone can be successful in the capitalist system. You might be lucky and have a skill that is in demand and can find work easy, but what if your skill wasn't in demand? Maybe you haven't even entered the work force, and had enough experience to see how it really isn't as easy as you want to believe?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join