Why Capitalism Fails

Originally posted by Enf0rc3r
Difference here is that in real life u dont get a liberal professor failing you automatically. In real life, if u work hard, u will make money. Simple concept that has made America the power house it is today. The professor was a complete idiot, ad used a biased model of capitalism based on his political views to hammer home a point that some people aren't good enough in his world to succeed.

It is almost impossible for the people who are under you to go up, infact in New Zealand the government has made it harder for you to go up, if you take two jobs your tax doubles lol.

But ofcurse Americans will claim their Capitalism is the best, that is why they have all those ghettos, and to keep those in the bottom happy, give them drugs, that will bring relief, which in result has created this huge drug consumption in the world's supposed best Capitalism state.

Great point

reply to post by oozyism


Impossible for people under you to go up? Not in America, enjoy New Zealand.

Originally posted by ANOK]

Are you serious? Then why are you here, you should be educating yourself before you debate something you've never heard of.

I've never heard of collectives. But I know what socialism is. I just consider it communism lite.

In a socialist system money is not the motivator, a person shouldn't become a doctor because they get paid more than someone else.

In capitalism, you have the opportunity to be rewarded for how productive
you are. If you get the same no matter what you do, why should you put in effort and do something difficult? You're not relying on rational incentive but irrational feelings as to how people should and will behave. Not all people are driven with the passion to do something difficult; in fact, most would rather do the bare essentials and get by, as long as they have free time.

That concept of wage competition will not exist as money will not be important. The shop sweeper is as important as the doctor in the grand scheme of things. If you lived in London during the 70's and witnessed the garbage strike you'd have a clue to the importance of such workers.

If money can buy goods and services money is important. Salary is usually just a measure of how difficult/risky a job you do. If you just go changing light bulbs it is not wise to be paid the same as someone who cuts open humans and try to heal them. There is more risk/difficulty associated from the latter than the former. There's no reason to study hard, go to med school, apart from wanting to. This assumes most people have a passion to accomplish something.

It's just snobbery, oh I'm better than that person I know more, I've been to school. But you wouldn't do their job if you were paid like a doctor. So why should they?

It isn't snobbery to be paid according to how difficult your job is. And believe me, if people were paid the same to change light bulbs as to be doctors many people would try to be light bulb changers.

A person should be motivated by their desire to be a part of, and to help their communities. People should want to be doctors because that's their calling and their desire. I don't want a doctor who's motivation is to make as much money as possible. This is why it's so expensive now, and people are made to take unnecessary tests and unnecessary drugs just because it makes the doctor more money. Your money being redistributed through unfair practices because the system motivates people to be unfair and self-serving.

Again, you're claiming that people should desire X rather than Y because you say so. What if a person doesn't give a crap about his community and just wants to go the easy way with working little, getting paid much? Throw him in the Gulag? Medicate him till he agrees?

If money is not their motive then we can only expect better doctors, those doing it for the right reason.

You can expect less doctors too. There's no rational reason to want to be a doctor when you can be paid the same as a light bulb changer.

Socialism is about meeting peoples needs, not their greed.

When it comes to doctors, it’s commonly assumed that they are guided primarily by financial considerations when they decide where, when, and how to practice. Therefore, so the theory goes, doctors won’t co-operate or change their behaviour unless they believe there is a financial incentive for them to do so.

The evidence casts significant doubt on this assumption. Doctors are not purely “economic creatures,” and while money is important to them, it is only one of many factors that influences their behaviour.

www.chsrf.ca...

Money is not the only and certainly not the best motivator.

Being paid for how difficult/risky your job is is not greed. It's just rational. Socialism depends on irrational ideals to work. But not all people have the same values or idealism.

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by oozyism

 

Impossible for people under you to go up? Not in America, enjoy New Zealand.

I never said impossible, I said almost impossible, meaning extremely difficult.

Are you saying America isn't feeding the bottom lot with drugs to avoid a revolt against the system?

Heck America is the biggest drug consumer of the world.

Are you saying it is easy to get off the streets? The examples of that hope is very, very dim, that is why they even made a movie about it (the pursuit of Happiness). That story is unique, do you know why?

Darn, do you want to know why?

Because it doesn't happen that often, and that is why I stated it is almost impossible.

I stand corrected.

Originally posted by 547000
I've never heard of collectives. But I know what socialism is. I just consider it communism lite.

Do you? If you don't know what a collective is then how can you know what socialism is? You only think you know what it is. You can consider it what you want but you're simply wrong in your consideration I'm afraid.

In capitalism, you have the opportunity to be rewarded for how productive you are. If you get the same no matter what you do, why should you put in effort and do something difficult? You're not relying on rational incentive but irrational feelings as to how people should and will behave. Not all people are driven with the passion to do something difficult; in fact, most would rather do the bare essentials and get by, as long as they have free time.

No, you don't get awarded for how productive you are, you get a pay raise when the boss feels like it, or you strike to get better pay.
Your rate of pay for your labour is in the hands of the capitalists and what they're willing to pay you.

In a collective all the workers benefit DIRECTLY from the profits made.
Your incentive to work is you get paid more if the company does well, if it doesn't then you don't get paid well.

People do many difficult things where money is not the motivation, playing an instrument for example. All it takes is doing something you have a passion for. Not everyone has what it takes to be a doctor, if changing light bulbs suits them, and their community needs that done, then the light bulb changer is as important as the doctor to that community.

But socialism can allow for differences in pay scales as long as it's a voluntary agreement between the workers involved. Nothing is written in stone except that private ownership of resources is changed to worker owned, that is the only real difference.

If money can buy goods and services money is important. Salary is usually just a measure of how difficult/risky a job you do. If you just go changing light bulbs it is not wise to be paid the same as someone who cuts open humans and try to heal them. There is more risk/difficulty associated from the latter than the former. There's no reason to study hard, go to med school, apart from wanting to. This assumes most people have a passion to accomplish something.

You are basing everything on money again. Capitalism itself has nothing to do with money. Money is an unnecessary tool used to control the capitalists distribution of artificially scarce resources. The control of resources is how capitalists create their wealth.

People being motivated by money imo is not a good idea for the reasons I mentioned.

It isn't snobbery to be paid according to how difficult your job is. And believe me, if people were paid the same to change light bulbs as to be doctors many people would try to be light bulb changers.

Well if people want to be light bulb changers why shouldn't they be?

If too many people try to be light bulb changers then there would be a lot of out of work light bulb changers, and I think that would motivate people to do something else.

You seem to have a low expectation of people, and think we would all take the easy path, this has been proven over and over again to be untrue.

Look how many doctors join the military, they get paid the same as the supply officer.

Again, you're claiming that people should desire X rather than Y because you say so. What if a person doesn't give a crap about his community and just wants to go the easy way with working little, getting paid much? Throw him in the Gulag? Medicate him till he agrees?

Well that person can do that if they want, but they shouldn't expect to reap the benefits of being a part of society. People should be free to do what they want, that is the point of socialism. In the capitalist system you are coerced to work for a private owner at the wage they decide your labour is worth. It's not your choice even though they make it seem as it is.

You can expect less doctors too. There's no rational reason to want to be a doctor when you can be paid the same as a light bulb changer.

Nothing wrong with less doctors. Most of the patience doctors see now are for reasons created by the need to make money anyway.

Being paid for how difficult/risky your job is is not greed. It's just rational. Socialism depends on irrational ideals to work. But not all people have the same values or idealism.

Again money is only important in the capitalist system because it keeps resources artificially scarce. If the means of production were owned by the workers then the need for money would decrease as production would raise to meet our needs, not kept artificially scarce to feed capitalist greed. (production in Spain rose 20% in just 2 years).

If resources are in abundance they would be cheap to purchase.
So again money would no longer be the motivator to work.

In capitalism the owner doesn't have to work, he takes profit from simply owning not producing, without the owner all the profits would go to the workers.

If the doctors office is making huge profits then the doctors would get huge pay checks, along with their light bulb changer. The motivation to work is still there as you benefit directly from your labour, be that cutting people up or lighting peoples way.

I have been persecuted. Since I have been, the future tense means that I must be recompensed, if the future system is to be fair! Frelling idiocy!

I think therefore it is truth.

Anyway, I will fight communism as long as I can.

I am what I am, you are you. If you want to take ANYTHING from my neighbor by force, expect me to kill you. Nothing personal, that is just your pattern of offense. I will defend my friend, my family, my community, my aquaintance before I allow a communist or socialist system.

Remember that you freaks, there are thousands of me, there are tens of you. You do NOT control us like the idiots that Mao and Stalin had!

You can have all the socialism and communism you want in free capitalist system. Just make a deal with like-minded people, and you can own your means of production together. But please stop forcing people who accomplished something to give it to those who did not, if they dont want to.

And dont forget that people have to be paid according to their contribution to society, not according to their hard work. Without excessive government or criminal behaviour, the only rich people in free capitalist society would be those who (or whose parents) contributed to the society the most.

Do you? If you don't know what a collective is then how can you know what socialism is? You only think you know what it is. You can consider it what you want but you're simply wrong in your consideration I'm afraid.[/QUOTE]

Then why does it suffer from the same pitfalls of communism if it's not communism lite? Why does it rely on idealism rather than rationality? In my opinion socialism is merely a transition to communism. Same arguments new generations make that their fathers suffered and learned dearly from.

No, you don't get awarded for how productive you are, you get a pay raise when the boss feels like it, or you strike to get better pay.
Your rate of pay for your labour is in the hands of the capitalists and what they're willing to pay you.

In a collective all the workers benefit DIRECTLY from the profits made.
Your incentive to work is you get paid more if the company does well, if it doesn't then you don't get paid well.

If you're valuable to the company, you will get paid well. If you're not valuable, you get paid average or are fired. These capitalists you talk about are people who take on the risk of starting and/or running a company. They take on risks, so do you, bidding for contracts on the job market.

And how would you deal with piss-poor workers who just hang on leeching the profits from good workers? If you get paid $10 dollars when distributing it out to do something well and $9 dollars to do it crapily, while the other workers slog, what rational incentive do you have to do a good job?

I'm asking for a rational incentive, not feeling good about yourself or being an honest person or any other irrational things that depends on an individual's ideals.

People do many difficult things where money is not the motivation, playing an instrument for example. All it takes is doing something you have a passion for. Not everyone has what it takes to be a doctor, if changing light bulbs suits them, and their community needs that done, then the light bulb changer is as important as the doctor to that community.

Again, you're relying on irrational reasoning. Just because some people have ambition or desire doesn't mean all people do. A system that irrationally assumes the best from everyone will fail because it's not based on rational reasoning. What rational incentive do people have to do such things? Feeling good about yourself isn't very rational, as some people just don't care about that. Different upbringing breeds different types of people and different mindsets.

But socialism can allow for differences in pay scales as long as it's a voluntary agreement between the workers involved. Nothing is written in stone except that private ownership of resources is changed to worker owned, that is the only real difference.

Who decides who gets how much money if it's all worker owned, instead of a single owner? Some workers will not agree with getting paid less, etc. Even a democratic system can get oppressive since it can be 51% to 49%. If everyone who works there owns it, who's voice is the loudest?

You are basing everything on money again. Capitalism itself has nothing to do with money. Money is an unnecessary tool used to control the capitalists distribution of artificially scarce resources. The control of resources is how capitalists create their wealth.

Without money you would need to barter, unless you're suggesting everyone's property is society's. Also money allows you to distribute the work and allow free trade in society: A teacher can buy bread from people other for whom he rendered service to, a farmer could sell fruits to X and buy a tractor from Y, etc.

People being motivated by money imo is not a good idea for the reasons I mentioned.

It's also the most rational incentive to try to make people not do things half-assedly. You may not like money being a motivation, but it's still a rational one.

Well if people want to be light bulb changers why shouldn't they be?

If too many people try to be light bulb changers then there would be a lot of out of work light bulb changers, and I think that would motivate people to do something else.

You seem to have a low expectation of people, and think we would all take the easy path, this has been proven over and over again to be untrue.

Look how many doctors join the military, they get paid the same as the supply officer.

They'd probably go for the next low-effort, high-paying job, realistically speaking. Unless they have irrational values like pride and ambition.

Having low expectations of people and being surprised is much better than having high expectations of people and being surprised, especially when your economic system is geared to your expectations. You rely on irrational incentives rather than rational ones.

Well that person can do that if they want, but they shouldn't expect to reap the benefits of being a part of society. People should be free to do what they want, that is the point of socialism. In the capitalist system you are coerced to work for a private owner at the wage they decide your labour is worth. It's not your choice even though they make it seem as it is.

How is it coercion, when you need money to live, and business owners need work to earn money? You both scratch each other's back and get what you need. TANSTAAFL and all. Or is it coercion to not automatically have whatever you feel is necessary? I don't believe anyone's entitled to free goods and services. In fact, it's coercion to be forced by law to provide for other people.

Nothing wrong with less doctors. Most of the patience doctors see now are for reasons created by the need to make money anyway.

Who pays your doctors? It's probably your government. Who pays your government? The people. Nothing is free though children might feel that way. Someone's always paying for something. Nothing is free.

Again money is only important in the capitalist system because it keeps resources artificially scarce. If the means of production were owned by the workers then the need for money would decrease as production would raise to meet our needs, not kept artificially scarce to feed capitalist greed. (production in Spain rose 20% in just 2 years).

Money is important for reasons I just stated above. Every time you use it, you are voting. If you don't like the current system don't buy into it. Buy farm land and run a charity with the help of other people who don't need money and are willing to donate. Or run a collective and see for how many years it can survive before falling apart.

I can guarantee if people really needed something, rather than just use rhetoric, there would be a business to meet that need. The reason is because you vote with your money.

If resources are in abundance they would be cheap to purchase.
So again money would no longer be the motivator to work.

I would say realistically that people would just consume more, rather than resources becoming cheaper. Because money is used to purchase goods and services, it will still be a motivator no matter what.

In capitalism the owner doesn't have to work, he takes profit from simply owning not producing, without the owner all the profits would go to the workers.

In capitalism, anyone can be a business owner, if they save money and take risks. It sounds a lot like class envy to me. Even workers can some day start their own businesses. So what if the owner doesn't have to work? His bussiness, labor market, and all that.

If the doctors office is making huge profits then the doctors would get huge pay checks, along with their light bulb changer. The motivation to work is still there as you benefit directly from your labour, be that cutting people up or lighting peoples way.

But the rational motivation to work well is gone.

Here is a good example of the failure of capitalism in regards to the environment; During the boom in both residential and commercial real estate prices, folks where I live in Fl sold out to developers to make a quick profit. As a result, huge expanses of woods were completely clear cut in both commercial and residential sectors. Many properties even had roads put in and now here they all sit in all their 'blightful' glory (as many animals got killed on the roadside due to habitat loss). This would not have happened in a non capitalistic society, but as it is currently, EVERYTHING is about money, greed, and selfish independence.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by whatsup]

Originally posted by Maslo
You can have all the socialism and communism you want in free capitalist system. Just make a deal with like-minded people, and you can own your means of production together.

And workers are doing that. And guess what? They make more money than others in the same industry, and have more say in their workplace.

www.beyondchron.org...

But please stop forcing people who accomplished something to give it to those who did not, if they dont want to.

No one is forcing anyone, it is all about choice. If you had the choice to work at a coop, with more money and better working conditions, or working at joe blows factory for the wage they decide, what would you do?

And dont forget that people have to be paid according to their contribution to society, not according to their hard work. Without excessive government or criminal behaviour, the only rich people in free capitalist society would be those who (or whose parents) contributed to the society the most.

Hmmmm isn't hard work a contribution? Why should some people be rich, resulting in others being poor, when we could all have what we need?

Your notion is a little naive. Who benefited from slave labour, arguably the hardest working group of people ever? The slave, their children? No it was the capitalist owner of the means of production. Without slavery the capitalists would not have gained the wealth they now have, and if they were allowed do you think we would not be literal slaves now?

There is no morality in capitalism only profits for private entities, at the expense of the rest of us.

To say people who work menial labour jobs don't contribute to society is an insult to those workers. You might not have much respect for the road sweeper or garbage collector, but think what would happen without those workers...



[edit on 7/19/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by whatsup


What caused the housing bubble? It wouldn't have been Greenspan at the Fed or Paulson at the Treasury could it? What about the FHA? It's not like they were making loans they knew wouldn't perform...

A for the developers. It's sad, and I think if the area is protected or is of public importance it should be left alone. But private property rights and capitalism are not culpable here. Out of control government thinking it can micro manage a massive market, as well as engage in fraud within that market is responsible.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by projectvxn]

There are abundance of everything on our planet for all to share, what we need is growth in our spirituality and not money or material. The monetary system is a tool for control by the elites, believing in this backward system is just an act of unconsciousness. War and drugs are number one earners, there are no care for live nor the environment. Wake up people, scarcity are created by our governments and elites to keep us dump down, so as long we still sees that 'money' rules then we will miss everything else.

Take a look at these videos by this NASA technician on how technology over the last 150 years has already transformed humanity, and how we can achieve utopia now if we all have the will and consciousness.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ANOK

Hmmmm isn't hard work a contribution? Why should some people be rich, resulting in others being poor, when we could all have what we need? Your notion is a little naive. Who benefited from slave labour, arguably the hardest working group of people ever? The slave, their children? No it was the capitalist owner of the means of production. Without slavery the capitalists would not have gained the wealth they now have, and if they were allowed do you think we would not be literal slaves now?

No, hard work itself is not a contribution. You can work hard by digging a hole and then filling it, and you accomplish nothing. Slavery was possible only because the government of that time supported it by violence, and this is the exact opposite of a free capitalist society, where the "slave" would be free to leave his master and establish his own farm.

Originally posted by Enf0rc3r
In real life, if u work hard, u will make money.

Yes, you do make money, just enough to survive. Tell me, are you a millionaire yet? Do you work hard?

Does a construction worker work hard? Does a banker? Which works harder? I suppose it depends on the job and definition of work. A bloke in a cafe can work hard, too, but is he drowning in cash? Probably not.

Those who work hard and become "successful" are very rare. "Success" in a capitalist world is basically the same as "Wealthy". Hard work does not equal success in the capitalist society. Hard work is only a small part of becoming successful. Education is more important, without a good education you are unlikely to get a "good job" (normally classified as office jobs or white collar jobs). This brings us to another part of success, opportunity, without a "good job" there are few opportunities. It is rare for a shop clerk to become anything more than store manager despite how hard he/she works. So he/she will probably have to re-train to go up further in the company. Which requires money that he/she does not have.

For example, the education in the US is poor unless you have money to go to a private school (please watch "Stupid in America" 20/20 special www.youtube.com...) and without a good education, your opportunities are limited... round and round we go again. So how do you get a good education? Well your parents first need to be "successful" so you can have one that will give you the opportunity to succeed yourself.

Most of the time hard work is just that, it guarantees nothing. You may get money from it but it will not free you from your bondage.

Originally posted by taskforce4256


I think your last sentence was the key. If you don't contribute, you don't deserve anything. Capitalism is for those who contribute. Those who are unable to contribute due to physical or mental defect will be cared for. Those who choose not to contribute, either because they "opt out of the system" or because their choices led them to non-contribution (drug dependence, etc.) are not the responsibility of society. Apparently, they have chosen to starve.

How do the US take care of the mentally ill or disabled people? Do they not have to pay for treatment? (seriously not being sarcastic here I would really like to know)

OK, now to the issue of contribution. There were nearly 750,000 homeless people in 2005 in the US (www.msnbc.msn.com...) and with the economy the way it is I do not think that number has dropped.

I suppose they all chose to be homeless, perhaps they want to contribute but there are not enough jobs going around. Perhaps they do not have the right qualifications.

Maybe they have a drug dependency, maybe they got hooked on a psychotropic drug they were prescribed buy a doctor pushing pills on behalf of capitalist pharmaceutical shareholders. Maybe it was pain killers, who knows maybe they made a stupid decision when the were young and got hooked on something.

Maybe YOU should not be so judgemental. How about next time you see a homeless person or someone who has just lost their home thanks to the banks say "You should work harder" or "Why don't you contribute?".

Know anyone who has suffered because of a lack of medical care? Ask the same questions to them, too.


Try looking into what capitalism has done to people around the world. If "contribution" and "hard work" are the virtues that make capitalism work then shouldn't the sweatshop workers in Jamaica, China, Vietnam, Thailand, India all be millionaires? Because the way I see it they probably work harder and produce more than any of us in the West do.

Slavery was possible only because the government of that time supported it by violence, and this is the exact opposite of a free capitalist society, where the "slave" would be free to leave his master and establish his own farm.

It was possible because the government did not stop the capitalists from exploiting slave labour.

I'm not a fan of government but to keep blaming it for what capitalists do is stupid imo.

Government does not run things, capitalists interests do. The US is not in the ME because of government, they are their protecting capitalist interests.

Setting the slaves free was pretty much like letting the prisoners out of their cells. They're still in jail. How the hell is a slave supposed to be able to set up their own farm? If you lost your job today would you be able to run out and set yourself up a farm tomorrow? You would probably have a hard time finding another wage slave 'job'.

It's ironic how the petty-bourgeois say we are not living in reality when they themselves cannot see the reality around them. Middle class frivolities make you blind...


BTW the working class have been working their asses off for centuries, are they any better off?...

Rich-Poor Divide Growing
Between 1980 and the late 1990s, inequality also increased within 48 of 73 countries for which good data are available, including China,
Russia, and the United States. These 48 nations are home to 59 percent of the world’s population and account for 78 percent of the
gross world product. This trend contrasts sharply with earlier declines in the gap between rich and poor in a number of countries between the 1950s and the early to mid-1970s, a period of stable global economic growth.

www.worldwatch.org...

If they were shouldn't the rich-poor divide be getting narrower?

[edit on 7/23/2010 by ANOK]

There is a thread on " Capitalism is not" Great thread.To bad all you people did not read it but I am wasting my breath. Our teacher and Professors have done a good job on you guys, you actually think Capitalism is bad and that was their goal. God Help Us All.KMG

Easy way to show this debate:

Socialism = idealistic dream land
Capitalism = realistic nightmare

Bottom line is that only in the classroom does "everyone should work for the better..." actually work.

That's like saying we only have crime because people don't have what they need... even rich people commit crimes. People are people and they will never live up to the ideals we all sit and wish for.

So, we adopt a system that actually works - Capitalism.

Originally posted by gncnew
Easy way to show this debate:

Socialism = idealistic dream land
Capitalism = realistic nightmare

Bottom line is that only in the classroom does "everyone should work for the better..." actually work.

That's like saying we only have crime because people don't have what they need... even rich people commit crimes. People are people and they will never live up to the ideals we all sit and wish for.

So, we adopt a system that actually works - Capitalism.

I agreed with you more or less until the last line which is so wrong in so many ways:

- We didn't adopt capitalism. It was the natural progression from the feudal system

- capitalism did actually work for a period of time but big industry has long since outgrown the free market

- capitalism never included everybody and nowadays only serves to transfer whatever wealth remains within the middle class to the ruling elite.

- the only reason that people don't believe in socialism/communism is that they've been brainwashed against it since at least the early 1900s by the ruling elite and their army of political minions. That's why they equate socialism/communism with the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc none of which were anything of the sort.

Socialised medicine, education or other services don't make a socialist/communist state - they just prevent the proletariat from gathering enough power to overthrow the establishment and creating one.


The current system can only continue at the expense of the poor and middle classes. These same people will either perish or change the world by revolution. The success of any subsequent world order will depend on the education level of the common man and at the moment too many people believe that capitalism is actually ok, it's just those few bad apples upsetting the party. With that kind of thinking, we're guaranteed to wind up with the old system albeit reset to an earlier level - sort of like restarting the monopoly game after it stopped being fun.

Bottom Line - Capitalism fails, has failed, must be replaced, cannot be fixed, should be done now while we still have some unpolluted earth and oceans to survive on.

reply to post by JohnJasper

Bottom Line - Capitalism fails, has failed, must be replaced, cannot be fixed, should be done now while we still have some unpolluted earth and oceans to survive on.

Replaced with what?