|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 12, 2014 8:49:06 GMT
Inspired by "fred" on another thread (very poetic) I thought exploring both the successes and failures of capitalism would be a worthy topic. I'm a laissez faire capitalist but I'm also a realist as well knowing that theory and reality can often be distant cousins. Perhaps we should just start with the simple definition of capitalism and go from there. Instead of me pontificating on this subject I'll let others begin to explore where capitalism succeeds and why, where it fails and way, and what possible solutions there are to address the failures.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 12, 2014 14:16:54 GMT
so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
1.
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 12, 2014 14:27:10 GMT
The difference is simple - one is realism, the other, a daft pipe dream for people who have failed, or will fail for whatever reason.
Human nature is to be the best you can possibly be and to gain as much as you can.
This is basic survival of the fittest as Darwin quite rightly theorised to be the case.
Lions don't share with hyenas but the latter sometimes gang up to steal the fruits of the former's hunt.
Capitalism is human nature and can't be beaten.
Of course, someone may able to cite an example of a successful socialist state but I don't seem to be able to think of one at the moment.
Now will come the usual excuses.
Socialism has never been tried
Socialism was always hijacked by aliens from Mars
Socialism is pathetic and can never work in the real world.
Oh, hang on, the last one is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 13, 2014 13:35:09 GMT
so·cial·ism ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit noun 1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Nothing inherently wrong with this although many problems are associated with attempts to use such an economic system. Of course this definition really points out that "social conservatives" that claim Democrats endorse "socialism" are really ignorant of the definition as they don't propose "community" owned enterprise but merely advocate taxing it to fund the failures of capitalism.
Of course another thread can be used to address the successes and failures of socialism in practice but I avoided covering two different topics in this thread because we don't have socialism in the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 13, 2014 13:49:49 GMT
Capitalism is human nature...........
I agree with this but once again this is not a comparison of "capitalism" to other economic philosophies or systems.
We can state that it is human nature to work to achieve but we can also point out that it is often human nature is to screw someone else in the process to achieve even more. "Greed" is generally just as much a trait of human nature as a willingness to achieve through one's efforts.
One of the foundations of capitalism is the voluntary transaction were both parties to the transaction benefit equally from it. Such transactions cannot be based upon coercion where one is forced to accept less than an equal benefit from the transaction. In fact, under contract law (a foundation of capitalism), any coercion related to the contract invalidates the contract.
Can you think of examples of coercion existing in our current "capitalistic" economy in the United States? I can certianly provide examples but I'd like to see what you can identify before offering my examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Feb 14, 2014 14:39:03 GMT
Capitalism is a system by which half-wits with nothing else to do steal from others. What sort of clown wants to devote his life to piling up a dung-heap to crow from? Jesus wept!
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 15, 2014 0:31:16 GMT
Capitalism is a system by which half-wits with nothing else to do steal from others. What sort of clown wants to devote his life to piling up a dung-heap to crow from? Jesus wept! This is a rather ignorant statement about capitalism as that is not does not represent the economic philosophy of capitalism. Please refer back to the definition provided as none of what is being claimed relates to that definition.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Feb 15, 2014 12:34:55 GMT
Capitalism is a system by which half-wits with nothing else to do steal from others. What sort of clown wants to devote his life to piling up a dung-heap to crow from? Jesus wept! This is a rather ignorant statement about capitalism as that is not does not represent the economic philosophy of capitalism. Please refer back to the definition provided as none of what is being claimed relates to that definition.
Some listen to capitalist codswallop: others tell the truth. (Too succinct, alas! What is the point of this wordcount business?) |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 16, 2014 10:51:08 GMT
Capitalism is a system by which half-wits with nothing else to do steal from others. What sort of clown wants to devote his life to piling up a dung-heap to crow from? Jesus wept! Capitalist get money by exploiting an idea that other people will pay for. This may be a product or a service that requires the capitalist to pay people for their labour. That payment is as stated in a contract the prols accept before they start work. If they make a deal, they have no right to back out of that deal. If they don't like the deal, don't accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 16, 2014 12:30:08 GMT
The start-up of enterpise under capitalism is based upon the belief that the product or service will provide "value to the customer" based upon merit (quality and/or cost) that will generate sales and profit. Expansion of enterprises is based upon the fulfillment of that original belief where sales (consumption) warrant expansion to meet demand.
There is a problem with capitalism when invidious criteria unrelated to merit is used as a criteria in a free market to determine economic outcome.
For example there is a serious problem with capitalism if racial or gender prejudice exists because prejudice overrides "merit" as a deciding factor and adversely affects the economic outcome. Racial prejudice, for example, can prevent the most qualified person from being hired and we can assume the enterprise will do best if the most qualified individuals are employed by the enterprise as they provide most "value" to the enterprise.
The the individual, the enterprise, and the overall economy suffers economic loss because of racial prejudice that results in discrimination. Invidious racial prejudice and discrimination violates the fundamental principles of a free market capitalist economy that relies upon market decisions based upon merit as opposed to prejudice. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Feb 17, 2014 14:15:16 GMT
The start-up of any enterprise in capitalism, like any burglary start-up, is based on the notion of robbing the mugs and making a lot of money for nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 17, 2014 19:03:06 GMT
The start-up of any enterprise in capitalism, like any burglary start-up, is based on the notion of robbing the mugs and making a lot of money for nothing.
This is absolute BS.
For the vast majority of entrepreneurs it's about providing products and/or services at a reasonable price where both the business and the customer benefit equally from the exchange. Of course there are exceptions but they are exceptions and not the rule of thumb. The vast majority of enterprises in a free market would fail if it was not for the mutually beneficial aspects of the exchange.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 17, 2014 22:59:26 GMT
The start-up of any enterprise in capitalism, like any burglary start-up, is based on the notion of robbing the mugs and making a lot of money for nothing. What a load of old codswallop. A business starts up with the intention of making money. The mugs are never forced to buy the product or service and there is nothing stopping them from starting their own business, doing exactly the same thing but under workers' control. The mugs don't do it because they're mugs, unable to work out anything more than how to order a pint and get to the betting shop. The latter is for realising the socialist dream of great wealth with no work. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 18, 2014 14:23:55 GMT
The start-up of any enterprise in capitalism, like any burglary start-up, is based on the notion of robbing the mugs and making a lot of money for nothing. What a load of old codswallop. A business starts up with the intention of making money. The mugs are never forced to buy the product or service and there is nothing stopping them from starting their own business, doing exactly the same thing but under workers' control. The mugs don't do it because they're mugs, unable to work out anything more than how to order a pint and get to the betting shop. The latter is for realising the socialist dream of great wealth with no work.
A couple of points of clarification.
There are cases in Caplitalism where a person is forced by coercion into "contracts of exchange" that violate the Law of Contract that prohibits coercion related to contract. For example there is coercion when the Law of Supply and Demand forces a person to work for less compensation than it costs for the person to live on. The person "must work" under Capitalism and they have no choice in millions of cases where they are force to "work at a loss" which violates the principle that exchanges are based upon a mutually beneficial exchange where each party "profits" from the exchange. A person "working at a loss" is not profiting from the exchange but the enterprise is profiting from their labor. It is an unequal exchange with a "winner" and a "loser" and that violates the economic ideology of Capitialism.
Socialism never advocated a "dream of great wealth with no work" as the proposition was that all persons would contribute to the best of their ability and each would benefit based upon their contribution. Those that might choose to not work were violating the economic ideology of socialism.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Feb 18, 2014 14:37:20 GMT
Capitalism is theft, organised by conmen. Crime is capitalism without the shirtfront. End of story.
|
|
