Capitalism was a necessary system to adopt to escape feudalism, but it is an evolutionary stage in economics that is beginning to cease being useful. Global capitalism promotes unwarranted growth and consumption in many parts of the world that don't need to grow economically anymore. The parties that are most harmed by a never ending cycle of consumption and growth are the third world and the global environment. We need a system of quality now, not quantity.
Nope. Because for the vast, overwhelming majority of people, their experience with capitalism and globalism consists of their lands being ruined and their labor being exploited for the obscene enrichment of some faraway executive.
I'm sure those Nigerian fishermen are enjoying all that culture and connectedness as they pull oil-soaked fish out of the Niger river delta.
Here are some of the benefits of capitalism and communism submitted for your consideration.
Communism-a form of government that focuses on equality, that works well in small occurrences (small countries, independent villages, etc. etc.), and great in small periods of times when enforcing rations would be necessary in larger countries, but sucks ass in long tern for larger countries. Basically, everyone except for government figures in most cases, have the same economic standing.
Capitalism; a form of government relying heavily on free enterprise, has been seen to work (somewhat) in large countries. A downside would be that it inadvertently creates a social and economic pyramid, and at the bottom is those who are poor, and can remain as such for generations, and even then its hard as shit to move up the pyramid, and even harder to get to the top.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46833704]Nope. Because for the vast, overwhelming majority of people, their experience with capitalism and globalism consists of their lands being ruined and their labor being exploited for the obscene enrichment of some faraway executive.
I'm sure those Nigerian fishermen are enjoying all that culture and connectedness as they pull oil-soaked fish out of the Niger river delta.[/QUOTE]
What's the alternative?
Also capitalism does not imply exploitation or the ruining of the environment.
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;46333805]Capitalism needs to be [B]regulated[/B]. I don't find the one-world state with one culture and language bad but i really don't like that it might be English[/QUOTE]
Keynesian economics does not allow for true capitalism, and only paves the way toward crony capitalism, and Keynesian Economics. Capitalism in its rawest form was not intended for 'regulation', but rather to promote free-market ideology.
The problem with 'regulating' Capitalism is that you no longer have Capitalism, but rather crony-capitalism, the enemy of real Capitalism. The lower-class and middle-class are forced to bear the weight, whereas those in the lower-class who aspire to perform in the middle-class are continuously shutdown by forced minimum-wages, etc.
You can not do half-assery with Capitalism. You must earthier implement true Capitalism, or you must attempt a Socialist system which performs well in fair regulation.
This is my perspective, and I may be incorrect. I have lived under Communism and Capitalism. But I have never lived under a system in which the truest form of any was used.
[QUOTE=Deng;46834908]What's the alternative?
Also capitalism does not imply exploitation or the ruining of the environment.[/QUOTE]
Capitalism implies free-market and no regulation. Capitalism does not encourage ruining the enviroment, but ultimately its at the mercy of the corporation and how they produce products / dispose of waste, which hasn't been favorable thus far. But again; this system does not exist.
[QUOTE=Suff;46835541]
Capitalism implies free-market and no regulation. Capitalism does not encourage ruining the enviroment, but ultimately its at the mercy of the corporation and how they produce products / dispose of waste, which hasn't been favorable thus far. But again; this system does not exist.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Deng;46834908]What's the alternative?
Also capitalism does not imply exploitation or the ruining of the environment.[/QUOTE]
Capitalism is only the dogma of Money. It only goal is the gain of capital by individual.
you are right. It don't encourage ruining the environment, but in the end, it is only about money.
If you take Liberal Capitalist, It is mostly what the Usa was build on. Basically, everyone can start what ever company they want and run the economy. It usually don't have rules to follow and end up giving more value to profit than life itself
I am for a mix between socialism and Capitalism. The government has to have the power to stop the abuse by the industry by implying rules. but keep that American dream.
Running taxes and provide goods. In Quebec/Canada, the government runs the Lotteries and the Electricity. It also has some Mines and factories to keep the value of Metal stable.
[QUOTE=pac0master;46835593]Capitalism is only the dogma of Money. It only goal is the gain of capital by individual.
you are right. It don't encourage ruining the environment, but in the end, it is only about money.
If you take Liberal Capitalist, It is mostly what the Usa was build on. Basically, everyone can start what ever company they want and run the economy. It usually don't have rules to follow and end up giving more value to profit than life itself
I am for a mix between socialism and Capitalism. The government has to have the power to stop the abuse by the industry by implying rules. but keep that American dream.[/QUOTE]
I respect your argument, pac0master, but I must disagree.
"[B]Liberal Capitalism[/B]" [I]A Capitalist system, "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." according to the Dictionary.[/I]
The United States was not founded on ideals of 'Liberalism', it was founded as a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution of the U.S, ratified in 1778, is the foundation for which the U.S was intended to govern its infrastructure.
The U.S is a poor example of Capitalism, as it uses Keynesian economics, Crony Capitalism, and arguably 'war imperialism' as the foundation for which it operates its governing body.
In a Constitutional Republic, a dollar remains strong. It is reinforced, and not inflated as it is backed by gold.
In a Constitutional Republic, the taxpayers are not forced to bail out poorly-performing banks and to-big-to-fail corporations.
I myself am Communist, and so I relate. But I respectfully disagree.
[QUOTE=Suff;46835541]Capitalism implies free-market and no regulation.[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't.
The simplest definition is that it is a system in which the factors of production, commerce, etc are privately owned. That is, the bulk of economic activity is conducted by private individuals or companies rather than the state.
While free markets are an integral part to capitalism, having it regulated still makes it such.
[editline]1st January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=pac0master;46835593]Capitalism is only the dogma of Money. It only goal is the gain of capital by individual.[/QUOTE]
There is no goal in capitalism. The point of it is that it's an economic system.
[QUOTE=Suff;46835682]The U.S is a poor example of Capitalism, as it uses Keynesian economics, Crony Capitalism, and arguably 'war imperialism' as the foundation for which it operates its governing body.[/QUOTE]
Keynesian economics is capitalism. Crony capitalism meanwhile is a poor definition, unless you want to mean that it's corrupt (and the USA isn't particularly corrupt).
I've made a few mistake. sorry about that.
I am Socialist Capitalist.
[QUOTE=Deng;46835883]
There is no goal in capitalism. The point of it is that it's an economic system.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree.
Yes, there is a "goal" for an economic system.
It is what the system is based upon.
Capitalism is based on the individual capital. It's based on the Idea that everyone can possess any wealth they want. they just need to find a way to get it. The Goal is to give the power to every individuals. The richer you are, the more powerful you are in term of economy
[editline]1st January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Deng;46835883]
Keynesian economics is capitalism. Crony capitalism meanwhile is a poor definition, unless you want to mean that it's corrupt (and the USA isn't particularly corrupt).[/QUOTE]
Meh, Corruption is everywhere. Lobbying for instance. Here, many entrepreneurs keeps having specifics contracts with our Government.
No kidding. We pays the double for different jobs. Like paving and road maintenance. Yet they don't last half the time they said it would. (** you know, ice make cracks in our Roads **)
[QUOTE=pac0master;46836070]I disagree.
Yes, there is a "goal" for an economic system.
It is what the system is based upon.
Capitalism is based on the individual capital. It's based on the Idea that everyone can possess any wealth they want. they just need to find a way to get it. The Goal is to give the power to every individuals. The richer you are, the more powerful you are in term of economy[/quote]
That isn't how capitalism operates at all.
The point of an economic system is to distribute resources. The current setup (which is broadly derived from the economies of europe, china, japan, india, and the arab world slowly converging throughout the early modern period) is one in which this is done most effectively. The last serious competitor to this system died in 1991.
[quote]Meh, Corruption is everywhere. Lobbying for instance. Here, many entrepreneurs keeps having specifics contracts with our Government.[/QUOTE]
There are ways to measure corruption. Democracies with free market economies, strong rule of law, and peace tend to be the least corrupt.
unfettered capitalism in the US is a nightmare. Read the book "Empire of Illusion"
[QUOTE=Perfumly;46836303]unfettered capitalism in the US is a nightmare. Read the book "Empire of Illusion"[/QUOTE]
Can't you actually argue the case instead of telling us to read a book and giving us nothing to reply to you about?
[QUOTE=Deng;46836250]That isn't how capitalism operates at all.
The point of an economic system is to distribute resources. The current setup (which is broadly derived from the economies of europe, china, japan, india, and the arab world slowly converging throughout the early modern period) is one in which this is done most effectively. The last serious competitor to this system died in 1991.
There are ways to measure corruption. Democracies with free market economies, strong rule of law, and peace tend to be the least corrupt.[/QUOTE]
Taken from Wiki
[quote]Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.
Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labour.[/quote]
Capitalism is about profit and private industries. Capitalism give the power to the riches individuals.
It is an evolved form of mercantilism. It just applies to everyone.
Measures to prevent corruptions aren't always working. The greed will always be present.
[QUOTE=pac0master;46836578]Capitalism is about profit and private industries.[/quote]
True.
[quote]Capitalism give the power to the riches individuals.[/quote]
This does not follow.
[quote]Measures to prevent corruptions aren't always working. The greed will always be present.[/QUOTE]
Well yes, but democracies in the west tend to be less corrupt than authoritarian or hybrid regimes in South America and Africa.
[QUOTE=Deng;46837323]
Well yes, but democracies in the west tend to be less corrupt than authoritarian or hybrid regimes in South America and Africa.[/QUOTE]
Good point.
[QUOTE=Deng;46837323]This does not follow.[/QUOTE]
It does. It might not be the first intention of Capitalism, but it would be stupid to dismiss it.
Private companies have money and create jobs. They have an economic power.
The more money an individual have, the more power he can have in the economy.
[QUOTE=pac0master;46839941]It does. It might not be the first intention of Capitalism, but it would be stupid to dismiss it.
Private companies have money and create jobs. They have an economic power.
The more money an individual have, the more power he can have in the economy.[/QUOTE]
This only works up to a certain point. Were it true, it would say that wealthy individuals like Bill Gates, or wealthy families like the Rothchilds would have the most power and influence. The reality is that very often you get politicians from relatively humble backgrounds who can do a lot more. The best politicians in history haven't generally been the richest ones.
[QUOTE=Deng;46841777]This only works up to a certain point. Were it true, it would say that wealthy individuals like Bill Gates, or wealthy families like the Rothchilds would have the most power and influence. The reality is that very often you get politicians from relatively humble backgrounds who can do a lot more. The best politicians in history haven't generally been the richest ones.[/QUOTE]
In out modern time, these wealthy individual have a lot of power in an economic stand of point.
Their power is limited by what they can do.
What they can do is limited by their money.
Bill gate for instance donate a lot of his money to his world wide organization which fight against disease. He own a large part of other societies like Canadian National and Apple, etc. If he wanted, he could shut down some small companies or even larger one and break a lot of jobs worldwide.
The same goes with the Rothchilds they own banks...
They don't really use it because it's not efficient and would cause trouble.
Most of time, the government will rather keep your company running ( if you are doing well ) so they will be more flexible on what you can do. That's why companies has the right to pollute to an extend where the citizen don't
Only racists think globalism is bad.
Im rather convinced that blind persuit of profit will lead to utter global disaster.
And wage labour is the death of a humans intuitive genious.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
