The Case Against Capitalism

The Federal debt in 1929 was $16,931,088,484.10 and it is currently $19,200,169,433,825.24

How much more socialism can we afford and still compete in a global market system?

 

Yeah, we see things a bit differently on this. I see the regulations and other sorts of interventions as trying to keep the system from harming everything and everyone around it. While the capitalist system has its major benefits, its true nature is self-serving and destructive, thus ever requiring more and more interventions.

An economic system also influences social behaviors and value systems. So while capitalism may be part of a dynamic system, it is still pretty influential in other parts of that system. For example, the Prison and Military Industrial Complexes and materialism are driven by capitalism.

I agree with the idea that no other economic system drives productivity better. I would suggest that the reason for this is that alternative ideas are suppressed and fought against fervently. Aside from that, I believe that the system is over productive. The capitalist economic model is so great at productivity that it produces a tremendous amount of waste. I believe we can more than afford a lot less production, especially for the more non-essential products.

 

Yes capitalism does have some things going for it.

Capitalism is forced upon people, because if one doesn't participate, they can end up in the slums or homeless. A person must have some income and never run out. The moment they run out is the moment they begin to lose all they accumulated including their homes. Also, the government is not the only entity that can take away property. Creditors, landowners/landlords, and police can seize property too.

While the system does have some benefits, I see the costs as far too grave to stick with it. I just don't see this system as the end all be all. On the inside of the system, it might appear alright, but outside it, it's easy to see it's wreaking all sorts of havoc.

 

*Scratching my head*

Capitalism is not a property theory. It's an economic system. Yes a characteristic of capitalism is private property, but that's just one part of capitalism.

The US economic system is not a free market system. It is definitely a mixed economy.

Am I opposed to private individuals owning/controlling capital? Capital as in their own money...no not opposed to that. Capital as in certain assets like land...yes, I'm opposed to it.

Or am I opposed to the Free Market System answering the three basic questions?

Yes, only because of how it answers these questions. And that is without a single regard to anything outside of profit.

 

I am a philosopher more than an economist so I tend to see materialism and the modern work 'ethic' (together a cognitive dissonance of modern reality framing) that are perverting the effectiveness of the capitalist economic system. We've created this ideal where the only people we deem deserving of a comfortable life are people who have no use for it, they'd rather work 13 hours a day.

The problem with other economic systems is that they tend to be ineffective at getting peoples needs met, much less their wants. The rational desire to profit from ones labor is just a much quicker and effective way to motivate people. Big ideas like the common good and so on sound good but are hard for most people to connect to in their day to day life.

The bar is set much too high though and no amount of labor or risk taking seems to be enough anymore. I tend to think that if the expectations of human productivity had decreased congruent to the effectiveness of mechanization, and people were allowed to have modest success and security based on those expectations, the US would not be in the pickle its in.

However, its going to be almost impossible to reverse this mind frame. It is in both the rich and the poor, and the middle class are devoted to it mind and soul. Whatever new system we attempt will be attacked by it, the poor will not feel provided enough for, the rich will feel robbed, and the doggedly working middle will feel betrayed.

 

We like to keep things small to protect ourselves from the corruption that large systems provide opportunity for.

It turns out, individual solutions are safer for the group as a whole and more liable to provide organic solutions best tailored for each person.

A group of fish acting as individuals, swarm in the same places because of their common goals.
And become a shoal.
No need to organise them into shoals. Their individual behaviour assures this end already.

 

Agreed. Mostly anyway. The thing that finally convinced me were the studies of charitable efforts to provide needs in underdeveloped countries.

Turns out that just giving things away is extremely expensive on the distribution end. (Imagine $10 of your donation being used to provide a can of soup.) It turns out you can't just dump a load off at the dock and expect it to get to the people that need it. For one, its undervalued by the people who have access to it and tends to be wasted. And two, tends to end up owned by whoever at that dock can afford to store it.

Just building in a nominal cost and potential for profit among the local distributors it turns out works wonders.

 

Maybe we should ask the right, when they want to abolish our nationalized and socialized, wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?

 

Go ahead.

 

A quick check of the wiki produced the below definition of capitalism:

"Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment is determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, and prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market."

Does the above definition describe clearly and concisely what this thread is looking to build a case against?

 

Not really; socialism can always use capitalism, for all of its worth.

 

You failed ECON 101.

You can have a Soviet-style Command Market Economy with Capitalism (private ownership of Capital). The fact that such system has never been attempted is irrelevant.

Because the government (and other groups and associations) have interfered.

So you know better than anyone how a given parcel of Land should be used?

How did you acquire that superpower? Were you struck by lightning?

Profit is necessary for any Economic System.

1] What goods shall we produce or services shall we provide?

Shall we produce corn? Who decides? The Free Market is best to decide. The Free Market consists of consumers who demand corn; therefore corn should be produced. The Capitalist Property Theory says that Capitalists will immediately shift Capital to the production of corn to meet Consumer demand.

What would you have? Some government bureaucracy deciding if corn should be produced?

2] How shall we produce such goods or provide such services?

How shall corn be produced? Traditional farming methods? Organic farming methods? Genetically modified corn?

Again, the Free Market consisting of Consumers makes the decision. If the Free Market demands GMO corn, then so be it, but if the Market demands organic corn, then Capitalists will shift Capital to the production of organic corn.

What would you have, some bureaucratic government committee deciding if we should have organic corn or not?

3] For whom shall we produce such goods and services?

Again, the Free Market of Consumers decides. There are Markets for corn in the husk, corn on the cob, coblets, canned corn, creamed corn, succotash, corn for feed, corn for seed, popcorn, corn for alcoholic beverages and corn for light corn syrup, corn for dark corn syrup, corn for corn starch, corn flour, corn meal, corn flakes, high fructose corn syrup and corn for ethanol fuels.

Who decides who gets what? You? Or maybe you'd prefer the big government deciding for everyone.

The Free Market Economic System paired with Capitalist Property Theory is superior.

 

its true nature is Godly. China just switched to it and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire planet's poverty. Do you understand?

 

of course that is 100% pure liberal ignorance. Try going into business to serve yourself rather than your customers and let us know how well you do!!

 

of course that's purely ignorant since since colleges and universities don't suppress communism at all. In fact it is the major ideology there and in the MSM. Do you understand?

 

well, if one doesn't participate in earning a living for himself he should end up in the slims. Would you want others to pay for him to live in style in Beverly Hills???

 

I do. However, I also realize that this is only true for the time being. The Chinese has less than 15 years before they run out of drinkable water. After that, what do you think happens to the population and poverty levels when drinkable water runs out?

Under capitalism, people go into business for profit. It's just that it us in their interest to try and serve their customers appropriately. Don't forget that as capitalist achieve their ends, they strive for monopoly and price gouging. There is no allegiance to anything outside of profit under capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

I encourage all sorts of discussion even of communism.

 

yes China just switched to capitalism and thus instantly eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty.

 

My responses inline:

It's superior at production, but at too grave a cost.

 

The Fed had a hands of policy during the Great Depression, and wanted to let the markey fix itself.

that's why it took 20 years to recover.

unlike the Great Recession, which saw interest rates collapse and massive quantitative easing, massibve bailouts, which saved our economy and we are back to 5% unemployment.

thanks to massive government intervention

 

do you have any evidence of that at all????????????? IN fact the Fed was very very active during that period. Do you understand?

 

what did the Fed do to help get the USA out of the Great Depression?

 

do you mean Federal Reserve or Federal Govt

 

now you don't know what the "Fed" is?

 

obviously no one knew what to do which is why it was a Great long Depression and World war that spanned 16 years.


https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/92/03/Depression_Mar_Apr1992.pdf