List your belief system here.

I Soooo believe we should adopt the Roman culture and live like they did.
Gladiatorial bouts are a must.
Its nots what I'd really want or think but It'd be cool... at least for the first few weeks

May I ask how you can possibly make things better than in Capitalism? I mean... free exchange of goods, where no one is permitted to take anything from anybody except by mutual consent. How better to get what your product is really worth? How else to make sure the only way to get money is to do what other people need you to do?

And, like I said, we have allowances for people who are disabled, charities, the Church, and family to help the rest stay afloat. We give grants for education, so there's no excuse for being skill-free...

I mean, Capitalism isn't just one possible idea of many. It's basically how things DO go, in the absence of robbery. It's the natural order of business. It's like saying "Sure, you can build a house by using materials and piling them up in some clever arrangement, but there should be a better way."

This may make a whole new debate topic.

Awaiting responses. ^^

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

Live in a perfect world. That's how you can make things better than in capitalism.

That sort of capitalism is as hopeless an ideal as communism. It sort of worked before the industrial revolution- everyone worked relatively indepentantly- but then, with the advent of technology and mass production, a few hundred people could produce tens of thousands of times (ok, I'm somewhat guessing here, but you get the idea) as much as one independant artisan. Ideally, the massive profits would be shared amongst those involved (each person manning the assembly line would be payed acoording to how hard his job was, etc) but since only a handful of people could afford the capital investment necessary, there was a huge surplus of labour, meaning that the people who were not born rich would have no alternative but to literally break their backs just to survive. Factories could churn out enough products for everyone to live in relative comfort, but since only a few could actually afford these items, the masses were left poorer than before. Leftist (well, at the time; now they'd just be common sense) ideas such as child labour laws, minimum wage, unions, and wealth distribution are what allows us to take advantage of mass production in a way that actuallly does benfit society as a whole. Although the ideals behind laissez- faire capitalism are alluringly elegant in their 'natural law' feel, they simply don't work.

Of course, the Industrial Revolution doesn't entirely discredit the approach most modern capitalists tend to take. Child labour laws especially aren't really disputed.

I'm going to leave this until tommorrow. I haven't finished, but I acknowledge that the first paragraph doesn't fully address the ideas of capitalism, so don't rup into it too heavily just yet.

[ June 08, 2004, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: El Barto ]

East Asia is in a terrible economic condition, and that's generally because of capitalism. In a system that promotes the misuse of employees for the benefit of the employer, you better believe people will suffer. Unfortunately, it's not changeable. Countries such as China have attempted to make the change to a communist economy, but have simply tossed out the rights of individuals to become massive captitalist bodies. A country cannot be communist until it can support itself sufficiently without outside trade.

No...

Capitalism is not loads of unsafe factories, with a small wealthy moneyed class exploiting the vast masses. Many forms of capital exchange take place, naturally.

Banks interested in gaining more money grant loans to prospective entrepreneurs, expecting repayment with interest. Banks competing with one another for the best investments keeps them from bleeding clients dry. Investors also give part of their money to an entrepreneur that may succeed, in hopes of getting a return on their investment.

In addition, an entrepreneur can earn money outside the factory, as a merchant of goods, soldier, artisan (carpenter, plumber, etc. provided he increases his skills to handle increasingly bigger jobs), actor, writer, athlete, inventor, etc. With these sources of income, an astute worker, always following opportunity, can earn the capital to increase his quality of life.

In America, people are guaranteed a basic education, and may, as in my case, earn more advanced higher education, to develop their skills and improve their competitiveness in the marketplace.

Also, businesses need people who can buy their products, and a small, monied populace will only buy so many vases. Hence, corporations, to increase profits, will pay their workers more. See Sam Walton, George Jenkins, etc.

Also, workers in a free society will form unions to represent their collective interests. Of course, unchecked, they will also represent laziness, irresponsibility, wage controls... but that's why we also let in foreign labor each year... for competition (which of course means labor unions begin getting violent against those not in them, in which case it's leaders must be killed).

It is true that unskilled labor is the vastest of all resources. As such, it is pretty near worthless without artificial price controls. Even with them, it will be long ere you earn teh good life. The lesson? Don't be worthless. Don't be in the bathroom smoking during class hours. Don't close your homework books to watch MTV2. Don't become a parent before you're financially sound. Don't endanger your health and well-being.

Non-capitalist countries generally have worse living and working conditions, as well as human rights records than capitalist ones. This is because wealth comes before improving your lot in life. You can't put the cart before the horse.

Also, government helps out with extra money, in the event you are also working. Most of us also have family, friends, church, and charities to help us in times of excruciating need.

You think China sucks now? Look back under Mao Zedong. The nation began deregulating some things late in the 80's. Things began getting better in the early 90's. Human rights is even improving, slowly. But there are communists, and communists assume that these successes must be the result of improving communism, and would like to get rid of the capitalism again. Eventually they're going to figure out that the light goes out when you close the door.

No, capitalism does not cure ills for everybody. But it works better than any other system. You may say some European socialist systems work, but most if not all are rapidly approaching financial disaster or collapse, as soon as most people figure out they don't have to work to live well.

[ June 08, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Ditto, Sadly, Not a Boss In SSB:M ]

You just entirely missed my point. Communism is an ideal. Capitalism is a reality. You've been arguing against nothing if you think you've been arguing against me. One thing you have missed, however, is how there is a balance in world economics. You cannot look at Capitalism on a country to country basis, because countries trade with eachother - communist or not. For every wealthy person, there will be someone lower.

I think extreme capititalism is an ideal. In it's way, a better ideal than communism. The whole thing works on the idea that everyone gets out of society what they put into it. There are problems with this theory, the biggest being exploitation. Money doesn't just buy goods and services. It buys power.

^Exactly.

I wasn't arguing your point, AI. I was attacking some of your supporting theses. (I'd like to know where people get the idea that a response has to be directed to the previous speaker's main point...). The reason China is craptastic isn't because of Capitalism, as you said. It's because, as you noted, of the lack of human rights and rule of law. It's what you get when a shop owner and a shoplifter have the same status under the law.

Wait, what system involves "workers being exploited by their employees?" You can't mean capitalism. If I hire you to fix my car, does that mean I'm exploiting you? Build me a table? Work on my assemblyline at a regular wage? Slavery, forced work, at the edge of a blade or barrel, where you can't go somewhere else... THAT'S exploitation.

Pure Capitalism is just an ideal (and probably a dangerous one), just as pure Communism is.

But practical capitalism and "practical" communism do exist in the world, and it's those I was comparing. And it's the practiced left-wing ideologies that some people would try to defend that I was arguing against.

You say money buys power, but in reality, resources of any kind buy power. And that's the way it should be.

[ June 10, 2004, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Ditto, Sadly, Not a Boss In SSB:M ]

The fact that money buys power goes against the ideal behind capitalism (that everyone gets what they deserve). The fact is, once you have a lot of money, it is far easier to make more. This is why it's possible for some businessment to make thousands of times more than their blue collar underlings. I seriously doubt that they are thousands of times more capable or hard working.

This is an unfortunate reality that even in today's society shows the shortcomings of the Adam Smith approach to economics. I don't think the idea of personal responsibility is without value, but it is too simple to be applied in all situations.

They may not be more able or hard-working. It's that the skill they provide is more scarce than unskilled labor, so they earn more for it. They're not more hard-working. I certainly HOPE the value of a service isn't related to how hard it is to do. If it is, then a hole in the ground is worth more than a well-written book.

It's how valuable your good or service is to the person paying you. And, yes, people who have a lot of money can get more money easily. They have a resource to provide: money.

Is it a bad thing that the rich can easily get richer? God no. Cuz they still can't get richer without providing something someone else wants. This just means they can do it alot more.

A wealthy guy invests in a hundred stocks. That's money for other people to get businesses up and running, which provides more and cheaper goods for people.

People always say "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." It's never "The rich get richer and the poor get better terms on loans cuz the banks have more money to lend."

[ June 10, 2004, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Ditto, Sadly, Not a Boss In SSB:M ]

[Lurch1982]

Problem with your social theory is the question of what happens when an entire family is poor, the church is too busy spending money on its legal defense or spreading the faith abroad, and charity is dealing with worse cases than your own. I think there should be a fed-welfare as a safety-net. Education in this country has been declining for a while now, recently marked by the massive cuts by the Bush Administration into the amount of money put into the federal grants (ie: Pell Grants----free college money in grant form to economically needy students), scholarships, and other government-based aid. Education is the main key to preventing future poverty.

If you haven't read Adam Smith (and its obvious some of you haven't), don't critique Adam Smith. Yes, I know it can be dull, but you cannot criticize something you haven't read.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Marxist Communism supposed to be a worldwide movement, thus didn't take foreign trade into account? Its been a long time since I read Marx.

What you're failing to mention about Mao is that he pushed China through the Industrialization process that usually takes 50-150 years in a decade. Not justifying that at all, especially considering how many people died from it, but simply pointing out that China wouldn't be a sweatshop haven now if it weren't for that rapid industrialization.

There are problems with modern Capitalism.

The consumer does not have full knowledge. This is a basic principle of capitalistic economics. Example: do you think people would buy as many items for $100 dollars if they knew they cost $15 dollars in materials and labor to make (if that)? Certainly not. Supply and Demand rules would then state that the consumers would go to a different product (ie: cheaper or higher value), and Nike would be forced to lower the prices or better their labor practice. Do you think people would buy as many products manufactured in parts of Asia if they knew the sweatshop conditions of the workers there? If you went to the store and on the product label there was a notice that said "ATTENTION CONSUMERS: OUR FACTORY PAYS OUR WORKERS AN AVERAGE OF A NICKEL PER DAY," would you still buy it?

Is getting money for nothing from the government any different than getting money for nothing through inheritance? IE: Going on a capitalist system in raising people, a parent's excess money should be spent, or invested in their child's education. After investing 25 years worth of education, shouldn't the person make their own mark instead of getting a massive trust fund and stagnating? Something to think about.