The Capitalism Debate!!!! - Page 3

If you were to go to my mother's house, you would probably find her hands in the sink. She doesn't eat much herself but really loves to see others eat. Kind of a fanatic about washing dishes.
Actually I should say rinsing dishes? She just can't (under) stand it unless they are rinsed with hot hot water for a couple of minutes.
She doesn't seem to be able to accept that water is scarce now, something we need to conserve. But then she doesn't really get out & see how much the population has grown or how remember the times when we had bans on watering.
She seems almost unaware of the drastic changes which effect our future ability to sustain simple quality of life.

"China never became a democracy. "
Is China rich? No, its GNP per capita is still rockbottom. When I say rich, I don't mean in terms of the Chinese State (which is number 2 in wealth). I mean the Chinese People, who are still piss poor. BUT they are far richer (and are getting richer and richer) thanks to opening up to investment.

China WILL be democratic once get enriches itself levels close of its rich neigbors (S.Korea, Taiwan). Both those asian countries had social unrest as they became richer and forced them to become democracies. This has been true for every country to become wealthy.

Capitalism in China has not had enough time. It took 30 or 40 years for South Korea and Taiwan to become democratic. China still has a way to go.

" Now when kids go home, no one is there waiting for them, mom has to work."
That is her choice, not yours, not the government's.

Went thru the old hurricane awareness program.
Calling a friend, I had to stop & think 'I like he were within the projected path' so ask him to come on over if they needed a place to stay . . . Well now they need some of those basic qualities of life. Place to stay, water to drink, food to eat?
In those lives were swept aside by Charly.

There's insurance for that, people must be aware of the risks their homes are open to. If those risks were unkown to all parties, then the government may compensate.

need to change channels to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/timewavezero2012/

A lot of information there that may explain the hurricane.

Dumbteen: I think you are confusing Capitalism with Democracy. Though all democracies contain capitalism, capitalism is not democracy. Recent and past agendas prove that. You we'rent around for Vietnam but you are around for Iraq. Political figures have been bought by corporate interests. Ross Perot warned us and tried to change it, and if we had listened, we would not be in Iraq. Capitalism is an engine without morals, its only ambition is profits. While profits are nice for the good of humankind, it must be always kept in check or it will chackle human kind and become its destruction.

Not all democracies are capitalist. But the only democracies who survive are capitalist.

Name a single modern non-capitalist democracy which has survived.

That doesn't stop us having socialist elements, insurance and all that allows justice. But our societies must remain essentially capitalist : free markets, incentive to work, property rights.

I will agree that capitalism fuels democracy. Our car gets us to work, we would be hard pressed without it. However our automobile has no virtue. Capitalism is like the soil for a tree. It is, it will be. However, without government control, these automobiles will run us right over.

Recently in the news: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5709120/

One of many axamples. Capitalism is about profits. It is not about people or morality, or the future. Its here and now and how much can we rake in. Having no concern at all except for its profits. If capitalism ever appears to care for its workers or its invironment. It is only for advertising for more profits.

Capitalism is a part of democracy. But it is not democracy or its creator. Capitalism is a creation of democracy. Even though China isn't a democratic nation, its capitalism came from America. Capitalism is neither good or bad, but simply an engine created by democracy that must ALWAYS be controlled by democracy. Not the other way around.

In other words - Capitalism is for the people by the people. God help us when that is reversed to: The people for capitalism by capitalism. And that is happening, and it needs to be stopped.

" But it is not democracy or its creator. Capitalism is a creation of democracy."
Capitalism existed before democracy. Capitalism, in fact existed before government. Capitalism is as simple as two cave men trading apples for spears. That is the essence of capitalism, trading for mutual profit, because the transaction is based on free will.

There has never been a succesful modern democracy without capitalism. In fact, the first modern democratic countries to sustain themselves (Britain/America) were economically liberal. I do not believe it is a coincidence.

Liberal economics are a means to achieve the end which is democracy.

Thus, democracy is our goal, but it is a completely futile one without capitalism.

quote:

---

Capitalism is as simple as two cave men trading apples for spears. That is the essence of capitalism, trading for mutual profit, because the transaction is based on free will.

---

Hmm . . . the essence of capitalism, trading for profit. I guess I can see a barter as being or having an element of capitalism (?). But I don't know that what we call capitalism today is a transaction based on free will?
Lies and deceptions are not free will, neither is miss leading others to actions based on fear. these are not the tools of freedom and liberty for all. As OK said it is not that government is evil or bad but the government is as bad as the abuse of power makes it.
Some nations prospered under the rule of kings and queens, look at the significants of King David to the Jews. They certainly see his rule as a time of goodness (milk and honey)
But those who abused their robes of royality forged the revolts which overcame them, strengthening the desire for self-rule, democracy. Capitalism doesn't promote the desire for democracy, the people promote their desires. One could ask which is stronger the desire for material wealth or the right of self rule? Or do we just choose who we serve.

"But those who abused their robes of royality forged the revolts which overcame them, strengthening the desire for self-rule, democracy."
Its not even abuse, its incompitence. Everything is incompitent until it is forced to reform or be replaced by something more compitent. Capitalism is THE system which has allowed inefficient systems to dispear, incompitent people to be replaced in the least amount of time.

This is verified in practice : capitalist countries produce far more then socialistic ones. One may note that if a socialist country (by chance) has a skilled leader, they may be better then the capitalists (one might note that Stalin increased soviet production incredibly). But one the leader vanishes, the system reverts to the ineffiency of Kruschev's Virgin Lands Scheme or Breznev's conservatism.

"Capitalism doesn't promote the desire for democracy, the people promote their desires."
But the people only desire democracy if they are reasonably rich. Democratic movements were only possible in France/Korea/Taiwan because they were rich. Poorer people tend to be more open to fundamentalism and extemism of all kinds. It was indeed economic poverty which rallied the Germans around the Nazis (as well as communists).

Thus people promote their desires, but their desires are made by their culture and their class. Wealth creates the desire for democracy (don't ask me WHY, this is a statement, its happened historically as explained above, many many times, just as poverty destroys the desire for democracy).

Sometimes I really wonder where you get these ideas?

quote:

---

Capitalism is THE system which has allowed inefficient systems to dispear, incompitent people to be replaced in the least amount of time.

---

In the trades, systems are designed to meet certain criteria.
Building codes were devised to set minimum standards, wage scales are also set similarly to establish minimums wage & wage scales; federal codes are ranked highest, then state, etc.
These codes & scales exist even within unions, which formed combat the effect of wealthy owners taking advantage of the individual (workers).
The 'good old boy' business is still active & strong in government, in part these are the upper merchant class which has existed as long as there has been governments.

quote:

---

Anything in excess can be harmful

---

While I worked construction I found myself working in an atmosphere of cut throat competition, subcontractors would not work together to complete the job but would vie for extras ($), even at the cost of other subcontractors.
While cost over estimated are normal & should be allocated. We shouldn't forget we were hired to get the job complete, profit is neccessary but not the primary purpose of construction trades.
So yes, some form capitalism has existed longer than democracy. The distribution of wealth & education set the stage for european> western democracy but capitalism in itself is not a democratic proccess.
The constitution proclaimed the rights of the indivdual yet included slavery & indentured servitude. Binding the people, capitalistic & democratic in a common cause,building a nation where they are free to choose the life we live.

"In the trades, systems are designed to meet certain criteria.
Building codes were devised to set minimum standards, wage scales are also set similarly to establish minimums wage & wage scales; federal codes are ranked highest, then state, etc."
Blah blah.
Worker's rights are not relevant to my statement. I think you are completely ignoring me. I claim that capitalism through the creation and bankruptcy of companies, the hiring and fire of employees and CEOs. This system of replacement exists best in capitalism. This is why our companies are efficient, the inefficient ones die.

Under socialistic governments, gov-owned companies do not die. They stagnate, they are propped up with government money. They are never replaced and gradually become less efficient. This has been seen in the Soviet Union's entire economy, or simply France Telecom.

If you cannot understand this I give up.

Perhaps this will make it clear : capitalism is about the creation as much wealth as is possible. The distribution is more uneven then socialist societies, BUT, everyone overall is better off (not to mention the nation's international power).

" but capitalism in itself is not a democratic proccess. "
Yes it is. Look at history : Taiwan, South Korea, France. 3 social and political revolutions and moverments towards democracy. In each case it is the middle class that pushed for reform.

A middle class is only possible when there is enough wealth, hence when your nation is capitalist (and has been so for enough time).

Look into historical self-evident facts.

Democracy - free will. You have an apple with a stem and you have an apple without one. Its still an apple and it still tastes the same. I think what we having here is a problem in communications.

Yes - capitalism exists. So do trees. Capitalism without government controls is scary, dangerous, unhealthy and chackles us to minipulated consumerism. We must not loose the leashe binding capitalism to government control. I don't recommend it, nor will I support it.

"You have an apple with a stem and you have an apple without one. Its still an apple and it still tastes the same. I think what we having here is a problem in communications."
Poor metaphors aren't helping.

I think we are essentially agreeing here though. Capitalism is necessary to a long lasting democracy. And I'm not saying 1920s laissez faire capitalism (which doesn't work in the end), but a form of capitalism with government intervention. Some social laws are necessary, but that's missing the point. Far more important is the gov's role to inject money into the economy so it and keep going and we don't have a Great Depression.

I think what we having here is a problem in communications.
Poor metaphors aren't helping. Democracy to me by definition is not the choosing who shall be crowned king for the day.
The inherent (GOD-given right) of free will encompose the liberties (which are stated but not neccessarily given in the BIll of Rights & Constitution) Just as you have the right to your belief (religion) so to does it establish the right to be a capitalist or socialist or a communist or even a nazi. I do not desire to live in a capitalist nation anymore than I would a communist nation. Nazism is just as repulsive as capitalism or communism because I believe in those rights.
I am not a capitalist so the bottom line isn't material wealth & poccessions which is the primary construct of capitalism & your arguements about The system. As it is written the workman is worthy his wages so I am content with with what I recieve, I don't need to own an jet nor a great mansion with helo pad, seventeen car garage and tennis courts to be content. I don't desire to rule the world so I don't see the need for this nation to rule the world, if it could lead (by example) the world to be a better place then it will have exceeded my expectations.

quote:

---

Blah blah.

---

I included these statements in the desire to broaden the horizon of an otherwise restrictive arguement of capitalism.
As capitalism has forced its own waywardness upon others is not acceptable, the system needs to balance productive ecomonics to a sustainable level as OkCity indicated. The natural growth of population creates the demand for goods which we need to meet, not so much to exceed.