The Capitalism Debate!!!!

Ok before all the conservatives and socialists and all the rest start up about it im merely asking about its worth and revlevance in modern society. Im not for or against cuase theres good and bad things too it, well obviously you might not see either or, depending pon your veiw point.

The good points in the end of it all are the boosted economy and increase in democracy aswell... there are probaly plenty more aswell and i realise this for those who will jump down my throat for that. lol

But the bads points could also be pinned down to the "on the back of the working class" saying. the rich are there becuase of the working class and blah blah blah. Also the rumers of it being one the primary reasons for poverty, something i heard dont get at me for it.

I know there are gonna be many different opinions on it but if you wanna share yours im more than happy to read it.

Your bad point is actually a positive. Our rich are creating the jobs to employ our middle class. Look at Bill Gates, Michael Jobs, etc. Capitalism creates a desire, a dream, an incentive to succeed. This is why inventions and discoveries are focused in democracies. Why invent something if you can not enjoy the financial benefits. From pharmaceuticals to high tech, capitalism breeds the incentive and desire. You just don't see this in socialist, communistic, or dictatorship type countries. Can you name a non capitalistic country where the middle class is better off? How about the poor, can you name a country where the poor are better off?

Darwinian evolution functions on the level of societies and states as well as individual organisms.

Right now, the choice is simple, you can either be capitalist, or dead. All none capitalist states are either piss poor (whose working class is far far poorer then the US equivalent) or have since died.

Examples include :
- Cuba
- North Korea
- all eastern Europe
- a gazillion socialist/isolationist countries in Africa
- Yugoslavia
- the USSR
Note that the USSR had MASSIVE resources to be found in the Russian Empire (still not exploited enough) and yet still found itself a backward centralized state dominated by bureaucracy.

Remember : it is a thousand times better to be unequaly rich then to be equaly poor.

Of course, just being capitalist doesn't mean automatic success. There are of course many many stories of capitalist countries struggling and failing. However, being capitalist allows the possibility of success. Being socialist/commie means inevitable :
- centralization
- bureaucracy
- economic failure
- poverty for all
- spiral into dictatorship

Good to see we agree, dumbteen

Good point i like the link between the evolution theory...very classy lol

quote:

---

Good point i like the link between the evolution theory

---

As Darwin's theory is concerned I don't see the validation you do. Nature has many examples of individual sacrifice for the groub, as well as cooperative organization instead of competative? Pack animals work together to cature prey, plant eating animals will groub together for protection?

quote:

---

the choice is simple, you can either be capitalist, or dead. All none capitalist states are either piss poor (whose working class is far far poorer then the US equivalent) or have since died.

---

I noticed the list included lands that are not as rich in natural resources as the USA so to compare these to us is a biased judgement to begin with.

quote:

---

Remember : it is a thousand times better to be unequaly rich then to be equaly poor.

---

Well everyone has their own opinion. After all those who love money seem totally devoted to it, they make it the (lord) most important thing in their lives, some to the extent that it is more important than life itself (at least someone elses life)

quote:

---

being capitalist allows the possibility of success.

---

means inevitable destruction as the natural resources becomes depleted these nations fail like the European nations which colonial activities lead to their own doom.

quote:

---

Why invent something if you can not enjoy the financial benefits. From pharmaceuticals to high tech, capitalism breeds the incentive and desire.

---

Ya, I never have figured out why people are so stupid as to give their life so others can get rich?

quote:

---

Yugoslavia

---

Ya, I owned one of those yugo cars. Went to up North so a friend would give it to me. She took me into town where the local artist were having a show!
Seems they each were to use the yugo form as the bases of some art work, they had yugo barbecues, beds, all kind of things they mde out of those cars. Me, I drove mine home then went out to Washington state & back. Of course, I got rearended on the LA freeway, tore up the rear end. But it got me home, really hated to let that car go. Only a four speed so not good for the interstate but you could hardly beat the thing to death with a stick. "May not keep up with your modern cars but I could work on it myself & it ran strong even with a couple of turnovers on the odometer. Oh ya, didn't cost an arm & leg to own but then I don't worship Mammon so economic viability is important to me.

"Nature has many examples of individual sacrifice for the groub, as well as cooperative organization instead of competative?"
I don't mean that capitalist societies in nature are the most succesful.

I mean that the only societies which perpetuate themselves are the 'best' ones. They happen to be capitalist and they will be eventually replaced by a better one.

"I noticed the list included lands that are not as rich in natural resources as the USA so to compare these to us is a biased judgement to begin with."
Excuse me, the USSR and China are extremely abundant in resources.
USSR was an economic mess.
China only succeeded when it became a free market nation.
The Netherlands/France/Germany/Japan have NO resources left, and yet are still rich countries (despite some recent stagnation). They are far far richer then the communist countries were at their peak.

Resources can help a country, but modern economies are based on manufactured goods, not raw resources.

" Well everyone has their own opinion."
If we want wealth, then its simple math. The simple fact is, a poor person in the US was better off then an average person in the USSR.

"fail like the European nations which colonial activities lead to their own doom. "
Funny you mention them. Imperialism is not free market capitalism.

" Ya, I owned one of those yugo cars."
Sentiments asside. Yugoslavia was non-russian version of communism. It floundered like other communist models. It lead to economic failure, civil war and an attempted genocide.

I don't know why people debate this anymore. If wealth is good, then capitalism is the best model so far. If you don't like wealth, well that's fine, you are free to not work.

quote:

---

I don't mean that capitalist societies in nature are the most succesful.

---

Oh, well then I missed the point of the comparison.

quote:

---

Excuse me, the USSR and China are extremely abundant in resources.

---

China also has one of the largest populations (density) so I don't think capitalism will ever work well for them. As far as USSR, their biggest mistake was trying to vie with the USA, they should have just taken care of their own & to Hell with US. I have talked with a few Russians (?) but I get the feeling that they aren't particularly happy about the fall of Socalism, some of them evidently were not that unhappy with their system of government.

quote:

---

but modern economies are based on manufactured goods, not raw resources.

---

hard to manufacture shit if you don't have the resources, but then that is why we are at war with Terrorist, isn't it?

quote:

---

Yugoslavia was non-russian version of communism. It floundered like other communist models. It lead to economic failure

---

Ya, but they made a damn good product.

quote:

---

If wealth is good, then capitalism is the best model so far

---

to much of anything can be bad . . .
work?
Better to do something you enjoy doing than working at something you hate? Life is for living!

How do you explain the fact that now that China is capitalist, it is the second greatest power in the world?

How do you explain that Japan and all Western European countries are now rich despite the fact they have no more resources?

The simple fact is, in free market world, you can buy resources. Rich countries do that.

And the second simple fact is that a state economy dragged down by bureaucracy and centralization cannot succeed. Better, they have consistently failed in the past (did you know North Korea was the industrial center of Korea before the Cold War?)

quote:

---

How do you explain the fact that now that China is capitalist, it is the second greatest power in the world?

---

Is the main land of China truly capitalist? Yes in order for China to access the western market, it has accepted some capitalist interprise to be established.

quote:

---

China only succeeded when it became a free market nation.

---

You know I am not quite sure what the deal about Taiwan & China boiled down too but to say that China has become capitalist maybe a bit of a stretch.

quote:

---

Japan and all Western European countries are now rich

---

Funny thing about Japan, I can remember when 'made in Japan' meant that it was a cheap piece of juke compared to the manufactured goods of the US?
Of course when I was in Japan, we were all buying Japanese cameras and electronics because they were cheaper there than in the states. Good deals even at 300 odd yen to the dollar & the quality was as good or better than the US.

quote:

---

The simple fact is, in free market world, you can buy resources. Rich countries do that.

---

but there is the little rub of those who don't want to sell, they can be problem.

quote:

---

did you know North Korea was the industrial center of Korea before the Cold War?

---

No, I wasn't but not a surprise, kind of like our own civil war, eh?

quote:

---

Capitalism creates a desire, a dream, an incentive to succeed.

---

Capitalism & Democracy are not synonyms, they are not the same thing.
Doesn't capitalism promote free market Imperialism?
So the industrilized countries get the natural resouces of the poorer less industrial countries.
Which receive less for the raw material than they pay for the finished goods . . . so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, ya that sounds familiar. Sounds like a good deal for the industrialist but not so hot for those that are not.

Let us see everyone want to get riches & the rewards of 'the good life', right. But there is a slight hitch, not everyone is going to get rich, are they?
Hm . . . I can start my own business or I can work for someone else? Well, I probably won't get rich by working for someone else but it is easier to let someone else have all the headaches & just collect my paycheck, right?
I can put my life on the block to start my own business or I can have all the riches that my life will bring on that same auction block? Which should I do?
Does it matter who the check is from, government checks are less likely to bounce or shut the job come Monday morning? Is there so much difference between a corporate institution and a government institution?

quote:

---

The 'riches' ones happen to be capitalist and they will be eventually replaced by a better forms of government.

---

But the waste of natural resources will catch up to us all, no matter. The Law of Supply and Demand, the supply dwindles and the demand increases, the more we waste the higher the cost.
Just think of all the time & material that could have been saved if we hadn't run around fighting all those wars down through the ages. I would bet you that if all the people could have had a good life if they had worked together rather than warring with each other?
Not as rich as the average american of today but then allot of our riches ('the good life' didn't even exist back then, did they?

"Is the main land of China truly capitalist?"
It has opened its markets, yes.

It is not DEMOCRATIC, it is capitalist. Capitalist, with lots of leftover socialist bureaucracy.

"Taiwan & China boiled down too but to say that China has become capitalist maybe a bit of a stretch. "
No it isn't. It claims to be commie, just as the french left wing parties claim to be socialist. Many of its markets have been opened up.

" but there is the little rub of those who don't want to sell, they can be problem. "
Socialism doesn't solve that problem either. If a country needs a resource, communist or not, it might be motivated to fight for it.

The difference with capitalism is that true adherents will let the Free Market decide who buys and sells.

" No, I wasn't but not a surprise, kind of like our own civil war, eh? "
My point is. North Korea started the economic engine of Korea. 50 years later, its people are starving and it is a thousand times poorer then its Southern neighbors.

little confusing?

quote:

---

"Is the main land of China truly capitalist?" It has opened its markets, yes.
it is capitalist. Capitalist, with lots of leftover socialist bureaucracy.

---

well pure capitalist may well see it that way but the present version doesn't does it. Look at the our 'police actions' in the Americas supporting (protecting) American firms doing business there.
As you had used the the theory of evolution, one could also postulate that countries relate to plants. Some nations are in need of substanients as during drought we may need to water & fertilizering to develope root system to support the plant. But if the soil doesn't contain the neccessary nutriuents, these actions over develope the plant which it can't maintain and the plant eithers whithers & dies or becomes stunted to that which it can maitain. Hydroponics work well for anual plants which produce a harvest then die but tree which inherent growth is continual means a continual supplement is required.
Having a democractic nature I believe in helping others but not trying to control their growth. Some countries may never develope to our level of industrialization doesn't deny their right of self-determination.

I don't understand the plant metaphore.

" Some countries may never develope to our level of industrialization doesn't deny their right of self-determination."
The problem is that poverty entails political instability. People invoke the word 'Democracy' as if that's what people have always wanted. People care much more about the food on their plate and whether or not they'll have a job tomorow.

Democracies in economic hardship often fail. Pre WW2 Japan/Italy/Germany for example; or any number of African countries (the British leave the country with a democratic constitution, it is usually a matter of years before it fails). Democratic revolutions (as seen in the french revolution) nearly always come about from a middle class : people who already have there basic needs and have a reasonable economy. If there is a weak economy, as in Russia or Iran or China, the revolution has its support not from a minute middle class, but from the peasants or workers. These revolutions fall into immediate dictatorship (Soviet Union, Islamic Republic of Iran, People's Republic of China) because there is no educated middle class that influences the revolutionaries, only ignorant (politically, I mean) peasants.

Other countries like Taiwan or South Korea, became rich, and THEN, because of their middle class demanded their rights. These democracies have succeeded; while dozens of democratic poor countries have failed.

Conclusion : a healthy economy is very important to maintaining and creating democracy and only rarely is democracy an end, rather democracy is a necessary transition once you become wealthy.

quote:

---

Conclusion : rather democracy is a necessary transition once you become wealthy.

---

I agree with the part about the necessity of healthy economy & would extend it to any social organization.
But I do see extensions being made via comparisons of average income.
Ever watch an old (film) movie when the bad guys steal, bribe or do their bad guy scene for some amount which seems an absurdly small amount of money?
Yes, we have illegal aliens coming to this & other industrial countries for high paying jobs. Most come thinking that if they make $400 a month in a country where the annual is $400 a year. But what they find is that $400 a month will barely rent a room! On the other side those living on fixed income go to areas of low income because that merger retirement check goes a lot further.
Wealth is a very relative preception, in the states being a millionaire, doesn't even put you in the wealth bracket.
When I hear some ad saying run down & buy today & save $5,000, I think what to hell am I going to pay to save?
If everyone recieved a 10% increase then everything would increase in labor cost 10% more, by the same token a reduction would have similar effect.
Poor countries with starving people are such not because the people can't afford to buy food but the lack of food is scarce & expensive to buy.
Example if Russians afford the goods how did they acquire them on the black market? One of the cold war stradegies was in dening access to goods (China) till they accepted capitalistic enterprise, human rights, etc.

Wealth is also an absolute concept :
- you are wealthy because the average american's main worry about food is having too much
- you have a car
- you have a gazillion household appliances from the washing machine to the fridge
- etc...

Now, whether or not being wealthy makes us happier is another question. What is certain is that being wealthy, and the political and social stability it entails, is only possible in a capitalist society.