you know the one bad thing about it?
"... capitalism guarantees private ownership of property..."You wanna amend that statement before I destroy it entirely?
The reason there is mostly only poor and rich people in pure capitalism is because if you do the right things (ie. appropriately manage capital) then the sky is the limit, everyone who does the right things will get super wealthy. If you do not do the right things, you basically get nothing. Which in a way could be viewed as positive as it is an incentive to do something else. Right now, you can do all the wrong things and have a tv car video games and rent a place with your boyfriend girlfriend. So all these people don't even know they are making terrible financial choices because they are comfortable.
Geezus, this 069 clown sure drank a ton of the kool-aid! Can't prove a single bit of his claims, but that doesn't stop him from running his fingers at all!
@Chaz269 Actually he's absolutely right. The economy in the US is so powerful that the wellfare state makes people complacent and unwilling to work in many cases. This is not a new phenomenon. When the Soviet Union disbanded, and the Iron Curtain fell, there were studies conducted in East and West Germany. It was found that in East Germany, due to lack of incentive to work harder (since everyone got the same wage in socialism), productivity of the average worker was about 1/3 of West German worker. Turns out equality implies complacency.
@bamesjond0069 How do you appropriately manage capital you don't have?If the people hiring you only give you the bare minimum to live on (bearing in mind the person you rent from and the people selling you food are trying to get as much as possible out of your income as they can), how do you suggest you would manage the capital you "wasted" by buying a TV for a couple of hundred dollars and get rich?
@goaded Well I had an $8 an hour job and lived on a couch for 6 months and then at my parents for a year, during that time I stayed up all night working on teaching myself a new skill, I then took that new skill and built something and sold it for a lot of money, which I then turned into a multimillion dollar investment fund which I live off the interest and returns of those investments.That is how you do it. *Drops mic*
@bamesjond0069 Oh, well, then everybody can do it. Nice that you got to live rent-free while you studied, too. Have you ever heard of Survivorship bias?
@goaded anyone can go make a friend and live on a couch for $50 a month. And i paid more rent to live at my parents! Literally everything i did anyone could do. y'all just too lazy and dumb. Your fault.
Thank you for MHO :)
Welcome I regret this question TBHI can't go through all these answers :(
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Why on Earth did you get down votes for describing the way pretty much all democratic capitalist countries work?
I don't understand why exploitative has such a bad connotation. As a wealthy business owner, its my job to exploit every single opportunity, person, resource etc. If I hire an accountant and he works for me for 5 years and I didn't know he also does financial forecasting. I missed out on getting the benefit of cost savings and convenience from using one person and HE missed out on getting more work and more pay. Its good to exploit someone for their maximum use. Why is that bad? Its good!
@bamesjond0069 What you're talking about isn't exploitation. It's only exploitation if he doesn't benefit.You're talking about maximization of a talent. If the labor market is working efficiently within the rules of the capitalist system, he would make you pay him to make use of that talent. If you don't pay him, you don't get access to that talent. Simple as that. If you force him to make use of that talent as a condition of keeping the job you hired him for, then that's exploitation. And no, it's not your job as a business owner to exploit people. You own your business at the leisure of society, and you mess with that at your peril. At least, that's the way capitalism *should* work. It often doesn't. Which is what makes it exploitative.
Why should he keep his job if there are 10 guys just like him and he has the one extra skill set, the job is his reward (vs probably not getting the job). Would you rather hire an accountant to do your accounting or would you rather hire an accountant who also knows how to run a large auto mechanic shop in every aspect, when you are hiring an accountant for your auto mechanic shop? You don't pay more per se but you choose him over the other guy so you can EXPLOIT his extra skills and knowledge. Making money out of something that would have gone lost ie if he had instead worked for a tech company.
@bamesjond0069 It all depends. You're at the mercy of the labor market. In the scenario you described, it's a buyer's market - you can afford to be choosy and in that case you can be exploitative. In a seller's market, you can't do that. You like to see it as "the job is the reward", but in actuality, your business will fail without not only the right amount of labor, but also the right kind of labor. An accountant with skill in your particular industry could be exploited, or he could exploit you. Yeah, if he wanted too much money or whatever, you could say "fuck off" and go hire somebody else. Unless there was nobody else. In that case, you're gonna pay him whatever he wants, and then bend over backwards to keep him. Who exploits who in that scenario? If you want to stay in business for very long, you have to understand your labor market. If you have the attitude of "the job is the reward", then you're gonna fail when/if the market changes.
Thinking about it a little more, I think we're in agreement. Mostly. I don't think the question is whether or not Capitalism exploits people - it obviously does. It's more about whether or not exploitation is a bad thing. My answer to that is still "yes".Think of it this way: yeah, you can be exploitative and your employees get a job, so it's a benefit to them. But you're still making money from other people's work. What they get in return is minuscule compared to what you get. That's exploitation, and it's bad. The fact that it's normal doesn't make it better.
Think of it this way, i decide not to be exploitative and now a bunch of people are out of a job. So is that good or bad?
You are an idiot. I went from growing up lower middle class to making my first million before 30 years old. You have to work hard, work smart, and take risks. If you don't do all three you won't make it.And if you ever ran a multi million dollar business, or probably any business you would know all necessary goods ie housing, military, oil, healthcare etc. all social programs are passed to the end consumer. Free health care won't cost most wealthy people a damn penny. It will cost all their customers the full price. If you charge me, I just increase my prices for the normal schmucks to pay. ALL BUSINESS WORKS LIKE THIS.
I'm not an idiot. You're a liar.Prove your bullshit claims, or go fuck yourself.
Literally anyone can check the stats on this. Even if you're not lying, and I know you are because I know millionaires and they all have one thing in common: THEY DON'T WASTE TIME HERE. In the end, MORE people are destroyed by capitalism annually than those who have gone from rags to riches in the entire history of capitalism. Stop wasting your time trying to justify your lies to an intelligent and woke individual and look those stats up. It's real. And you're full of shit. Fuck off.
Sorry, but with capitalism you don't have child labor laws, or five or six day weeks, or any of the other things unions had to fight for. And when you say lynchings, the first place I think of is the USA.
@goaded the USA put chile labor laws in place. . . You think US lynchings are bad? USSR lynchings are much worse.
Prussia started child labour laws in 1839, quickly followed by Britain and France, and the rest of Europe had them by 1890. Some states did, the first being Massachusetts in 1844, but the first Federal child labour law was passed in 1938.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_lawen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_ActMy point is, left to itself, a capitalist society will not pass such laws, it needed unions to push for worker's rights."The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions began in 1881 under the leadership of Samuel Gompers. Like the National Labor Union, it was a federation of different unions and did not directly enroll workers. Its original goals were to encourage the formation of trade unions and to obtain legislation, such as prohibition of child labor, a national eight hour day, and exclusion of Chinese and other foreign contract workers. "
@goaded That's my point dude! With capitalism the law gets involved so that we as society can function as a unit. You don't GET that with socialism. Also, I would like to point out? Capitalist society is NEVER LEFT TO ITSELF. Dude, American capitalists are so bored they will go to other countries to instigate trade. When that well dries up, they will try going into space. I'm not saying its perfect. What I AM saying is that overwriting something as well functioning as capitalism with socialism is utterly stupid. Why overwrite it when you can just do what made Capitalism good to begin with? Use the law and our values of society to tweak it so that we all benefit or at the VERY least have a chance to. I think socialism can be that pen to write those tweaks.It works well for Montreal whose government PAYS game companies to start up. We don't need to destroy capitalism, it works. What we NEED to do is work hard to make things better.
I think we're in agreement that regulated capitalism is a very good thing. The problem we're having is that when someone says "socialism" you think "communism" and I think "Denmark".Laws aren't a feature of capitalism, in fact they tend to be undermined when people have too much money and power; there are a *lot* of laws to protect people from the rich and powerful.
Capitalism as a form of government IS entirely oppositional to socialism. Capitalism as a form of economy is not oppositional to socialism. The confusion is common and widely accepted.
Religion brought a lot of good things to the world, too, but would you really like to live under ISIS or in Gilead (The Handmaid's Tale)? Both religion and capitalism need regulation, just like all the countries you're talking about.I can't speak for everyone, but when I complain about greed, I'm complaining that people are being left to starve while others sit on one of their dozen golden toilets.Personally, I'm doing just fine, but I recognise other people have it bad. It's a bit like sitting in a really big lifeboat that could carry everybody and wanting to pull people in while watching other people block them from getting aboard because they like having more room to themselves.
@goaded I never said that it shouldn't be regulated. Right now I am living in China in a crummy apartment with holes in the walls and roof, heck and thorough my labor I am paying for ex-criminals in Europe to enjoy a welfare state that allows them to live better than I do due to all the money China lends these countries. When will the political left realize that there is no such thing in this world as a right to a "decent lifestyle" because everything in the world that is material has its price.
Then why are you living in China (whose national debt is nearly 50% GDP)?
@goaded Most of that is held by Chinese citizens though.
And so is most of the US's debt (by US citizens). You still haven't said why you're living in a hole in China rather than living it up at home.
@goaded I am more talking about European countries which give out welfare more readily than the US does. Honestly I went to China to prove to myself I could live without American luxury.
Isn't China still nominally a communist country? Surely there's at least a job for everyone who needs one, if not actual "money for nothing"?
Visit Wall Street and theTrump Towers
It's weird that the places that drive the entire Capitalist system of the United States are what you're calling Communist.
@HungLikeAHorsefly Cities and wall street are way more socialist. Without governments, corporations and systems that big would not exist. ie Amazon, Wall mart, the stock market as we know it, etc.
@bamesjond0069 I’m talking about the laws since communism is a governing system.
@bamesjond0069 Hmm... how does that work?
@HungLikeAHorsefly Modern cities only exist because the surrounding areas and even in some instances the entire country pays for them. Did you know taxes from places like bumfuck Nebraska are used to build infrastructure in NYC such as airports and things? Did you know people who live outside cities taxes go to paying for streetlights and things in the city they DO NOT LIVE IN? If a city had to support itself without these kinds of subsidies from the government, they would be much much smaller.
@bamesjond0069 again I’m talking about laws. In cities there is more regulation and preprocided infrastructure. There are more stringent traffic laws more surveillance more control over things like the placement of trash cans, what shape to trim your hedges, what material your straws can be made out of. Etc etc etc...Government rule over the minutiae of life and enforced conformity is far more prevalent in cities.
@bamesjond0069 Yes, and also the taxes I pay (I live in a city) pay for streetlights in Bumfuck, Nebraska as well. And, you assume the tax base between urban and rural areas are equal. They aren't - cities drive the economy and pay for the vast majority of the nation's tax base. The tax base of a mid-sized American city like Louisville, Austin, Portland or Denver is enough to pay for the entire state of Wyoming and then some. So, by your own logic the State of Wyoming is being carried by any old average sized city. Take your pick. The city of Los Angeles pays enough taxes to pay for every road, traffic light, stop sign and roundabout in 7 other states. NYC pays three times that. And how do they do that? Capitalism. They are the centers of our economy. So quit with the "it's Communism" bullshit and go back to school.
@HungLikeAHorsefly no i think you aren't understanding. The ACTUAL money collected from nebraska is sent to the federal government. They then give lots of money to infrastructure like airports major highways bridges huge development subsidies etc. They give little to no federal funds like this to nebraska because it has no major cities. So no matter how much money in tax NYC puts into the system, little to none of it goes to nebraska since it doesn't need such things. If NYC makes so much money, why doesn't it simply pay for its own infrastructure?
@HungLikeAHorsefly Not only in the US. In Europe too, the cities provide the govt income but the rural towns get most of it
@bamesjond0069 The way our infrastructure works - at least the roads, highways, traffic signals, etc. is that the local & state government pay for some of it through excise & gas taxes as well as tolls. This usually ranges between 12-65%. The rest is paid for by the Federal government. This applies to all towns of any size in the entire country. Red States typically take more Federal money than Blue States do, but infrastructure is a little different - it has more to do with how much of the economy that state participates in. What that boils down to is: states with major cities take less Federal money than more rural states do, for roads. Check this out:https://taxfoundation.org/state-road-funding-2017/You'll notice Nebraska takes significantly more Federal money than states with major cities: 16% more than California, which has Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego.13% more than Texas, which has Houston and Dallas10% more than Washington, which has Seattle[...]
[...]11% more than Massachusetts, which has Boston10% more than Utah, which has Salt Lake City19% more than Oregon, which has Portland31% more than Hawaii, which has Honolulu17% more than Michigan, which has Detroit10% more than Ohio, which has Columbus, Cleveland and CincinnatiThe only anomaly, really, is Oklahoma - it's a Red State without major cities and it pays for most of its infrastructure. So, when you said this:"They give little to no federal funds like this to nebraska because it has no major cities. So no matter how much money in tax NYC puts into the system, little to none of it goes to nebraska since it doesn't need such things. If NYC makes so much money, why doesn't it simply pay for its own infrastructure?"Not only does Nebraska take Federal money... they take a LOT of Federal money. And New York takes less. A LOT less.
When some random commies down vote me instead of proposing a system that works.
And your advice is?
Yeah how do we fix it? What economic plans should we make to fix the whole world? Sounds like you know what to dk
@Zodiac10 @Benedek38 Don't understand why I got so many downvotes, like hello wake up people! I don't have advice nor do I have an answer, I only stated what capitalism is doing to the world. Don't you think that if I had an answer to fix it or advice I would've said it already?
I am awake. Mainly to the fact that there has never been an economic system as successful as capitalism
"I think socialism is more humane and inclusive"So, you believe it is more humane for everyone to be poor and have a low standard of living, except that a few party members who live luxurious lifestyles?There has never been a case of a prosperous country based on socialism.
Nobody ever mentions these...
Also note that the current Neo-Liberal economic system is NOT Capitalism but Corporate Socialism.
That's true if any economic system. It's called the Pareto principle.
Except when it's not. Which is often.
@HungLikeAHorsefly Well, the only kind of market you will find in a socialist country is a crony market.
Sure, if you don't call Social Democratic countries "Socialist", which of course would be incorrect.
@HungLikeAHorsefly I beg to differ. If the socialists have dominated the political climate in your country since '45 its not exactly social democracy anymore...
To a very few people..