Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
I think the problem stems from the absurd amounts of pro capitalism propaganda we are exposed to daily. It muddies the water so much most people don't actually know what capitalism, communism, and socialism are and how they function and what they need to function properly. They further muddy the waters by throwing in and equating non economic policy with certain types of government organization.
Capitalism, communism, and socialism are all economic doctrine. They lie on a spectrum with each other. The only changing variable is the amount of control a government exerts on the markets
Capitalism being nothing
Communism being total
Socialism being everything in between
To date pure communism has never emerged. Similarly pure capitalism has also never emerged. All nations that have existed throughout all of history have been socialist, being placed at various points on that spectrum.
The reason pure capitalism, and pure communism have never occured is because they require things to remain in balance that are fundamentaly opposed.
Pure Communism requires absolute power, but a benevolent hand to implement. Unfortunately power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Pure Capitalism requires pure logical evaluation with no consideration for the effects on others.
Unfortunately we are social animals that evolved to care about others. People often act in ways that is not always in there best interest.
Socialism is the nice middleground that is flexible enough to accommodate the needs pa any given group.
Except that under a socialist government, within that economic model plans means to production of all large companies and services with a group of people who are only as smart and can only understand market variables they can explain. That invisible hand doesn't all the whole to make decisions. It's all planned by people who never understand all the variables. Socialism is not some mild in the middle between the two other systems. It's actually more of a triangle than a vector.
Ok not sure what the first half is saying. Grammar errors, auto correct errors?
I never said socialism was mild. There is socialism that exerts little control, but relies more heavily on market forces like how the US works. The US is definitely on the less influence on the market side of the spectrum. By contrast North Korea is on the communist side of the spectrum. (I'm not equating the two countries, NK exerts heavy influence on their markets, add in the massive corruption and dictatorship and that's why it's in such a miserable state)
Both countries are socialist but are on radically different ends of the spectrum.
There are many problems with Capitalism (such as the tendency for people with personality disorders to rise to the top), but the major problem with capitalism is its need for constant expansion (much like a tumor), which at some point causes enormous amounts of friction with other countries. We are seeing this now in the "endless wars" scenario in which US troops are sent abroad to engage in meaningless conflicts in order to bolster the need for constant replacement of military supplies in order to keep large portions of our economy running. This is absolutely not sustainable.
Another serious problem is the propensity of Capitalism to concentrate large amounts of money in very small areas of the population, leading to the infamous term "income inequality", in which a few people and a few corporations control massive amounts of wealth while the largest part of the population gradually moves toward poverty. This is occurring more and more in the US, leading to things like the "tax the rich" movement. Historically, income inequality leads to violent revolutions (including the American Revolution) if it is not somehow corrected and controlled.
Another serious problem with Capitalism in the context of Democracy is that persons and corporations with a large amount of capital have the ability to have an outsized effect on the political system via lobbying, contributions, and outright bribery. In effect, such organizations get many more votes than the one vote allotted to each citizen. The Citizens United decision, holding that corporations are somehow people, greatly exacerbated this problem, and corporations have a profound influence on American
politics as a result, and this influence is often contrary to the best interests of the majority of the population.
There are many more problems with Capitalism and these are just a few of the more important ones.
Because some people don't care about competition. They care about their own personal developement. Generally, the values that capitalism promotes couldn't be more shallow than they already are. Some people are not obsessed with money, expensive clothes, cars etc. Capitalism promotes materialism. Capitalism promotes workaholic behavior, increases stress in individuals and looks down upon feminine personality traits (passivity, creativity, kindness..) because they are not needed in this kind of system.
Opinion
37Opinion
Capitalism is the best system ever, all the other ones have been tried and failed.
People that hate it focus on the bad things, but more good than bad comes out of it.
If people aren't motivated to work, many won't... they just want others to take care of them, the government to give them money.
Communism doesn't work, socialism doesn't work... there are very rare times socialism can work, IF and only IF it is something very limited that EVERYONE has access to and is user funded and optional. Think the highway systems, anyone can use them but funds it via gas taxes. If there is things like income limits, you can't get this benefit cause you make too much or too little then it discriminates and fails.
Just like the highway system, people that don't support it, don't have to use it... or pay for it.
Every country that has gone too far socialism, has failed.
I think people really do hate it though because they don't want to work, they want free stuff. Those people often don't have skills. You hear about how minimum wage isn't high enough in the US but those people wanting 15 dollars an hour can't even get my order right 90% of the time... why pay them more to screw up?
I care about humans a lot, I give rides to hitchhikers if I don't think they'll be a risk, I donate things I don't need to the poor, I care about them a lot. I even offer jobs to those beggers but many don't want a job.
Weak dumb people with low work ethic hate capitalism because it requires them to be responsible in order to maintain a reasonable level of comfort. They want to be able to leach off others by consolidating the means of production so that they can drag their feet while others work hard and still be able to take an equal share of the product. They are the social loafers of society. In practice, everyone slacks off and dose the bare minimum when they know they are being used and there is no escape from the hell they have been flung into. Then there are resource shortfalls and people start getting culled in labor death camps to try to meet quotas. That why communists drink in the morning...
It's not about stealing from others, its about to be born and continue your life in equity.
If we talk about on a country basis, while you and your family live in opulence, on other side of the world, kids and young adults are working at cruel circumstances to get their meals paid off. They work under your country.
@Zach1457 Go fuck yourself commie. They aren’t enslaved to us, they choose to do business with us. They could choose to grow crops to harvest for their own people, mine minerals for their own economies, build factories with their own hands, refine base products into improved products, manufacture end goods, innovate new technology, and sell there products on the world stage for prices they demand. They problem is they are bad at business and innovation. Throwing money at zombie companies that are bad at business is a waste of resources and it hurts everyone.
As an example Israel was a fucking dust ball rocky piece of shit spit of land when they Jews took over. Yet they were able to develop that piece of land by first focusing on agriculture for their people and gaining self-sustainability through hard work and basic principles. From there they were able to advance to a developed nation. The local populations were happy living on a pile of rocks and dust for thousands of years... Why does a White guy from Australia have to travel to Jordan to teach the same people how to turn dust and rocks into something that is livable? Throwing piles of other people’s money at the situation doesn’t solve the problem. People need to get off their ass and work. They need to take initiative to learn and then stand up and get to work. Weak people don't do that until someone else forces them to. They are social loafers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITph5GJoKbA
The same is true in China. They have communist, but if you look at any common building it is run into the fucking ground with disrepair. No one paints the outside, the elevators don’t work, there are cracks in the sidewalks, the landscaping isn’t maintained, etc. Why? Because everyone is waiting for someone else to do the fucking work rather than doing it themselves. Inside their own apartment they hoard resources like TVs and clothing, but as soon as you step out the door it’s a fucking dangerous shit box health hazard. It’s the same thing that happens in every communist society. People fight for the small amount of resources they can privately hoard themselves and the rest of society goes to hell waiting for someone else to step up and do the job while everyone stands idle.
The same thing happens with social loafers in the USA. Go look at any Black ghetto. People hoard resources for clothes, electronics, jewelry, spinning rims on their car, etc but there are piles of garbage in the streets burnt out cars and building from race riots that sit around, buildings are in disrepair, etc. They do not take care of their neighborhood because they are waiting for someone else to fix it for them via government programs and social welfare checks. Throwing money at people that do not care enough to get off their ass and work doesn’t solve the problem. Wherever social loafers exist, life will be miserable.
Capitalism is the economic system the world has defaulted to for the majority of its history; if it were zero-sum, we'd still be sharing the amount of wealth present in the stone age. This is why looking at how large a percentage of the world's money is held by the 1% (or any arbitrary division) necessarily gives an incomplete picture: if more wealth is created, it's naturally going to go largely to the one who created it.
People hate capitalism for the damages its excesses cause; give Upton Sinclair's The Jungle a read, and it's not hard to understand why.
I’ve studied economics before, I understand the repercussions of capitalism. The reason most capitalist nations don’t have a zero-sum game is because of socialist concepts mixed in with the economy, making most economies, like the US, into a mixed-market economy. However, capitalism in its pure form is zero-sum in nature.
being mixed*
Purest*
Well, no, it isn't. If our tribe occupies land that can feed a hundred cattle, and I work to improve the land such that I triple its efficiency, and we soon have three hundred cows, I have increased the wealth of the tribe through my labor, by increasing the amount of available wealth. We have more cows, we have more of the wealth they represent, and not only has no one lost anything, but socialism has nothing to do with it.
That is only assuming you are the only person controlling that industry. In other words, you’re a monopoly, which means you are economically inefficient. No other firm is there to challenge you. In an environment where there is more than one firm, the firms must compete against each other, therefore leading to a zero-sum game. The winner firm takes from the loser firm.
Again, no. You're assuming no wealth can be created. Basic math will show that's not how it works- in last fifty years, the population of the world has more than doubled. If there's no increase in wealth, which would be the case if it were zero-sum, then the standard of living of everyone would be half of what it was fifty years ago. It's not; it's significantly higher. Industry and innovation can increase available wealth, and have always been able to.
In my example, improving farmland to increase cattle carrying capacity doesn't take anything from any other would-be innovator. It doesn't take anything from anyone, in fact, and that's still the case regardless of how many other people are trying to improve the wealth of the tribe. I will not see all the wealth from the larger number of cattle, unless I own them all, but I've still increased the amount of wealth, regardless of who holds it. It's the exact opposite of zero-sum.
I think there is a misunderstanding as to what the definition of “wealth” in this scenario is. By “wealth” do you mean the wealth of a particular country? And this wealth is spread amongst its citizens?
If we are talking about the REAL change in the standard of living, meaning the cost of living adjusted for inflation, being increased over 50 years, then yes that would be true. Innovation and technology comes with higher costs usually. However, like I said, most countries do not adapt a purely capitalistic economy where wealth is spread amongst the populace. There are countries (Qatar I think is an example) where the disparity between the rich and poor is so bad that there is barely any wealth distributed. That is an example of a purely capitalist economy.
By "wealth", I'm referring the value behind the currency, as distinct from the currency itself, in whatever particular form it takes. And no, innovation usually brings costs DOWN; that's why it's adopted. It's much faster to plow 1,000 acres of farmland with an ox pulling a plow than doing it by hand; it's faster still with a tractor. The faster a farmer can work, the more work they can accomplish in the same amount of time, increasing his output and allowing for the generating of more crops, and consequently more wealth, per working hour.
The chief driver of innovation is the desire for more wealth per unit of labor; greed and laziness, basically. A system that financially rewards workers on a basis other than the work they produce (Communism and Socialism) invariably produces lower levels of innovation, because there's less motivation for it. Capitalism doesn't lead to any kind of system where wealth is distributed amongst the populace; it leads to a system where it's generated and distributed through private hands; corporate overlords, rather than governmental ones. But it's inherently more meritocratic; wealth being outside of government hands is inherently a check on government power.
It's not a guarantee of a more financially equitable system, but over time, it WILL produce one, since decentralization of power makes you less vulnerable to corruption.
Fuck it you win. You have a higher IQ than me.
I actually see it as a positive-sum game. If I'm running low on food and you're running low on water, and I have lots of food, and you have lots of water, we can trade. It's a mutually beneficial scenario.
With that said, I do think capitalism can lead to excess and doesn't distribute resources equally whatsoever. I'm not sure if resources should be distributed equally though. I mean I don't want to pour my resources listening to a tone-deaf person over Adele. Adele will get most of the resources.
I just want to correct the problem of people starving to death, for example. Yet I don't know a more efficient economic system in times of peace besides the free market to spurn efficiency and innovation.
I think a lot of people who are against capitalism don't know how much of a risk it is to start their own business, or the competitive nature required to stay innovative and efficient and expansive and not just pour all profits into payroll. And I don't think they understand talent that well sometimes.
I talked before to a person who seemed to be a reasonably bright socialist and he wanted to become a video game director, but simultaneously he wanted to work just 4 hours a day. WTF. I was a game dev before and there's no way you can ship anything on time in a competitive market that is rushing to produce to the state-of-the-art if the most talented people at the top are working only 4 hours/day. A serious game director will often find themselves working 100+ hours a day on crunch as deadlines near. They have to because their talent is irreplaceable and if the game takes too long to ship, it's like they'll be targeting Playstation 2 and Playstation 4 will already be out by the time they finish.
Sometimes I think socialists are just really lazy people. It's a very blunt opinion and maybe not entirely true but it's like they want to work the minimum, risk the minimum, and reap the maximum rewards. And life doesn't work that way. I cannot see any system that can be implemented where things work that way as much as I wish it so.
Another thing that I think bothers people about capitalism is that it most rewards a very certain kind of person, like a person with leadership skills, over people who are most directly responsible for churning out products. And I think they underappreciate how rare a quality that leadership skills could be like I work as an engineer and I've met no share of engineers who want to run the team. But their social and people skills are terrible. They can't even maintain friendships or dates that well let alone run a team, but they think they're so well-qualified because they excel at engineering. But they're blind-sighted and don't understand what a different type of skill it is to effectively manage people and not systems and code. So they're kind of driven by jealousy and prejudice. Even the worst leaders usually have something to them as far as skills and character traits go that is worth admiring.
If you're for communism, you're brainless. Not referring ring to you asker. I'm referring to anyone that believes that communism is a better alternative, when every single communist society was an unmitigated disaster, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions. Just ask those that existed under chairman Mao... You can't though, they all died under him..
Capitalism isn't the best system it's just the best when compared to communism. And any rational thinking person sees it like that.
Capitalism is not perfect, but it works better than anything else that has been tried to date.
The only people who 'hate capitalism' are idiot Marxists, who are economically and historically illiterate and have no understanding of what motivates people.
Capitalism, for all its faults, has provided a better standard of living and more technological advancement than anything else in history.
Marxism, by whatever name its idiot adherents want to call it, has provided only poverty, starvation, misery, hopelessness and death, all maintained by murderous state terror.
Because capitalism exploits people everyday? You say empathy can be exploited well so can capitalism and not fighting to make things fair would lead to more exploitation if you remain docile the company's will just keep taking advantage of you.
So what's better, try build something better that someone may try screw everyone over with, or don't build something better and be screwed with everyday?
Valuable people who provide something won’t get screwed over.
Umm yes they do, that's literally the whole point. And why Marx who started marxism got his ideas in the first place he always saw the labour workers getting screwed over the people who work in factory's left to unfairness and people of lower class always been treated unfairly and getting screwed over.
Higher IQ people on average make the most amount of money. We should leave everything to those high IQ people. Intelligence should be valued, not empathy.
hawkings "People who boast about their IQ are losers".
And no that's so flawed, it proves you don't actually get how the world works. Also i don't brag about it but i have above average IQ myself and value empathy and i also don't make much money at all. So believe what you want in your fictitious world.
Lol using that same Hawkings quote, yet wouldn’t even be able to comprehend his smallest discoveries. Average IQ people will never amount to the achievements of the high IQ of society.
But yes, let’s stay on topic. I do understand your empathy for those who are exploited, however this naivety causes your own exploitation. Average people are easy to predict because they are creature of habit. They have similar insecurities, doubts, concerns, and intellectual understanding. It’s not that difficult to exploit.
Capitalism allows for a more logical approach to economic growth. A completely capitalist society is not good, however a mixed-market economy is the best model for economic growth.
Oh no i understand his works very well. But be my guest assume random bs and say random stuff to make yourself seem smarter. Belittle me, tell me i don't understand his works when i do. That's fine just shows me you literally have no clue what your talking about.
Logic don't always make a thing okay to do. I will leave you with that, because honestly you kinda bore me shrugs.
How if you only have an above average IQ? Is it a gifted IQ?
If their research requires knowledge of an incredibly complex and complicated subject, yes. If it’s something like philosophy or sociology, where the subject isn’t nearly as complicated, then no.
I don’t believe people can simply work to become an astrophysicist or any STEM field occupation. I believe those people who work in those fields are born to do so along with putting in the hard work necessary to accomplish the feats.
You can understand the RESULTS of their research, not the means to achieve their results. I know that exoplanets exist, but actually discovering exoplanets requires far more intelligence.
That’s assuming that they will eventually understand the topic. Who knows? They could spend their whole life trying to figure out something that took a high IQ person a week to figure out and then that same person may never be able to figure that thing out.
Intelligence is not earned, it’s largely genetic.
A cost that I’m more than willing to bear. The ones with the highest IQs understand the most. They have the ability to understand the knowledge that is necessary to propel society forward. They are the gifted who will lead the sheep. Average and low IQ people have no choice but to sit back and watch. Maybe even invest in their projects.
I think your very narrow minded. And don't actually understand how things work. But we shall never agree i can tell so no point arguing about it. My I. Q is roughly about 130 so much less then hawkings but his works for sure agree with me and i understand them fully and honestly could of came to same conclusions. But tbf that is in hindsight. Either way i don't think your correct.
@DocJone yep 100% right there, totally why marx wrote what he wrote. Wasn't because he wanted fairness for people who already worked hard in factories and mundane jobs that needed to be done by someone putting hard effort to work in. It was just simple created to be lazy and get equal stuff. Your 100% right!
The part that Marx missed is that things really don't change in a socialist system. Sure, they might get something cheaper starting out, but the smarter people begin to learn how to game any system they're in. It's naive to think that a group of people that go into the millions and billions of people can be forced to be fair. Everything that Marx modeled was on a small society that all participants could review and as a collective guide the means of production with a small team of officials that could plan and represent the whole. Can't imagine how that position would ever not be abused for friends and family.
@Qdbrown aye i will admit it's ideolgist idea and yes it does work much easier in small commuinty's. But i would still rather take the ideaolgist idea and want people to work towards it than just be content with a capitilsm systerm that isn't good. And no matter the system people can find ways to use it to there own advantage.
But i would rather it be used for that after everything is fairer not used for that while the systerm is just not fair already.
It's kinda like saying, we don't want society to be corrupt and been anti captilstic can cause corruption.
But Captilism right now is already corrupt so i would rather be trying to even out social classes and fairer living. Than just giving in to the idea we must have capitislm no matter what we do.
Reasonable which a lot countries seem to do is just keep adding in socalist ideas into there society, which indeed makes me happy.
@Zach1457 you’re too attached to your feelings. How am I a bonehead? Because I don’t believe that a completely socialist economy is economically efficient?
And how is that efficient for the economy? How will that provide incentives to work hard and compete against other firms? How will that instill economic growth?
Certainly you believe certain things should be managed by the government since trying to maximize profit would not align the values of companies with that of the interest of society. Take firefighters for instance. Certainly it would not be a great society if firefighters were private. A firefighter may check if someone have insurance before saving their burning building and only save those who are insured. Or take the police for instance. Should police only protected those who are covered by them?
I think that the government’s role is to provide the people with what they need to survive, be it food, health, water, etc. The parts that can be left up to competition by companies are things that are luxury goods.
The only way I'd alter your statement is for the government not to provide the basic needs, but to instead provide the means with which said needs could be attained. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life."
Because they’ve taken the blue pill.
They are low IQ’d sheep.. that don’t have the mental capacity to comprehend complex ideas. They’d rather take money for doing nothing, live without the finer things in life. They need to be controlled.
To live without control is an impossibility.
Do t worry. Don’t worry! They’re being dealt with.
I used to be against Eugenics. Gates, fauci , DeepState and the Satanic elites, belive that there are too many people in the world
. That’s not my belief, but I’ve decided that their culling Jab , will eliminate the stupid Commie Liberals. We’ll deal with gates and his scum after! The Covid flu was created to cull most of the world’s humans.
We know that the “ Jab “ is actually for that purpose. So I’m glad that it’s being shot into the low intelligent , weak minded crazies. They’ll all become sick and won’t be able to reproduce. They’ll all die within a year or so..
Take Solis in that my friend!☺️
USA greedy capitalism is why china is absorbing all the jobs and Mexico taking ford..
capitalism funny enough can get people to sell their freedom. I find it so funny Republicans are all worried about china having more money and power and influence. I'm like you built them up.
in march/April 2020 the USA had to lie to people about masks. saying wear mask made you catch covid because we didn't have enough in the company. we also didn't make a lot of our medical equipment here. because its cheaper to sell to a slave company.
too much capitalism leads to socialism. when people start reazling the game is rigged they break the game
I do agree that no model works all the time. That being stuck in either will eventually be it's demise. But that said, America assumed it could make the rest of the world American in market by globalizing and bringing all other people and countries into the American model by opening up their borders to allow free markets explode. That didn't happen. Captive economies were used and exploited to sell cheap labor back to America at it's own expense. The free market in theory should have made those other economies wealthy after time. Their leaders simply made it clear that any revolt would end badly for them and their families. Free people in the West and America do not understand that.
Why would unarmed citizens allow their well armed captors to force them to work for pennies a day to their other market particants around the world?
Your opinion is wrong, as is your understanding of capitalism and it's drawbacks.
Capitalism is simply exploitation without overt slavery. Hence why there are no full capitalist systems in the world, as it causes too many wars and inequalities.
People who think capitalism is anti empathy do not understand that it was intriduced to ease burden's created by relying on bartering as the method of trade.
Without money, your workload INCREASES, because you no longer have something to trade that everyone wants.
introduced*
You answered your own question. Capitalism at its core is about greed and exploition of the poor and vulnerable at the hands of the powerful and privileged.
I like and support capitalism but it needs to be regulated because a society that heavily embraces a capitalists system will have a populous that is often sick and with lingering poor health, less educated, over worked and under paid, rampant homelessness, greedy and values that feed into selfishness and vanity.
I’m seeing more and more now that empathy is for the weak and can be easily manipulated. Greed is what is needed in order to make money, yet no one wishes to do so, which is why they aren’t making money.
I agree that capitalism needs to be regulated, but competition is needed to invigorate the economy. Having compassion and empathy is for the faint of heart.
It’s not a zero sum game.
People hate it because they think it is. They think they should have what others have. But you can create things yourself, wealth can be created. But instead of making that happened, many people would rather complain and try to influence society to take wealth from others.
Agree, the poor people who bought into the fantasy assume it will create equality of wealth. Better access to schools and healthcare. It would be easy to tell desparate people that they can have it all, when in reality that either system will have people who will game and control the system.
By zero-sum game, I was more referring to the competition between firms. Firms who lose in the market exit the market.
It's because the payout to the lower and middle class has been dwindling since the seventies to the point where millenials are having difficulty with basic milestones like a house, a car, marriage and kids.
First generation to live shorter and poorer than our parents, some disillusionment is to be expected.
A hybrid system is probably the best way to go so that we don't suffer such extremes.
Well regulated capitalism combined with enforced social responsibility is the only way that an economy is ensured long term growth and expansion while not leaving anyone behind in the dust.
what people hate capitalism?
All of the social media influencers? All the sports stars, hollywood celebrities,, rappers, rockstars and their followers? No, they fucking love capitalism. So who? all of the people investing in the stock market? All of the immigrants who can't get here fucking fast enough? how about the internet millio0naries or the programmers at Google
The only cunts that hate capitalism are communists and Marxists and they deserve the guillotine
The only people who hate capitalism are the very poor and the dummies in college. They believe in a narrative that government can control the production of labor to where racism and being poor can be outlawed by giving jobs based on skin color and current economic status is a smart decision to twart merit and hard work.
@Qdbrown lol, yeap, they are useful fucking idiots. The road to fascism/communism is paved with good intentions
1. The 2008 financial crisis.
2. The coronavirus pandemic (and we are still not learning from this one).
3. Earth's physical resources are finite and this is a fact lost on capitalists.
What does the 2008 crisis have to do with capitalism? It was the bank’s shitty regulations of mortgage-backed securities and the over-confidence in the housing market that caused most of the damage. That’s a banking fault, not an economic system fault.
I can understand the COVID issue with the disruptions in a lot of companies supply chains along with capitalization on necessary goods to survive the pandemic, but the economy will eventually adapt to these pressures.
As physical resources become more scarce, the prices of these goods increases, reducing demand (assuming a pretty elastic demand curve) Also who knows? Maybe technology will allow us to create better alternatives that won’t exhaust earth’s physical resources.
People that hate it in general don’t even realize they are in/part of it ever day.
wearing, driving, living in, eating, getting paid etc.
Auto insurance, health insurance, roads, schools, military, parks, SOCIAL SECURITY...
I think peoples issues are with the selfish people who tend to benefit from them. There's no reason you can't be a capitalist and give good welfare. People just need to be nicer.
I don't know why people hate capitalism but I don't think you can ONLY have capitalism. I mean some social services need to be put in place like roads, schools, work laws... Otherwise it would just be chaos.
People who hate free market principles are often people who are not doing very well. That doesn't change in any economic model. They would still struggle because poor people who remain poor for years and generations are nearly always made by their own daily decisions. It's easy to blame others, be the victim and believe other models are better because they are equal in theory. Of course most socialist governments collapse at somepoint.
People that hate capitalism don’t understand capitalism. Capitalism is the cornerstone to a free market economy which of the basis of the eradication of any economic cast system.
"If at age 20 you are not a Communist then you have no heart. If at age 30 you are not a Capitalist then you have no brains.”
— George Bernard Shaw
They're losers and don't want to accept that it's their fault.
Its the fact that money has more value than human lives that makes people mad. Like, someone would sell themselves into slave labor, or even sell their own organs, for the new iPhone. Thats how nuts it is.
Because they’re too afraid to run a business and go for it
because people nowadays are lazy than ever , then they get jealous when they see someone who are more successful
If capitalism was a zero-sum game, the GDP would never grow.
rich get richer, poor get poorer
just ask trump, after all
caring never made me $1 , now it has cost me several dollars
Because many minorities in different societies have remained oppressed due to it
No matter what economy it is, the majority of people will live in poverty and depression.
Capitalism keeps certain minorities oppressed
That sounds like gibberish. Not sure what it even means.
Systematic racism keeps minorities oppressed, not the capitalistic system itself
It keeps the losers of the competition oppressed, which is regulated through socialist laws like welfare.
Not true
How is it not true?
And socialism was the oppression of anyone besides the workers and their ruling elite.
Capitalism: Putting the sin in business.
Because people think Corporatism is Capitalism.
no fair revenue sharing
Socialist propaganda
You can also add your opinion below!
