Can capitalism survive?

[BoberFett]

Really? Are you willing to buy stocks which are guaranteed to produce no growth and no profit? How is Apple supposed to produce 20 billion ipads without any investor dollars to pay for the raw materials, labor, factories, and machines to build them in the first place? Are you really this naiive? Or are you just the best troller I've ever seen? If so, golfclap.

Making billions is OK, it's when you make too many billions that it's a problem...

Greed is like porn. Texashiker can't define how much is too much, but he knows it when he sees it.

 

[Karl Agathon]

The only people who "think" capitalism won't survive are the ones who "wish" it wouldn't survive.

I concur for the most part.

 

[piasabird]

The problem is not capitalism, it is communism and government control. The tyrany of the government can kill anything.

 

[Texashiker]

Are you going to force people to work for the common good? What about those who choose not to work but still want to reap the rewards?

The lazy will always find a way out of work. There are people out there that would rather live under a bridge then hold a job.

Making billions is OK, it's when you make too many billions that it's a problem...

Greed is like porn. Texashiker can't define how much is too much, but he knows it when he sees it.

Making billions is ok, I have no objection to that. Its when people are exploited is when the problem starts.

Is it ok for an oil company to make millions off an oil well, but in return the ground water is polluted? The people that depend on that ground water are then deprived of safe drinking water.

I feel there is a line in the sand that capitalism should not cross.

That oil company has a right to make money, but not at the cost of polluting the water others depend on.

 

[BoberFett]

The lazy will always find a way out of work. There are people out there that would rather live under a bridge then hold a job.

You didn't answer my question. What do you do with those people? Do they still get to benefit from society if they don't produce? Do you let them starve? What are they provided with? Food? Shelter? Clothing? What if some don't produce as much as others? Is there a sliding scale that determines how much you're allowed to benefit from the production of others?

Making billions is ok, I have no objection to that. Its when people are exploited is when the problem starts.

Is it ok for an oil company to make millions off an oil well, but in return the ground water is polluted? The people that depend on that ground water are then deprived of safe drinking water.

I feel there is a line in the sand that capitalism should not cross.

That oil company has a right to make money, but not at the cost of polluting the water others depend on.

Do you drive to work? Use electricity? Why do you get to exploit the world but other people do not?

 

[Craig234]

The issue almost can't be discussed until the language changes so that one word, capitalism, isn't used to cover both 5 local grocery stores competing for your food spending, with competition, marketing, and so on, and Northrop-Grumman having a massive lobbying organization ensuring huge sums are steered its way.

I've made this point before and it remains the case. Quick, what's a word for the 'bad types of capitalism'? You have to think and make up a phrase - or a paragraph.

 

[Texashiker]

You didn't answer my question. What do you do with those people? Do they still get to benefit from society if they don't produce? Do you let them starve?

My first answer would be to let them starve, but that is not the humane thing to do.

As people creep down the social ladder, sooner or later they have nothing to lose. Then some of them might turn to drug use, stealing,,,, other petty crimes.

Then there is the health issue. The lower a persons income, the less likely they are to seek medical treatment, which in turn becomes a breeding ground of diseases like TB.

Do you drive to work? Use electricity? Why do you get to exploit the world but other people do not?

Yes I drive to work, yes I use electricity.

But then again, I do not dump hazardous chemicals in my neighbors backyard. I do not release hundreds of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere ever year.

 

[Ausm]

Our current capitalist system has turned into government-sponsered crony capitalism out of necessity. If capitalism solely rewarding merit, it would've died with the Great Depression.

And bank execs would be taking home obscene wages and bonuses while almost collapsing the wold's Financial system.

 

[Ausm]

Making billions is OK, it's when you make too many billions that it's a problem...

Greed is like porn. Texashiker can't define how much is too much, but he knows it when he sees it.

You must hate Wall Street then?

 

[sandorski]

Deregulated/Ayn Rand/Libertarian capitalisms can not survive. There are many forms of "Capitalism".

 

[BoberFett]

You must hate Wall Street then?

I actually do, but I don't think you understood my post. I personally don't care how much anybody earns, as long as they haven't coerced their way into that profit.

 

[BoberFett]

Deregulated/Ayn Rand/Libertarian capitalisms can not survive. There are many forms of "Capitalism".

Right, because regulated capitalism just keeps getting better and better...

 

[BoberFett]

My first answer would be to let them starve, but that is not the humane thing to do.

As people creep down the social ladder, sooner or later they have nothing to lose. Then some of them might turn to drug use, stealing,,,, other petty crimes.

Then there is the health issue. The lower a persons income, the less likely they are to seek medical treatment, which in turn becomes a breeding ground of diseases like TB.

So you won't force people to work, but you will provide them with goods and services that you take from those who do work? What level of comforts will they have? What if those people want free entertainment? They might revolt or commit crimes if you don't keep them busy.

Yes I drive to work, yes I use electricity.

But then again, I do not dump hazardous chemicals in my neighbors backyard. I do not release hundreds of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere ever year.

/facepalm

 

[schneiderguy]

Deregulated/Ayn Rand/Libertarian capitalisms can not survive. There are many forms of "Capitalism".

That is the only form of capitalism that will survive in the long run.

The current version we have of "big government that decides the winners and losers" cannot.

 

[ky54]

The issue almost can't be discussed until the language changes so that one word, capitalism, isn't used to cover both 5 local grocery stores competing for your food spending, with competition, marketing, and so on, and Northrop-Grumman having a massive lobbying organization ensuring huge sums are steered its way.

The number one thing I would do if I were king for a day is ending the massive entangling of our politicians and defense/government contractors. People like Sen Feinstein steering huge defense contracts to their spouses. That should be illegal as should any campaign contributions from businesses to politicians that have any oversight over contracts. That's not a free speech issue that's nothing more than money laundering. Of course on the other hand I would end all campaign contributions from any union to politicians that oversee their raises and benefits. You do that and it goes a long way toward our politicians being divested from the insane corporate leverage they have over our government.

 

[schneiderguy]

The number one thing I would do if I were king for a day is ending the massive entangling of our politicians and defense/government contractors. People like Sen Feinstein steering huge defense contracts to their spouses. That should be illegal as should any campaign contributions from businesses to politicians that have any oversight over contracts. That's not a free speech issue that's nothing more than money laundering. Of course on the other hand I would end all campaign contributions from any union to politicians that oversee their raises and benefits. You do that and it goes a long way toward our politicians being divested from the insane corporate leverage they have over our government.

:thumbsup:

 

[Texashiker]

So you won't force people to work, but you will provide them with goods and services that you take from those who do work? What level of comforts will they have? What if those people want free entertainment? They might revolt or commit crimes if you don't keep them busy.

Then we are just going back to where we are today. To what point should society take care of those that refuse to work?

I believe capitalism works.

Lets compare capitalism to freedom of speech - Just because someone has freedom to say certain things does not mean they can yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

That is how I see capitalism.

Just because someone has the right to make money, does not give them the right to exploit others. Nor does it give those with money the right to exploit the less fortunate.

 

[sandorski]

That is the only form of capitalism that will survive in the long run.

.

Negatory.

 

[momeNt]

Negatory.

That was the most eloquent refute of libertarian economics I've ever read. It puts Keynes' General Theory to shame!

 

[sandorski]

That was the most eloquent refute of libertarian economics I've ever read. It puts Keynes' General Theory to shame!

Indeed.

 

[BoberFett]

Lets compare capitalism to freedom of speech - Just because someone has freedom to say certain things does not mean they can yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Terrible example. All around. You can yell fire in a crowded theater, you just need to be prepared to pay for the results of your actions if there was in fact no fire and people were injured in the ensuing chaos caused by your actions.

If you want to equate that to capitalism, then the banks which caused the financial collapse should have paid for their actions and gone out of business. But we bailed them out, propped them up, and now they're more in control and making bigger profits than before.

Capitalism isn't to blame, corruption and lack of accountability is.

Just because someone has the right to make money, does not give them the right to exploit others. Nor does it give those with money the right to exploit the less fortunate.

Define exploitation.

 

[BoberFett]

Indeed.

No.

 

[Steeplerot]

Capitalism like serfdom it spawned from will adapt. When automation becomes mOre widespread and large swaths of humans are not needed as beasts of burden to toil their lives away is when the final reckoning will come. Overproduction will always be the worst enemy of capitalism. Capitalisms most basic concept is chattel slavery, work for the system or you have the freedom to starve. One day humanity will look back at this as the barbarism that it is. Granted, it is just another step in the history of humanity. The permenent revolution. Or we could continue to concentrate wealth to the top and the rich will have no need for workers and depopulate. Or we could just nuke ourselves since the elites have the globe rigged to explode to keep their little entitled game going, but this is not in their best interests. Now at least. Thinking about future societies is a good thing, change is inevitable even though many fear it.

We have in no way even started to catch up with our technological Potential as a species, we are still coming out of the dark ages and the Victorian era socially. Wage slavery and Victorian ideas of work will go the way sooner or later like the dominating kings and queens of western society that no one thought would be possible to live without.
Capitalism is like (and very steeped in) religion, like religion we will have to find a replacement and hold a society together without success through accumulation. 19th and 20th century socialism was a baby step, we still have a long way to go before we can be a brotherhood of man though. IMO the rational answer is a fusion of libertarian socialism in a highly automated advanced educated society, but we shall see.

 

[momeNt]

Indeed.

It really was, with each word people who refute it become more and more wrong, so to confine it to one word, gives the best possible refutation.

You win.

 

[Texashiker]

Terrible example. All around. You can yell fire in a crowded theater, you just need to be prepared to pay for the results of your actions if there was in fact no fire and people were injured in the ensuing chaos caused by your actions.

I think freedom of speech is a good comparison.

The problem is, the government is not allowing the banks to face the consequences of their actions.

When people are not held accountable for their actions, there is nothing to deter repeat negative behavior.

Capitalism isn't to blame, corruption and lack of accountability is.

Earlier in this thread I used the term "unbridled", like a horse that is allowed to run wild.

Define exploitation.

Facebook paying workers $1 an hour is what I would classify as exploitation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9118778/The-dark-side-of-Facebook.html