Capitalism, Good or bad?

[ManSnake]

I am poor, so I like Communism better.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Good yes Bad yes Depends on context. Capitalism is great for some to make money. It however is more concerned about the stock value in the next quarter, and how the balance sheet looks at the next meeting. It does not have vision. It does not look forward to the problems of being dependent on Middle eastern oil. If fact it DEMANDS we use it since it is cheaper than alternatives.

And unfortunatly there is no better system.

But because there are no better, does not mean there is no room for improvement and it cannot be augmentes. Taxes my boy. Dirty words. Take tax money and put into R&D. Things like fuel cells and solar and tidal. Things which are too risky or have less of a dollar return, but greater value in other areas. Have people look at long term solutuons, and even if it did not produce a buck in a hundred years, if it made the world safer or better in the long run, do it.

I dont disagree with this, but you could easily tax ourselves silly and still have not found the solution. There has to remain a balance between research and what works for today. Fuel cells have been around for about 100 years now and they are just now becoming practical for the market place. Even then fuel cells will still have us chained to fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are not all bad. Now if we could get rid of the all the environmental nuts, we could be using mostly nuke power.....

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Good yes Bad yes Depends on context. Capitalism is great for some to make money. It however is more concerned about the stock value in the next quarter, and how the balance sheet looks at the next meeting. It does not have vision. It does not look forward to the problems of being dependent on Middle eastern oil. If fact it DEMANDS we use it since it is cheaper than alternatives.

And unfortunatly there is no better system.

But because there are no better, does not mean there is no room for improvement and it cannot be augmentes. Taxes my boy. Dirty words. Take tax money and put into R&D. Things like fuel cells and solar and tidal. Things which are too risky or have less of a dollar return, but greater value in other areas. Have people look at long term solutuons, and even if it did not produce a buck in a hundred years, if it made the world safer or better in the long run, do it.

So, where has the government actually picked good winners?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Good yes Bad yes Depends on context. Capitalism is great for some to make money. It however is more concerned about the stock value in the next quarter, and how the balance sheet looks at the next meeting. It does not have vision. It does not look forward to the problems of being dependent on Middle eastern oil. If fact it DEMANDS we use it since it is cheaper than alternatives.

And unfortunatly there is no better system.

But because there are no better, does not mean there is no room for improvement and it cannot be augmentes. Taxes my boy. Dirty words. Take tax money and put into R&D. Things like fuel cells and solar and tidal. Things which are too risky or have less of a dollar return, but greater value in other areas. Have people look at long term solutuons, and even if it did not produce a buck in a hundred years, if it made the world safer or better in the long run, do it.

So, where has the government actually picked good winners?

It has picked quite a few winners, when there has been obvious need.

You can the the goverment for the space program, modern tires, velcro, antibiotics. Was reading something the other about the goverment is currently testing artificial blood(shelf life of 3 years and works for all bloodtypes).

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Good yes Bad yes Depends on context. Capitalism is great for some to make money. It however is more concerned about the stock value in the next quarter, and how the balance sheet looks at the next meeting. It does not have vision. It does not look forward to the problems of being dependent on Middle eastern oil. If fact it DEMANDS we use it since it is cheaper than alternatives.

And unfortunatly there is no better system.

But because there are no better, does not mean there is no room for improvement and it cannot be augmentes. Taxes my boy. Dirty words. Take tax money and put into R&D. Things like fuel cells and solar and tidal. Things which are too risky or have less of a dollar return, but greater value in other areas. Have people look at long term solutuons, and even if it did not produce a buck in a hundred years, if it made the world safer or better in the long run, do it.

So, where has the government actually picked good winners?

It has picked quite a few winners, when there has been obvious need.

You can the the goverment for the space program, modern tires, velcro, antibiotics. Was reading something the other about the goverment is currently testing artificial blood(shelf life of 3 years and works for all bloodtypes).

Sorry, Canadians invented velcro and antibiotics. As for the space program...what a "winner" that is.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Good yes Bad yes Depends on context. Capitalism is great for some to make money. It however is more concerned about the stock value in the next quarter, and how the balance sheet looks at the next meeting. It does not have vision. It does not look forward to the problems of being dependent on Middle eastern oil. If fact it DEMANDS we use it since it is cheaper than alternatives.

And unfortunatly there is no better system.

But because there are no better, does not mean there is no room for improvement and it cannot be augmentes. Taxes my boy. Dirty words. Take tax money and put into R&D. Things like fuel cells and solar and tidal. Things which are too risky or have less of a dollar return, but greater value in other areas. Have people look at long term solutuons, and even if it did not produce a buck in a hundred years, if it made the world safer or better in the long run, do it.

So, where has the government actually picked good winners?

It has picked quite a few winners, when there has been obvious need.

You can the the goverment for the space program, modern tires, velcro, antibiotics. Was reading something the other about the goverment is currently testing artificial blood(shelf life of 3 years and works for all bloodtypes).

Sorry, Canadians invented velcro and antibiotics. As for the space program...what a "winner" that is.

Actually we are both wrong. The inventor of velcro was swiss.
linkage

Penicillin discovered by Flemming (scottish) and perfected as a drug by Howard Florey and Ernst Chain during WWII. UK Scientist funded by the US. Never did I specify which goverment.

Everyone is a winner with space program, you benefit from it on a daily basis. GPS, weather forcasts, space research, media delivery,......

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: flavio

I'm lost. What is the point? So do you think there should be no pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements?[/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I believe they'd be better dealt with by means other than the State (ie: government).

What means would you have handle these issues?

Other institutions that would fill the gaps. I can't predict what exactly would evolve, but I could speculate.

That doesn't sound very realistic.

So, does the current system work well by your estimation?

Before there were laws against child labor and the government got involved we had small children working in factories. I'd say the government getting involved worked out for the best.

 

[Dari]

From reading his posts in this thread, coupled with his post in other threads, I can hereby designate Moonbeam the Official Fatalist of Anandtech Off Topic.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard
Good yes Bad yes Depends on context. Capitalism is great for some to make money. It however is more concerned about the stock value in the next quarter, and how the balance sheet looks at the next meeting. It does not have vision. It does not look forward to the problems of being dependent on Middle eastern oil. If fact it DEMANDS we use it since it is cheaper than alternatives.

And unfortunatly there is no better system.

But because there are no better, does not mean there is no room for improvement and it cannot be augmentes. Taxes my boy. Dirty words. Take tax money and put into R&D. Things like fuel cells and solar and tidal. Things which are too risky or have less of a dollar return, but greater value in other areas. Have people look at long term solutuons, and even if it did not produce a buck in a hundred years, if it made the world safer or better in the long run, do it.[/quote]

So, where has the government actually picked good winners?[/quote]

It has picked quite a few winners, when there has been obvious need.

You can the the goverment for the space program, modern tires, velcro, antibiotics. Was reading something the other about the goverment is currently testing artificial blood(shelf life of 3 years and works for all bloodtypes).[/quote]

Sorry, Canadians invented velcro and antibiotics. As for the space program...what a "winner" that is.[/quote]

Actually we are both wrong. The inventor of velcro was swiss.
linkage

Wow...those lying Canadians! I heard that one from a bunch of sources.

Penicillin discovered by Flemming (scottish) and perfected as a drug by Howard Florey and Ernst Chain during WWII. UK Scientist funded by the US. Never did I specify which goverment.

Damn. What I'm I thinking of then? Polio vaccine? My brother-in-law claims to have discovered the DNA marker for Cystic Fibrosis, how's that?

Everyone is a winner with space program, you benefit from it on a daily basis. GPS, weather forcasts, space research, media delivery,......

I suspect that most of these things would have been invented and developed at some point, but we can never know what was lost because the resources were directed elsewhere.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: flavio

I'm lost. What is the point? So do you think there should be no pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements?[/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I believe they'd be better dealt with by means other than the State (ie: government).

What means would you have handle these issues?

Other institutions that would fill the gaps. I can't predict what exactly would evolve, but I could speculate.

That doesn't sound very realistic.

So, does the current system work well by your estimation?

Before there were laws against child labor and the government got involved we had small children working in factories. I'd say the government getting involved worked out for the best.

As countries become more industrialized, they stop hiring chidren....it was already on the way out when it was banned. And now, its kind of silly, since the government often prevents kids from doing even safe and easly part-time work (ABC's John Stossel did a piece on this not long ago). I'm not trying to "covert" you, if you think that governments have some special powers, then go for it.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: hagbard

As countries become more industrialized, they stop hiring chidren....it was already on the way out when it was banned. And now, its kind of silly, since the government often prevents kids from doing even safe and easly part-time work (ABC's John Stossel did a piece on this not long ago). I'm not trying to "covert" you, if you think that governments have some special powers, then go for it.

Special powers? Yes, I thought it was widely known that the government has power.

If you think that pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements are going to magically take care of themselves then your in fairy-tale land. If you have some idea of a realistic solution then spit it out. It seems fairly direct to me.

No health inspections -> less healthy conditions
No environmental regulations -> chemical sludge dumped in rivers

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: hagbard

As countries become more industrialized, they stop hiring chidren....it was already on the way out when it was banned. And now, its kind of silly, since the government often prevents kids from doing even safe and easly part-time work (ABC's John Stossel did a piece on this not long ago). I'm not trying to "covert" you, if you think that governments have some special powers, then go for it.

Special powers? Yes, I thought it was widely known that the government has power.

If you think that pollution regulations, safety checks, health inspections, minimum wage or worker age requirements are going to magically take care of themselves then your in fairy-tale land. If you have some idea of a realistic solution then spit it out. It seems fairly direct to me.

No health inspections -> less healthy conditions
No environmental regulations -> chemical sludge dumped in rivers

actually they would with really good info but almost no one has that so you get something no where near a pareto efficient outcome

 

[schizoid]

good.

 

[hudster]

capitalism sucks.

 

[schizoid]

Originally posted by: hudster
capitalism sucks.

It must be opposite day.

SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL (and capitalism) RULES!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: schizoid

Originally posted by: hudster
capitalism sucks.

It must be opposite day.

SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL (and capitalism) RULES!

bill s preston esquire!

 

[yoda291]

IMO, communism and socialism look much better than capitalism on paper especially if you have the monetary resources the US does. unfortunately, they're impossible for human beings to use because they promote true equality. It's human nature to want more than the guy next door and to have more than Bill down the street. It's also human nature to do things when they're in ones own interest, as opposed to doing them for the greater good. It's all a question of "what can you do for me?". I imagine a communist society of single celled organisms would fare better than a capitalist one tho.