CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I watched about half of the video......it's too stupid, but it does show how media is used to deliver the message of Marxism, trying to get people angry so they will steal from the rich and allow fascist dictators who never produce anything of value to rule over them.
I'm too busy with my own capitalistic enterprises to waste time watching a video like this which is just plain dumb for dummies who are too dumb to figure out how to capitalize on their talents. At one time I employed 12 people, and they were not dummies and robots like the mindless video portrays workers...they knew where their bread was buttered and who buttered it.
You have always impressed me as you consistently are in character with your screenname, exactly what I would expect form a fool who is high falutin. What a stereotype you are, acting like you are so stinking great.
Ah, a little person protests, how cute. Come closer so that I may step on you........... closer still ............... SQUISH! ..... I love the feel of little people under my feet in the morning; it's the feel of exhilarition, of victory! More, I need more! NEXT?
How many capitalist enterprises could you possible have with all the time you spend here? Unless maybe you're a day-trader who works from home on his computer. But since I used to engage in that endeavor I am aware that that market has all but been eradicated since the '08 meltdown.
Also anybody who writes that vid off as being simply "stupid" doe not seem to have the economic acumen to quickly and efficiently buy and sell stocks on a daily or even hourly basis. When I did it I was totally obsessed, and it lead to a nasty cocaine habit!
I am lucky that I can do this CD things from work. At my Gym. When I'm not on the floor with a client or doing some sort of work on the Box I can sit here behind the counter and play with you folks. You notice I post mostly during the day, as my nights are for wifey.
A fool tells his whole heart. You don't need to know my business beyond what I talk about. I'll give you this, you publish a lot of personal info and that does take some guts.......but it's not wise. You invited me to visit your gym, a very stupid thing to do, opening your door to me and challenging me to enter. You have not earned my respect for me to tell you any of my personal business. The only person on here who has come anywhere close to earning my respect enough to know things you are prying into with no business digging......the only person I might consider being open about my business with would be SlapShot, and I'm in no hurry to tell anybody about my business. I do not trust people on the internet easily. You have been a fool to offer me an invite. I would not trust you any more than I trust a rattlesnake, and if I came to meet you, I would not be getting bitten........an exposed snake is easy to handle.
If you were to visit my gym I would welcome you with open arms and even take you out to lunch. we have a great Tex-Mex joint right down the road. I would be on my best behavior, since I would want to prove to you I am a good person and sincere in my desire to Serve God and repay Him for Saving me. I would laugh with you about our arguments here. It would all be good. Most people think I am funny. My nickname is Taz, as is Tasmanian Devil, since I am pretty hyper and extroverted and active. especially here during CrossFit WOD's. (workouts).
But not too busy to jump on createdebate and make dozens of debates and ban everyone who disagrees with you? You always get dodgey when you're wrong. Based on your reaction. and the fact that you couldn't bare to watch the whole video, I think you didn't like that you were wrong. Curious, what do you do when you disagree with someone that isn't on your debate? Do you flag the video?
I ban people mostly for being disruptive and trying to derail the conversations I want focused on the OP. I watched most of that stupid Marxist video, insulting anybody who is employed by an owner of a business or property. This subject really does not interest me much, it's not much worth arguing about. If you want to cry about some people have more possessions than you, and you want to cry about having to work to earn a living, go ahead. I don't have time for it, I do what I need to do to provide for myself and if that means working an hourly job for low wages, fine. Most of my life I have found ways to be self employed and hire workers as needed, had twelve for a while. If you were one of my workers whining like this, I would fire you. Who wants a cry baby working for them? Go start your own business and use your brain and backbone instead of your mouth to whine about life not being fair.
You made some good comments in some of my debate, I don't remember what is was but I was surprised to see it coming from you. This Marxist garbage is just plain dumb and annoying, not worth time to argue about.
How many capitalist enterprises could you possible have with all the time you spend here? Unless maybe you're a day-trader who works from home on his computer. But since I used to engage in that endeavor I am aware that that market has all but been eradicated since the '08 meltdown.
Also anybody who writes that vid off as being simply "stupid" doe not seem to have the economic acumen to quickly and efficiently buy and sell stocks on a daily or even hourly basis. When I did it I was totally obsessed, and it lead to a nasty cocaine habit!
I am lucky that I can do this CD things from work. At my Gym. When I'm not on the floor with a client or doing some sort of work on the Box I can sit here behind the counter and play with you folks. You notice I post mostly during the day, as my nights are for wifey.
funny yo should mention this Saint. I am thinking of writing a book about my conversion from a sinning atheist to a Born Again Christian. I might entitle it, "The Torn Curtain."
what do ya think?
but the book would not be about how great I am. I am not. In fact, without God in my life I am very little.
You know what I think. You can probably make money off a book like that, evil dirty money changing the truth of God into lies and encouraging others to be deceived as you are deceiving yourself. There is extra punishments in Hell for people who teach the doctrines you are promoting. Go ahead if you want to, it's a free country........sort of, for now anyways.
You are not a Christian if you do not believe the Christ of Christianity is God incarnate, Jesus Christ who is risen bodily from the dead. The "Christ" you speak of is an evil spirt, and the god you worship is the father of lies. Go ahead. There are hundreds or thousands of books like yours out there now, why not add one more and get some dirty money?
And your whole line is about how great you are as you think you are chosen for a special mission from God. It's all about you, getting what you want, doing what you want to do. It's Satanic, your church is Satanic, it's a branch of the tree whose root is Satan, that tree has many branches of evil cult groups and various witchcraft groups. Your flaming curtain veil vision is a deception, it's the gates of Hell opening for you and you are driving headlong in there. Go ahead with your evil book.
My life is dedicated to the one and True Creator God who Saved my from a Death in Sin. I aim to serve God in any way He wants me to. I believe in the teachings of His Special Son Jesus of Nazareth. Who was so infused with the Spirit of God that He had Divine LIKE powers and persona. Trying to build one's life around His teachings I think can be a Salvation in itself. I consider Jesus one of the finest teachers of morals and philosophy and Spirituality to ever live.
God is powerless of Satan. This is what most people like you do not know. They are eual powers, like the Yin and Yang we spoke of. Everything in Nature and in the Universe goes in equal and opposite energies and cycles.
But I can help try and diminish the Evil when I can. And help others when I can.
Without God I am nothing. But with him I am everything.
Capitalism has done great things, but it can never truly succeed for all. Capitalism is an oligarchy in the economy. Capitalists cut their costs and increase profit, the corporations gain too much power. An economic system cannot truly succeed if a minority holds most of the power. This is also true in politics as well. Nations with totalitarian governments don't prosper because it benefits a few at the expense of the many. Capitalism leads to this, so it can't succeed in the long term.
and although yeah, the top 10% of the wealthy make more money that the bottom entire 50% in the USA, this is just how it has played out during our 200+ year history. It DOES not mean that ALL capitalist systems have to necessarily end-up being oligarchical in nature. In fact, most countries that DO have a capitalist or free market (or even limited or modified free market) economy have a much more fluid distribution of the wealth than do we. the reasons for this can get complex, but one of the main reasons I think is due to our history of a lack of regulation in free enterprise, as well as the stocks and bonds arena. Ever notice how after some sort of de-regulation legislation is passed, some years of great prosperity follow, only to end-up with a crash of some sort? In which the regulations come a calling again. It is sort of a vicious circle in a way. This is an argument for Keynseian economics. While the Freidmaniacs say the market is best left alone and will always correct itself in the end.
sorry, I am straying off topic. I can get pretty expansive when talking Econ sometimes. old habits I reckon.
Tell that to the millions of business owners that they can't succeed. Give up! Don't try, it's a lost cause... true words for a defeatist group like the Democrats/socialists.
Your comment doesn't make sense; these people succeeded by their own merits. In Communism, the ruling elite enrich themselves via graft, cronyism and outright fraud.
How they succeeded says nothing about the overall system, just the individuals. That is the entire point. Stalinist Communism enriched the party elite the exact way it was supposed to and Modern American Capitalism has enriched the people you mentioned the way it is supposed to.
That doesn't mean that those systems are capable of long term success.
He was saying that within Capitalism, a minority of a given population tends to obtain the majority of the economic power. You said "Nuh uh, look at these guys", which actually demonstrated a large part of his point, rather than undermine it.
Capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism. You can work hard and be successful in a capitalist society but the wealthy and big business win in the end. Many work hard and suffer from the low wages they get. Capitalism has an effective demand gap, so it fails in the long run.
Capitalism has done great things, but it can never truly succeed for all
Capitalism succeeds, people fail.
Capitalism is an oligarchy in the economy
Only when corporations get government to pass regulation that is favorable only to companies large enough to withstand the costs of said regulation, thus squeezing out would-be competition through government force rather than market power.
Capitalists cut their costs and increase profit, the corporations gain too much power
Market power can only be "too much" power if politicians can be bought. This is a political problem that is not attached to capitalism as such, but rather capitalism as we know it.
Economic power is 1 of 2 things, the power to produce or the power to purchase. Someone having a great amount of either power is not a problem for anyone else. Again, only when the force of the government can be purchased does economic power become a threat to anyone. This type of threat is independent of capitalism.
Nations with totalitarian governments don't prosper because it benefits a few at the expense of the many
When utilizing markets alone, no corporation can benefit a few at the expense of the many. The cutting of costs is expressed as a cheaper price tag, which leads to more people benefiting by purchasing, which leads to greater profits. Trade in this way is a win-win situation. If your concern is for the worker, consider that they are trading as well. If they weren't being exploited for their labor, they would be broke and much worse off. The only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited.
And capitalism fails people. That's kind of his point; capitalism inherently disregards people who fail within the system, because it is not a system that beliefs such people are an economic responsibility.
Only when corporations get government to pass regulation that is favorable only to companies large enough to withstand the costs of said regulation, thus squeezing out would-be competition through government force rather than market power.
That happens all the time. That is essentially our entire agricultural system in a nut shell.
Market power can only be "too much" power if politicians can be bought. This is a political problem that is not attached to capitalism as such, but rather capitalism as we know it.
It is a problem of American Capitalism mixed with our form of government. Mind you if we could solve the political side of the problem, much of the economic side would probably fall into place as well, but that is kind of hard to do at this point when the political influence from the economic side is so deeply entrenched.
Economic power is 1 of 2 things, the power to produce or the power to purchase. Someone having a great amount of either power is not a problem for anyone else.
That's not really true. Someone having a sufficient amount of production power can run competition out of business, leading to a monopoly which is a problem for a lot of people. Someone with sufficient purchasing power can artificially drive down prices, which is a problem for a lot of people. In fact, the two things you listed are two of the primary things Adam Smith can not exist in his concept of Capitalism.
Again, only when the force of the government can be purchased does economic power become a threat to anyone. This type of threat is independent of capitalism.
It really isn't though. The nature of capitalism (as we know it) involves taking steps necessary to maximize market efficiency and productivity. In this society, part of that involves political interference. Political influence over our government is a natural aspect of attempts at maximizing productivity and market efficiency. If we had a capitalist economic system and a different political system, capitalism would work to influence that economic system as well; it's just in the nature of capitalism.
When utilizing markets alone, no corporation can benefit a few at the expense of the many.
A company moves into a small town, sets up a grocery store. They have enough start up funds to create a grocery store larger than the initial one, and have a financial leak to their parent company, which allows them to obtain goods at a cheaper cost. They open up and higher a bunch of part time workers. Soon, the town ends up going primarily to this new store because the goods are cheaper. This leads to their competition going out of businesses. The increased profits allow them to expand into other departments, which puts more and more local businesses out of business, replacing higher paying small business jobs with part-time corporate jobs.
This happens literally all the time. It's the Walmart model. And it has been benefiting small numbers of people at the expense of others for a long time, even before the government got involved. Now I'd agree with you if we had a Smithin model of capitalism, but we don't.
The cutting of costs is expressed as a cheaper price tag, which leads to more people benefiting by purchasing, which leads to greater profits.
Yes, but the short term benefit rarely outdoes the long term harm. See my example above: Many people benefit from Walmart providing cheaper goods, but they wouldn't be reliant upon said cheaper goods if it weren't for the wages being driven down in their local area by the very group they are support to be benefiting from.
Trade in this way is a win-win situation.
The "win's" are rarely even, unless the parties involved are on equal footing, which rarely occurs in our system.
If your concern is for the worker, consider that they are trading as well. If they weren't being exploited for their labor, they would be broke and much worse off.
I'm sorry, but that is logically unsound. There are many workers who have jobs where they are sufficiently compensated for their labor. They are not being exploited, and they are not "worse off". The assumption that workers are either "exploited", or "worse" simply does not make any sense, and is incredibly defeatist.
The only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited.
And capitalism fails people. That's kind of his point; capitalism inherently disregards people who fail within the system, because it is not a system that beliefs such people are an economic responsibility
Economic responsibility... You mean capitalists don't believe they show pay for the livelihood of people who fail to pay it themselves.
That happens all the time. That is essentially our entire agricultural system in a nut shell
That's right. And it cannot be said to be the market at work.
That's not really true. Someone having a sufficient amount of production power can run competition out of business, leading to a monopoly which is a problem for a lot of people. Someone with sufficient purchasing power can artificially drive down prices, which is a problem for a lot of people. In fact, the two things you listed are two of the primary things Adam Smith can not exist in his concept of Capitalism
On the contrary. Running the competition out of business by keeping your prices artificially low (good for consumers) cannot work for long. Once the competitive threat is squashed, the company would have to recoup losses with higher than equilibrium prices. This in turn would invite the competition back into the game but with the advantage of the large company now being on its heels. The market isn't the cause of monopoly power, government assistance to the big guy is.
I don't know why you said production power and purchasing power cannot exist in Capitalism, but it's absurd.
It really isn't though. The nature of capitalism (as we know it) involves taking steps necessary to maximize market efficiency and productivity. In this society, part of that involves political interference. Political influence over our government is a natural aspect of attempts at maximizing productivity and market efficiency. If we had a capitalist economic system and a different political system, capitalism would work to influence that economic system as well; it's just in the nature of capitalism
You are describing fascism. A political system that has legal barriers between the economy and the government would bar market actors from achieving government pull. Regardless, Americas economy is one that relies heavily on markets, but it is not capitalism. It's mixed, and has been for a very long time.
A company moves into a small town, sets up a grocery store. They have enough start up funds to create a grocery store larger than the initial one, and have a financial leak to their parent company, which allows them to obtain goods at a cheaper cost. They open up and higher a bunch of part time workers. Soon, the town ends up going primarily to this new store because the goods are cheaper. This leads to their competition going out of businesses. The increased profits allow them to expand into other departments, which puts more and more local businesses out of business, replacing higher paying small business jobs with part-time corporate jobs.
If this was the end of the economic story, then eventually, no one in town would have anything at all. But it's not. Walmart does not exist in a vacuum.
Yes, but the short term benefit rarely outdoes the long term harm. See my example above: Many people benefit from Walmart providing cheaper goods, but they wouldn't be reliant upon said cheaper goods if it weren't for the wages being driven down in their local area by the very group they are support to be benefiting from.
Your Walmart example is of creative destruction, which is short term localized harm. When one looks at world today, compared to the world even 50 years ago, let alone 100, it is impossible to seriously believe that creative destruction means long run destruction.
The "win's" are rarely even, unless the parties involved are on equal footing, which rarely occurs in our system
The win's need not be even for both parties to win. The point is that there isn't a looser as you would imply. Just degrees of winners.
I'm sorry, but that is logically unsound. There are many workers who have jobs where they are sufficiently compensated for their labor. They are not being exploited, and they are not "worse off". The assumption that workers are either "exploited", or "worse" simply does not make any sense, and is incredibly defeatist
You are comparing the wages of some people to the wages of others. But people aren't interchangeable and cannot do each others job. Consider the fast food worker who cannot do anything else. He is better off being paid to work fast food that not being paid to not be working. It's not slavery. No one is forced into employment. They do it because they are better off that way than otherwise.
When I said the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited, what I meant was the only thing worse than being employed is not being employed.
That doesn't mean that it is good for "any bank account".
Our current form of capitalism will always lead to some individuals who are not paid the true value of their labor. Our system simply wouldn't work if not for that. And those individuals bank accounts are not feeling particularly great.
Now why can't you address the downsides to capitalism?
I have to agree, however, the runaway capitalism we've had since Reagan is only expanding (for the most part), a certain few bank accounts. It's creating most of those jobs in other (underpaid) countries. When a FEW expand their bank accounts to well over 300%, while 98% of the country stays flat, it's a capitalism we can live without!
Like anything else, it's a good thing in moderation. It made this country great! The well meaning Reagan destroyed it and capitalists and his party, as usual, try to put the blame on "lazy people"! Those are the PEOPLE that made this country great when it was FAIR! They weren't "lazy" until capitalists got greedy, and created jobs in other places, with OUR MONEY!
Jobs go overseas because Americans are not competitive when it comes to price. It is competition that is lowering the cost of labor. Those that don't change and adapt get left behind.
The 98% need to step up their game if they want to do as well as the top 2%. You can't go into social work and expect to make as much as a Wallstreeter; it's all about career planning.
"That mindset" reflects reality; if you want more you have to put forth the effort to go get it. Demonizing and dragging down the top 2% doesn't elevate your lot in life.
It's better than any system ever devised by man. No other economic philosophy has created more wealth for more people that capitalism. You also have to take into account JOBS, a by product of capitalism. Real jobs, not manufactured bureaucratic jobs working for government; jobs that create wealth.
Yes and no. It is the best system for the production of wealth that we have created thus far, but it is definitely not one of the best for said wealth's distribution. It's also by no means the best system possible (we really have no idea since we are so unwilling to try new things).
So pointing out things that capitalism does well by no means undermines his criticisms of capitalism, or its inherent flaws.
Lastly, our form of capitalism is also nothing like the form of capitalism envisioned by its "creator", Smith.
Repetition is not a counter argument. It is the best at some things, but not others, and pointing to its strengths does nothing to dismiss or counter him pointing out its weaknesses.
Capitalism has its strengths, but its weaknesses show that there is a better system out there. It has done great for wealth creation, but it fails at wealth distribution. We need one that succeeds in both categories.
It seems to me that it does a better job at wealth distribution than communism. If you mean that it does a poor job relative to potential or ideal distribution, I would be inclined to wonder what type of distribution would be best.
But why would that be the comparison? If we believe Capitalism so great, why would we compare it to Authoritarian Communism, one of the most failed economic systems in history?
It seems to me that we should be holding it to a bit higher of a standard than that.
As for what distribution works best, many of the hybrid systems in Europe do a far better job than we do regarding distribution. Mind you some do worse jobs on wealth creation, and there's dozens of complex and nuanced reasons for both the improvements in distribution and creation.
But for the love of [insert whatever would mean most to you], why the hell can't this country engage in even the most preliminary form of comparative politics so we can learn from the successes and mistakes of others?
But why would that be the comparison? If we believe Capitalism so great, why would we compare it to Authoritarian Communism, one of the most failed economic systems in history?
I was considering the relevance of communism to income distribution. Arguably, income distro was the main concern of the communist system, so it seemed relevant. The fact that it's the worst system ever is irrelevant, unless its fault is in the fact that it attempts to control income distro.
many of the hybrid systems in Europe do a far better job than we do regarding distribution
Better in what way? That was really the crux of my initial post. What disto is better and why?
I was considering the relevance of communism to income distribution.
Marxist Communism would be great at income distribution, but the only truly tried method is inherently horrible at income distribution.
Arguably, income distro was the main concern of the communist system, so it seemed relevant.
I would never argue that, as their attempts to distribute income were never effectively intended to create a truly equal society. That's the flawed nature of Vanguardism.
The fact that it's the worst system ever is irrelevant, unless its fault is in the fact that it attempts to control income distro.
No, the fault is that the link between the ideology and the system were incredibly tenuous in Russia. "Communism" became more of a term used to refer to an abstract Rus-Centric idea. The importance of the rights of labor, equality of outcome, etc, all disappeared under the Cult of Stalin and the military apparatus.
So when the only time an ideology has been tried, it was essentially half-way abandoned, it seems iffy to use that as the standard of comparison next to a system whose entire purpose is economic productivity.
Better in what way? That was really the crux of my initial post. What disto is better and why?
In a variety of ways, so I'll give some examples. The distribution of wealth in the educational system of countries like Germany, Denmark and Sweden allow for their populace to purpose higher levels of education regardless of socio-political upbringing, which has created a highly-educated populace. This was achieved by redirecting state income (I mean state in the political science context) to subsidize economic costs. Because of this distribution, more citizens are able to be self-sufficient and less reliant upon a social safety net, which ultimately leads to a more economically efficient system.
If you'd like I can go into more systemic examples.
The distribution of wealth in the educational system
So you are not referring to the same wealth distribution or re-distribution that is commonly referred to. The wealth of house holds, or the wealth of individuals. Rather you are talking about wealth in specific sectors?
It's very efficient at wealth creation and wealth distribution. You get paid according to your economic contribution as determined by the market. If you want to make more, learn more job skills and/or go into another profession that pays better. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
It's very efficient at wealth creation and wealth distribution. You get paid according to your economic contribution as determined by the market.
Except it doesn't actually work that way, and hasn't for a while. Wages for certain socio-economic strati are essentially stagnant, while others are constantly rising. This leads to certain groups contributing more to the economy than they see in recompense (I mean proportionally).
If you want to make more, learn more job skills and/or go into another profession that pays better.
That simply does not work in every situation. There are countless examples of people who can not simply "go into another profession" like that, but Capitalism, and yourself, does not make any exceptions, or even acknowledge the existence of, these situations.
Doing the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
Actually, the definition of insanity is "Severe mental illness".
Wages for certain socio-economic strati are essentially stagnant
This is misleading as people move up and down in socio-economic terms as well as income. The top 1% for example, are mostly different people from year to year.
That simply does not work in every situation
If it worked this way in most situations or even the majority of situations, his argument would still be valid
This is misleading as people move up and down in socio-economic terms as well as income.
But even social mobility is decreasing in this country, meaning that people are moving up and down far, far less than they have historically (Or are in other countries).
The top 1% for example, are mostly different people from year to year.
The existence of social mobility among the upper echelons does not indicate the same social mobility among the lower ones.
If it worked this way in most situations or even the majority of situations, his argument would still be valid
It's essentially impossible to find out if it works that way in most situations because it's too nuanced. You would have to look up regional costs of education, transportation, moving expenses, cost of living adjustments, generational migratory trends, etc.
Safe to say that it does not work anywhere near as simply as he is saying on a national scale, particularly with the increasing effects of globalization leading to an increased reliance upon low-skill, low paying jobs, of which there are often insufficient numbers within given communities.
with the increasing effects of globalization leading to an increased reliance upon low-skill, low paying jobs, of which there are often insufficient numbers within given communities.
Low-skill jobs used to pay more when there was less of a labor market to choose from (now global). With the availability of outsourcing, workers must become skilled in order to make more money. If you can learn a skill that is in demand, you will make more money. It works that way in every situation. When you say it doesn't always work that way, what you are really talking about is the people who can not learn the new skill for whatever reason.
There are lots of reasons that people may be stuck in a given profession. These reasons are either temporary, or incurable by any system.
Low-skill jobs used to pay more when there was less of a labor market to choose from (now global). With the availability of outsourcing, workers must become skilled in order to make more money. If you can learn a skill that is in demand, you will make more money. It works that way in every situation. When you say it doesn't always work that way, what you are really talking about is the people who can not learn the new skill for whatever reason.
No. HighFalutin implied that anybody has the ability to relearn new skills or move to new occupations. I said it doesn't always work like that. The impacts of globalization on increasing the global labor market is part of the reason the Capitalism no longer works well for many people within our society.
There are lots of reasons that people may be stuck in a given profession. These reasons are either temporary, or incurable by any system.
I agree. I never claimed that Capitalism is the only system with flaws. I simply claimed that Capitalism, like other systems, has flaws.
I simply claimed that Capitalism, like other systems, has flaws
The flaws of systems other than capitalism are flaws of design. Flaws that are caused by a given interference in the market. The "flaws" of capitalism are not issues caused by the system, but rather they are issues that are neglected by the system. The high ground for capitalism, is that other systems address these neglected problems, fail to solve them, and simultaneously create new problems.
Except it is. Wages are stagnant here, but overseas they are doing much better because these countries can produce the same product/service for less cost.That's why companies here offshore everything. It's called competition and it's on a global scale because of the trade agreements, the ones Trump wants to renegotiate.
People can do amazing things, it's too bad the liberal mindset doesn't think so. They would have you believe you can only do well if government helps you.
If these trade agreements that bring competition are representative of markets or capitalism, and Trump wants to renegotiate them, does that mean trump takes issue with capitalism? Because he sure used to.
Right. He said we got a bad deal. Never said why. Said he will get a better deal. Never said how, or what that even means. He is the most pitiful, substanceless, unscrupulous democrat to ever take the republican nomination.
"Wages are stagnant here, but overseas they are doing much better because these countries can produce the same product/service for less cost.That's why companies here offshore everything."
certainly not why companies are off-shoring
Then why are they?
Should we get rid of safe working environments? child labor laws? clean air/water?
Should we rid ourselves of all these pesky regulations so we can compete with other countries that don't have them?
Just curious, based on your comment, if the video showed up for you, it was a problem for another member. I can post a direct link in the description if necessary.
First off, I must say respectfully that I find your profile pic gif more amusing than that video... I really couldn't make it through the entire thing. IMHO Capitalism does work, and for the most part you get out of it what you put into it. People who are self-motivated may start out from the bottom, but will have the ambition to work their way up through hard work and education. Others are content with doing just enough to get by, and yet others are content to get by on government handouts, with no ambition or drive to better their situations. And then there are the lucky ones who come from already successful families, and do live privileged lives because of wealth earned by others in their ancestry. There are many other scenarios, but any that I can think of that pertain to a Capitalist system still outshine all others that have been tried and failed.
You said you were ready for your introduction to capitalism, well, I'm willing to provide your money for a service. Mow my law and I'll pay you. How's that for capitalism.
In common with all resentful fools from the vast army of life's losers you mindlessly criticize the economic system upon which the world's trade is based without offering a viable alternative. You've failed to succeed in the highly competitive world of capitalism so you decide to throw your rattle out of the pram and start squealing. Instead of bawling like a spoilt brat why don't you show some mature leadership and submit your detailed proposals for a realistic replacement to capitalism?
Having to resort to 'downvoting' is yet another graphic illustration of a loser whose feeble mind is baron of rational argument. JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY, you can't even spell your own assumed name.Watch out that Spartacus the deceased gladiator doesn't pay you a visit from the other side and to give you a kick up the arse. Ha, that would be funny, roars of laughter from the back stalls.
Tut, tut little man, most of life's losers behave just like you. You are truly a classic example of how these pitiful losers display their resentment at their own failure in life by spewing out a load of meaningless drivel in the misguided notion that they are insulting their betters. Be advised that low lives such as you cannot insult high achievers of whom I am one, we recognize the oozing of their diarrhea in text form for what it is. Also, Please note the correct spelling of Spartacus the gladiator, if that's the character from history whose name you are defiling by using it as a pseudonym. I challenge you to show your alternative to capitalism without making an even bigger fool of yourself than you have already done.
Exposing the character flaws of people who perform like retards always makes me feel better, thanks for the opportunity. By telling the truth and eliminating any politically correct euphemisms the idiot is left in no doubt about about his/her diminished mental condition. In the name of God, at least alter your pseudonym to the correct spelling. You know, you really are a benighted fool. You are the epitome of the old adage, ''there's no fool like an old fool''. Read my opinions and statements, it's never too late to learn.
I bit harsh, perhaps. But you are correct in saying that it is almost always the financially downtrodden who bemoan the politics and economics of Free Market enterprise, or Capitalism. The reason for this is all too obvious.
and their only alternative seems to be a vague and at-the-end-of-the-day Greedy plan to redistribute the Wealth. thus espousing the same mindset or zeitgeist in themselves that they are railing against and accusing us Capitalists of harboring.
But you are correct in saying that it is almost always the financially downtrodden who bemoan the politics and economics of Free Market enterprise, or Capitalism. The reason for this is all too obvious.
Yes, but people such as yourself ignore wealthy critics of capitalism to your determent. Playing the class warfare card does nothing to undermine the arguments of individuals like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.
and their only alternative seems to be a vague and at-the-end-of-the-day Greedy plan to redistribute the Wealth.
Many people have very specific plans, so why are you vaguely referring to vague individuals with vague plans, instead of addressing those who have actually presented new ideas and systems? It seems to be nothing more than a straw man.
thus espousing the same mindset or zeitgeist in themselves that they are railing against and accusing us Capitalists of harboring.
Not really. People can easily criticize capitalism for abusing the working class and not paying the true value of labor, and then demand redistribution of wealth. Receiving that redistribution would not show that they are abusing themselves and refusing to pay themselves the value of their labor, obviously.
Think I am unfairly accusing most anti capitalists if wanting to redistribute the wealth or not bring greedy, in that they usually want what they don't work for?
Fine what say we ask this debate author what his political and economic theories are?
How much ya wanna bet they equate to being in line with what I just claimed?
Think I am unfairly accusing most anti capitalists if wanting to redistribute the weather, or not bring greedy, in that they usually want what they don't work for?
No, you just aren't fairly describing either their mindset, or their complaints with the mindsets of those they decry. You are clearly describing your misguided preconceptions of them, rather than trying to understand what they are actually saying or motivated by.
Fine what say we ask this debate author what his political and economic theories are?
He's a Libertarian Socialist.
How much ya wanna bet they equate to being in line with what I just claimed?
In common with all resentful fools from the vast army of life's losers you mindlessly criticize the economic system upon which the world's trade is based without offering a viable alternative.
One has the capacity to think critically about something even if one doesn't have an alternative to a problem they might encounter with it.
You've failed to succeed in the highly competitive world of capitalism so you decide to throw your rattle out of the pram and start squealing.
My background, which that is not, has no bearing on the validity of my beliefs.
Instead of bawling like a spoilt brat why don't you show some mature leadership and submit your detailed proposals for a realistic replacement to capitalism?
First off...who or what is that in your profile pic? It's sorta weirding me out. But it's also creepily captivating in a way.
So why are you a self proclaimed anti Capitalist? Tell us. And what firm of financial or economics system would you suggest would work better for the USA? I was an Econ major so I'm interested. I also am guessing your unfairly maligning the capitalists. Do you know if you ever bought it sold anything here in your life you were a part of the system?
One can be a participant whilst maligning the system they are in. Hell, Adam Smith would have maligned the way capitalism developed, and he's pretty much the patron saint of Capitolism.
Adam Smith is widely recognized as the founder of explaining the science of Economics, not capitalism. With his book On the Wealth of Nations back in the 1800s.
As far as your capitalism, if you want to begin debating the pros and cons we should adjust our terminology. Perhaps to Free Market econ vs. Keynesian. Are you familiar with the works of John Maynard Keynes? He might be the loudest voice in espousing the economic dogma you seem to be advocating.
Adam Smith wasn't ever the first one to write on the science of economics, Richard Cantillon was.
Wealth of Nations, with his critique of mercantilism, proposed the economic system that we now call Capitalism, albeit in a substantially different form. He became the first true proponent of laissez-faire markets.
As for our terminology, Free Market vs Keynesian doesn't even work to sufficiently clarify. Even our political right does not advocate an actual free market, and the political left's link to Keynesian economics is tenuous and fickle.
The far RIGHT DOES advocate total Free Market economy.
as does Trump.
Keynesian economics advocate occasional intervention from the Government to correct imbalances and problem--perceived problems--in the economy. A great example of Keynesian economics was FDR's New Deal in the 1930s.
But some economists say that it actually prolonged the Depression, and it was only WWII that brought us out of it.
There is nothing tenuous about the Left's Link to Keynsiean economics. They ALWAYS advocate it. At least for the past century. Last I checked, FDR WAS a Dem, thus on the Left. As is Obama, he of all that TARP bailout money. That too is Keynesian econ in action, my friend.
Never heard of Cantillion. So since Smith was probably read by ten times more people and his book is used in that many more classroom I have to stick with my original claim on him being the Daddy of the science of Economics. How many links do you want that will confirm this? let me know.
The far RIGHT DOES advocate total Free Market economy.
as does Trump.
Must I really go through the banality of listing regulations and impediments on the free market that they support?
Keynesian economics advocate occasional intervention from the Government to correct imbalances and problem--perceived problems--in the economy. A great example of Keynesian economics was FDR's New Deal in the 1930s.
I'm well aware of what Keynesian economics is. Nothing in my last post indicated otherwise.
But some economists say that it actually prolonged the Depression, and it was only WWII that brought us out of it.
Those "some" are conservative economists who ignore that FDR's Conservative adviser who temporarily convinced him to stop many of the New Deal programs led to a dramatic and immediate downfall in the national economy. Pretty much everyone, however, agrees that WW2 is what brought us out of it, and our industrial infrastructure (along with Europe's recent lack-there-of) led us to be the economic superpower of the proceeding decades. You aren't the only one who has studied economics, so, again, enough with this patronizing attitude.
There is nothing tenuous about the Left's Link to Keynsiean economics. They ALWAYS advocate it.
No, it's just the only they they advocate. That does not mean they consistently advocate for a pure adherence to Keynesian economics.
Last I checked, FDR WAS a Dem, thus on the Left. As is Obama, he of all that TARP bailout money. That too is Keynesian econ in action, my friend.
FDR was indeed a Dem, and he was the one who most adhered to Keynesian economics, I would never disagree on that point. But TARP was a program from his Neo-Conservative predecessor, George Bush Jr. You see, Keynesian economics are often advocated in certain fields by the Republican party as well, because neither of our political parties strictly adhere to a single economic theory.
Never heard of Cantillion.
Which really changes nothing.
So since Smith was probably read by ten times more people and his book is used in that many more classroom I have to stick with my original claim on him being the Daddy of the science of Economics.
...The logic there seems to be saying "Well, because I haven't heard of it, I'm going to ignore it". Am I missing something?
How many links do you want that will confirm this? let me know.
Kind of strange that you haven't heard of Cantillion. I figured I'd see what links you would come up with, so I googled "Father of economics" and, wouldn't you know, the spotlighted link mentions Cantillion. In fact, the First and Third links mention him, and while the second link says that he is the father of economics, the citation included does not mention anything of the sort. So for curiosity's sake, let's see your links.
I do notice that you completely ignored the part of him being the father of Capitalism, however. Any reason for that?
Never heard of Cantillion. So since Smith was probably read by ten times more people and his book is used in that many more classroom I have to stick with my original claim on him being the Daddy of the science of Economics.
Contillion was an enlightenment era economist. It doesn't matter. The subject of economics goes back to Aristotle and probably before. The point is that the work of Smith had great explaining power concerning market forces and is referred to often. Who's the Dad doesn't really matter.
I'd say it does matter, just not when it comes to Economics as a whole.
It's quite important to see who came up with the concept of Capitalism, so that we can see how Capitalism as an economic system has changed, why, and which form worked best.
except for the fact that the roots of capitalism extend back before the dawn of written history.
the first capitalist may have been a Neanderthal who was paid in painted-stone currency of even food or shelter or sex for selling is Wooly Mammoth hides and tusks.
Also, finding the "first" of any ideology or practice, or even invention is a daunting task. Why? Well, because often times there was no true "first." Rather, only small incremental graduations leading to the present product or theory.
These other hardcore bible thumpers ain't gonna like that.
If you sound too rational like you do, they will probably accuse you of being a heretic. Or demon driven, like they did Jesus. And some of the early scientists who went against the Church. Like Galileo.
Marxism advocates an interim period of Socialism before full-blown Communism.
Except it doesn't at all.
Marxism advocates a democratic overthrow where the workers own the means of production and distribution that they take part in.
Vanguardism advocates an interm period of socialism, led by party elite, before full-blown Communism, but Vanguardism is inherently anti-Marxist.
Libertarian of course does not advocate or even tolerate State control in anything, except in the military for protecting us from foreign threats.
Libertarianism is actually far more nuanced than that, but that's beside the point. We were discussing Libertarian Socialism, not "Libertarianism and Marxism".
Workers DO produce and distribute the goods in a free market Capitalist society. Especially when they have stock or some vested interest in the company they work for. Or are i where of. Or are you playing the Das Kapital Marxist card by claiming that business owners and corporate execs are not workers? But only big bad Bourgoise? And that likely humble workers constitute a beleaguered proletariat? This is outmoded thinking. Proven to be unsound. Also not accurate of the USA system.
Generally, "workers" is a colloquialism in this context for "labor", which means management would generally not count unless they are low-tier (such as store managers and the like).
And nothing about it has been "proven to be unsound", and it is in fact very accurate of the US system. This country doesn't even keep up average wages with cost of living adjustments, let alone inflation. We simply do not pay the true cost of labor in our system; it goes against the very foundation of our economic system.
I am a small business owner. There is nothing one if my employees do that I do not. Nor do I ask them too. Also anybody who owns stock is by proxy a part owner. And if you think Marxian and Engelist economics have not been proven to be naively simplistic and unsound than I am not sure I can debate further. As I don't have the time to give an Econ 101 primer. Are you even familiar with their work? And what they espoused? I was assuming you had read their stuff but it now appears you haven't?
Definitions of it can, but within this context it generally doesn't.
I am a small business owner. There is nothing one if my employees do that I do not. Nor do I ask them too.
Okay. What point are you trying to make? His critiques of capitalism can exist along side business owners who don't behave in the way described. That doesn't negate the criticisms of either the system, or many industry leaders.
Also anybody who owns stock is by proxy a part owner
Only in a way that really has no impact on the topic in question, except in some small exceptions.
And if you think Marxian and Engelist economics have not been proven to be naively simplistic and unsound than I am not sure I can debate further
See, this is the easiest thing in the world to prove: Marxism has never once been tried on a state level, so it is impossible for it to be proven unsound. To conflate Marxism with Authoritarian Communism just doesn't make any sense, as they are diametrically opposed on any effective level.
As I don't have the time for an Econ 101 primer. Are you even familiar with their work? And what they espoused?
Yes, which is why I, unlike you, have been able to refer to the economic and political systems related to the relevant individuals at all points of this debate. Why do you insist on acting to pretensions when you are consistently citing incorrect ideological claims?
There is nothing one if my employees do that I do not.
That means you are a laborer part of the time, and an exploiter 100% of the time.
Also anybody who owns stock is by proxy a part owner.
The commodification of ownership is radically capitalist. Stocks are an efficient way of passing the burden of the financial stability of a company onto the labor class, while offering the illusion of ownership. The largest shareholder, the 51% stockholder, still maintains all of the authority.
And if you think Marxian and Engelist economics have not been proven to be naively simplistic and unsound than I am not sure I can debate further.
You haven't given one real rebuttal as to why that might be true, just opinion after opinion.
As I don't have the time to give an Econ 101 primer.
We shall all now know that you, the Economics master, has graced us with your presence, even if none of your supposed knowledge is presented, you know, because you lack the time to provide any evidence for your claims. Let us know when you can pencil those in.
This country doesn't even keep up average wages with cost of living adjustments
If companies can outsource to other countries where labor is plentiful, then the demand for labor in this country will drop and real wages will stagnate or fall. This is because the market extends past our borders. It means that people in other countries are now making wages when they didn't before. The quality of life in numerous other counties increases, hence the remarkable global drop in poverty over the decades. Given that the average US citizen in a wealthy one percenter when compared to the rest of the world, shouldn't stagnating wages be seen as a success?
let alone inflation
This is driven by the money supply which is controlled by the government, not the market.
We simply do not pay the true cost of labor in our system
Is this because the poor are subsidized with government programs thus enabling businesses to pay less and let the tax payer make up the difference? If that's not what you mean, then please explain what the "true" cost of labor is.
Workers DO produce and distribute the goods in a free market Capitalist society.
I never claimed otherwise.
Especially when they have stock or some vested interest in the company they work for.
That has no bearing on whether or not workers produce goods and services.
Or are you playing the Das Kapital Marxist card by claiming that business owners and corporate execs are not workers?
As someone else already stated, when we use the term worker in this context, we are referring to the labor class. Business owners and corporate executives, by your own unnecessarily redundant definition of the term, are not "workers", in that they do not produce or distribute the goods and services. What you are describing is management and corporate hierarchy.
But only big bad Bourgoise? And that likely humble workers constitute a beleaguered proletariat?
A capitalist business primary motive is to increase capital. You must've watched the video, right? If so, you haven't given me a rebuttal, and are just reacting emotionally.
This is outmoded thinking. Proven to be unsound.
You cannot 'disprove' a form of government or economy any more than you can disprove the existence of opinions.
I wasn't talking about Modi, I was talking about the people on the other side of the spectrum, who are marxist. Pakistan and China, for example. And I guess the second point is true, I shouldn't have used AF as an example there are better examples. Again, China.
I explained also to him that Libertarian socialism does not exist and in fact us an oxymoron. I don't think our young debate author here is too familiar with what Marxian socialism really involves. Rather, he just equates capitalism with unbridled greed and socialism with equality and compassion for your fellow man. We know this is not only drastically naive but also so over generalized as to make it a spurious definition.
You really think I don't know Marxism? I was an econ major. Please.
You sound confused on Marxism. His theory of how to attain communism does involve socialism. As an interim state of progress. I suggest you brush up on this before proceeding with me. Your in over your head. Sounds like you just want to pick a fight with me. When in fact I will prove with links and sourcezs all I have said.
Why so obtuse and angry? Was it cuz I busted you on the Spartacus thing?
You really think I don't know Marxism? I was an econ major. Please.
You keep saying that, but it doesn't mean anything. Everyone is everything on the interwebs.
You sound confused on Marxism. His theory of his to attain communism does involve socialism.
No, his prediction as to how Communism would come about involved Socialism, but even that socialism differed from what the U.S.S.R. implemented (i.e. Authoritarian Socialism).
As an interim state of progress. I suggest you brush up on this before proceeding with me. Your in over your head. Sounds like you just want to pick a fight with me. When in fact I will prove with links and sources all I have said.
Then enough of the hot air, just provide the links. Otherwise, it's just you patting yourself on the back without having accomplished anything.
Why so obtuse? Was it cuz I busted you on the Spartacus thing?
Why the lack of an actual defense of your stance? Is it cuz you don't actually know what Marxism as a stand alone ideology entails?
Again, I never disagreed that Marx thought socialism was a step towards communism. I disagreed with you on both the nature of the Socialism involved, and the nature of the Communism sought.
For example, this article says things like "Socialism and communism are both economic systems in which the public owns the means of production", despite the fact that who all "the public" entails and what the nature of the ownership is differ depending on the type of socialism and communism involved.
Or "Under both systems the state also engages in centralized planning; in a planned or command economy, business activities and resource allocation are controlled by the state, ostensibly for the greater good.", which seems to forget that the nature of "the state" is completely different between Marxism (in which case "the state" would be a direct democratic consensus of labor), Authoritarian Socialism, or just full on Stalinist Communism (see: Vanguardism and Lenin).
As I say, there is no applicable country today that has it. Or uses it. It's utopian. Like full blown Marxism. Also just like true communism, it can never work on a national level. or anything larger than, say, a neighborhood? Like a commune. even there they need subsidies from outside entities like government and private donations, which mitigate the original theory anyway.
Again..sigh..proven to be unsound.
Also..FYI..China, Cuba and Laos are communist. You should know this. They are not full blown Marxism. But Laos comes damn close.
As I say, there is no applicable country today that has it. Or uses it. It's utopian. Like full blown Marxism.
Yes, there are quite a few utopian ideologies. One can adhere to a utopian ideology without believing that it can be fully attained.
Also just like true communism, it can never work on a national level. or anything larger than, say, a neighborhood?
Communism could definitely work on a theoretical level, it would just require a society that had developed along very different cultural paths than most. I think the only context in which most forms of Communism (be they democratic like Marxism or Authoritarian) would in a extra-planetary colonial setting.
Again..sigh..proven to be unsound.
I don't think you know what "proven" means. If something can't be currently tried, then it can't be proven to either work, or be unsound.
Also..FYI..China, Cuba and Laos are communist. You should know this.
Cuba and Laos are Authoritarian Communist, yes, but China is its own hybrid entity that mixes a semi-Authoritarian Communist political system with a hybrid economic system (part state capitalism, part "free market" capitalism).
As for the "You should know this", that would seem far less ridiculous if they had been brought up, or I had shown any sign of not knowing it. As is, it just comes across as you trying to declare that you know more than me, but in a context that is irrelevant, which makes it pretty odd.
No I doubt I know more than you about Econ. You sound very knowledgeable. I have only a lowly BA and that was eight years ago and I get rusty on the finer points of theory. I meant that at your seeming level of acuity in the field u would think you were familiar. I did enjoy the chat though. Good to get off religion for a bit!
Then why not demonstrate it, instead of just declaring it?
I have only a lowly BA and that was eight years ago and I get rusty on the finer points of theory. I meant that at your seeming level of acuity in the field u would think you were familiar. I did enjoy the chat though. Good to get off religion for a bit!
And again, I expected more of you than "I'm right, you're wrong, look it up", particularly if you were as educated claim (and claim, and claim, and claim :P).
This is an introduction to Marxism, Communism. It's an attempt to start rebellion by making masses of people feel like victims. It's evil, and God is against it.
I think if Jesus came back today and some economist sat him down and gave him a primer on all the different types of possible economic ideologies, that Jesus would choose Communism. Or at least a socialist Democracy. He for sure would eschew Capitalism.
You thoughts? Can you explain why I am wrong without condemning me to hell and thumping your Bible?
