Capitalism can not eradicate poverty
- Thread starter gore0bsessed
- Start date
No it's literally the ideology of capitalism to have people poorer. Capitalism is an aggressive accumulation of wealth by any means necessary, without regards to health of people, animals or the planet itself. Giving workers proper wages goes against the ideology of maximizing profits so it's better to lower wages and keep people poorer.
Well you have the ole trickle down method that you need the prosperous upper class to provide jobs for the middle class and low class bums. Then you have the shared prosperity idea that the "privileges" of the rich should be shared by everyone. Both ideas of which are put forth by elected officials who unaffected either way. The first method wants to regulate itself without government interference. The second wants government to keep a watchful eye on all business activities. Both of which are pretty much bullshyt since most politicians like to butter their toast on both sides. Then you have a third ideology that somehow miraculously there can be a utopian economic system that treats everyone equal and that those in charge will be honest and forthright and not be affected by any form of corruption. Truth is that most of us are going to feather our own nest regardless of how things are. When people start thinking more of "us" then "me", maybe you'll find a system that is fair for everyone. But that is our condition. Always has been.
no It's bad . I love Democracy in IRAQ in 2006 and AFGHANISTAN in 2002 and PANAMA in 1989 and NICARAQUA in 1975 and IRAN in 1970 and GUATEMALA in 1960 and El SALVADOR in 1981 and CHILE in 1980 and VIETNAM in 1970 and KOREA in 1950 and even todays in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and another democratical governments that's why Democracy is known to Peace .
Violent Theocracy isn't too . read " Capitalism and Freedom " by Militon friedman . capitalism is not separate from Democracy
The argument that our choice is either unbridled capitalism or socialism is absurd. Canada, for example, is a mixed economy which benefits from both economic systems. So are Norway, Sweden, the UK, Germany, France, ... Certainly, there have been successes and failures in the application of both. No one would argue that Detroit and other industrial wastelands are successes.
You maintain some kind of fantasy that all people contribute and consume on an equal basis.
History has shown over and over again that 'collective' ideologies deliver the masses to the lowest common denominator and as a system, it is weak and vulnerable.
I would love to see even one example of a system, devoid of any 'capitalist' components that has advanced it's standard of living over the long term as successfully as our current capitalist/socialist system... Sadly, no examples exist, but I will patiently await your considerate reply
'Global Village' and 'it takes a village to raise a child' are nothing more than cliches and platitudes... They sound really soft and nice and as a purely theoretical comment, are wonderful ideas.
Problem, is, they are so general and do not take into account the nature of people (in general) that they have no basis in reality whatsoever.
Capitalism only works when the labour force rises with the wealth of the capitalist.
Consider our contemporary version of 'capitalism' today and any/all success is met with increasingly progressive tax schemes that punish that success. That money is directed at society as a whole and ultimately at those demographics that the community deems most vulnerable.
On the other hand, pure socialism drags the majority of the masses down to the lowest common denominator (excepting of course, the leadership that lives in the lap of luxury).
So, tell me again about the wondrous bennies of collectivism again.. I'll really try and keep a straight face this time
Keynesian system is more popular and tested today but we should know , all economaical Ideas Are written for a specific time and non of them wont work for ever
I look forward to the myriad of examples you'll supply to correct my erroneous suggestion.
Let me know when you can put something together.
none of the isms will work. Capitalism is designed to exploit others for profit.
Socialism is designed to equal th disparity between rich and poor
Fascism is profit for those who support their efforts while virtually enslaving
specific groups
Communism is the disguise best suited to capitalism, it pretends to be the friend
of the workers while in fact benefiting only those at the top of an economic and
political pyramid.
The main reason is the social condition of some will never allow them to enter the
workforce and find their own way. These are the uneducated, addicts and a host
of other situations many self inflicted.
With the right education and training those who have prepared themselves will
flourish is a system that combines capitalism and social democracy.
We have to stop playing nursemaid to those who won't help themselves while
reaching out to those who are in situations that people sometimes find themselves
in that are not in their control or conditions not of their making.
Socialism is designed to equal th disparity between rich and poor
Fascism is profit for those who support their efforts while virtually enslaving
specific groups
Communism is the disguise best suited to capitalism, it pretends to be the friend
of the workers while in fact benefiting only those at the top of an economic and
political pyramid.
The main reason is the social condition of some will never allow them to enter the
workforce and find their own way. These are the uneducated, addicts and a host
of other situations many self inflicted.
With the right education and training those who have prepared themselves will
flourish is a system that combines capitalism and social democracy.
We have to stop playing nursemaid to those who won't help themselves while
reaching out to those who are in situations that people sometimes find themselves
in that are not in their control or conditions not of their making.
I don't know what you mean when you refer to lowest common denominators or what your definition of success is. I assume you believe wealth accumulation is success, and it is in a capitalist society. In a capitalist society it's basically the only determinant of success. The problem is you can't have a excessive accumulation of wealth without the detriment to other people. No success in capitalism comes without the stomping down of other people basically.
Of course we do. Socialised medicine, old-age security pensions, welfare, child-care benefits, ...
I might disagree with that generalization. There are several examples of small business's where the owner and the employees are successful and happy without hurting anyone. Can't put everything in a box and call it done.