Forums → WEPR → Left wing economics
| 134 | 18585 |
Everyone that I know who calls themselves a "Socialist" or "Communist" is an extreme hypocrite. A simple definition of Socialism is where âproperty and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.â Socialism also calls for Workerâs Councils to take over the means of production. It is a working class movement. I can respect an organized working class. I am going to be a teacher in the future and will make crap for a salary. But that is my choice. Capitalism gives me equal opportunity to pick my career. I could have been an engineer making at least $50K first year. But because of Capitalism, I have a choice. And I decided to become a teacher. I believe in the Capitalist system because it makes people work for their money. Socialism is an oppressive system that tries to stop the natural order of economics.
Something I have seen lately is the number of âSocialistsâ who have appeared amongst the youth of America. Are they here to go against their parents? Maybe. Every generation has children who do not agree with their parents. Are they here to start a revolution? Possibly... All generations have their âwanna-be revolutionaries.â Or are they here because they want to stir things up? This is what I think they are after. From what I have seen the average left-economist has been a spoiled, rich, drugged up, white kid who wants to rebel against society.
All of my friends who claim to have left-wing economic values are all white and are from wealthy families. I find it a bit weird that they continually talk about how the "white race" oppresses everyone. Even as they argue this, they continually do things to bring down the working class and minorities.
One of my college friends who labels himself as a âleftist socialist revolutionaryâ grows marijuana and sells it for a huge profit. I noticed most of his customers were of ethnic minorities as well. When I asked how this was compatible with Socialism and racial equality, he ignored me at first. He later explained that marijuana was a symbol for the leftist movement. He never explained how selling it for huge profits was compatible with his beliefs though. I continued to press him on the issue, and all he could come up with was âIâm spreading the love equally like Socialism calls for!â His hypocrisy was so evident that I did not even have to continue questioning him.
Another friend of mine who claims Socialism is the greatest thing ever continuously shops at Wal-Mart, a massive corporation. She apparently has no problem with Wal-Mart and her economic beliefs, because she is ill-informed. I asked her if it was okay for a Socialist to shop at Wal-Mart, and she said it was no problem. She did not see the problem with it.
Another example of economic leftist hypocrisy that I have is within the gay community. I know several gay people from college. Many of them wear âCheâ t-shirts. If you do not know who Che is, then look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara, His photo on the right side is a symbol for Socialists and Communists across the globe. In fact, most Historians agree that it is the most important photo of all time. You can see his image on shirts like this: http://www.geocities.com/socialist_action/che.gif). Ernesto âCheâ Guevara was one of the most devoted Communists I have read about. Yet he had thousands of Christians killed for their beliefs. He had hundreds executed for owning large plots of land. More importantly for this argument, Che had thousands of people executed for being homosexual. Now how could any homosexual wear a t-shirt with Cheâs image on it? Economic left wingers love Che for his devotion to Socialism and Communism, yet they blind themselves to the fact that he was a ruthless killer of homosexuals, religious people, and those who owned land. This is yet another hypocrisy of left-wing economists.
The best example I have is of my geography teacher in college. He was a devout Communist. He denied the Cambodian and Bosnian genocides (both committed by Communists). He denied the purges of Stalin and the Ukranian Famine he caused. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor). Stalin killed more than Hitler, yet this teacher claimed Stalin was one of the most democratic rulers ever. This teacher stuck by his die-hard Communist ideology. But one day, I found him shopping in a Wal-Mart. Just like my friend who claimed to be a Socialist, this man was shopping in a Wal-Mart. I did not have to say anything to him, but once he saw me there, his face turned red and he walked away. The next class he kicked me out when I argued that the Bosnian genocide was real. In fact, I had just seen a video of Bosnians being killed, execution style, by Communist forces. He told me that the video was fake, and then he kicked me out of class. He could not deal with the truth, so he got rid of me... typical Socialist thought.
I know that we live in a Capitalist society. Socialists and Communists have to live by making money in the society that exists. But when they shop at Wal-Mart (instead of local âMa and Paâ stores), or when they sell drugs for unbelievable profits, or when they support a mass killer like Che, they are being complete hypocrites. I have to wonder about the devotion of these so called âSocialistsâ and âCommunists.â They can claim to be economic left-wingers all they want, but by their actions, they cannot deny their love for Capitalism.
- 134 Replies
the original is not enacted, so has no use
The Declaration of Independence wasn't made into law either; if you remember correctly, the rights are inalienable, meaning that we are allowed them whether they are put into stone or not.
All Thomas Jefferson did was twist a philosopher's words around to suit the needs of the Declaration.
What do you folks have against the Free Market? The Free Market, I believe, is the most efficient economic system ever to be comprehended. When you walk into a coffee shop in a free market country, you see the result of a truly massive team effort. And, at that, a team with no leader. Millions of people have worked to make create and maintain that coffee shop. The farmers who farm the coffee beans, the airline pilots who transfer the beans, the iron and steel workers who make iron ore and coal into machinery for the planes and farming equipment, the plastics factory workers who make the little mugs your coffee goes into, and infinity more. Nearly everyone in the system worked hard to make that shop, and everyone benefited. Even the people who didn't work to make it (very few). Whether it is through their wages and benefits, or whether its through the convenience of being able to buy coffee there.
A free market takes the selfish and greedy needs/desires of everyone in it and puts them to work for everyone including themselves. Socialist/Communist systems can't compare to that sort of efficiency. So really, even though its not always easy to see, the Capitalist system is where everyone works together for the better of society.
Another great advantage of the free market system is that it creates vast quantities of information. For example, a simple free market economics lesson will teach you that when a consumer buys (for the sake of argument) a cup of coffee for $3, that cup of coffee is worth equal or more to the consumer than that $3. It also means it is worth equal or more to the consumer at the moment than anything else he could go and buy with that $3. He could go across the street and buy the same coffee for $2, but if he buys the $3 coffee we know that he/she thinks its not worth it to go and buy the 2$ coffee for whatever reason.
Now, in comparison with a non-market system, for example, public education and police force, we may think our taxes are worth the schooling and the protection, but we're not sure. No one is. It goes to show what the real value of things are in society. In a socialist/communist system, no one knows the value of goods or services, and no one knows how much to produce other than basic needs like water and food.
Socialist/Communist systems claim to provide every need/want for everyone in it, but how can it do so if it doesn't know what it is you need or want? The Free Market knows and reacts every time you buy something. It constantly shifts to meet the demands of its consumers. If everyone all of a sudden wanted as much coffee as they could afford, the market would quickly react and start producing massive amounts of coffee. In a non-market system, you end up protesting in short parades in front of government buildings demanding more coffee while getting blasted with tear gas. Clearly, that can't be the best way of doing things.
So, how else does the free market compare to other systems? Well, its companies are for-profit, which create a number of advantages for everyone. First, these for-profit companies compete with each other for the most money in their particular section of the market. Lets go back to coffee. How would a non-profit coffee shop work? Well, it wouldn't really. #1, who would work for a non-profit coffee shop? I wouldn't. If the company isn't making a profit, then how much money is going to you? Not much if any. #2 In addition to not having any competent workers, it wouldn't even have any reason or incentive to compete. Its not trying to make money anyways. That would lead to lower quality goods. If it is too-quality, it won't even break even because no one would buy it.
For-profit companies create competition between themselves, which is good for the consumer. Competition creates higher quality goods and services at lower prices. Where there is no competition, there is low-quality goods being made at high prices and one person getting filthy rich off of it. This is rarely the case in a truly free-market economy. This is such a case in a non-market system.
Why are the rich getting richer? This is because they keep doing what got them rich. The same goes for every other socio-economic "class". They became educated, worked hard, and now are reaping the benefits. Why do they get better health care? Because they deserve it. The rich (the people who made an honest living, not counting people who made their living illegally) are the heroes of the free market. They consume and produce more than anyone else. If you read the rest of this post, you would know that consuming and producing only makes the society more efficient and better for everyone. If it weren't for rich people like for example Bill Gates, many of us wouldn't have high-quality computers on which to read this. Many wouldn't have software to type documents and create power point presentations for work use. If it weren't for William Ford and Alan Mulally, we wouldn't have the modern automobile. Rich people do a lot more for society than many realize.
Well, I'm really just getting warmed up, but if it becomes too big people won't even read it so I'll stop here for now.
What do you folks have against the Free Market? The Free Market, I believe, is the most efficient economic system ever to be comprehended. When you walk into a coffee shop in a free market country, you see the result of a truly massive team effort. And, at that, a team with no leader. Millions of people have worked to make create and maintain that coffee shop. The farmers who farm the coffee beans, the airline pilots who transfer the beans, the iron and steel workers who make iron ore and coal into machinery for the planes and farming equipment, the plastics factory workers who make the little mugs your coffee goes into, and infinity more. Nearly everyone in the system worked hard to make that shop, and everyone benefited. Even the people who didn't work to make it (very few). Whether it is through their wages and benefits, or whether its through the convenience of being able to buy coffee there.
As a matter of fact, it is very efficient. But it's not ethical in practice and the factory workers ( i like to call them the proletariat ) are treated like dirt. My Mother worked in a factory once, and she said that the places was utter crap and you got a 50 cent raise every year.( But she got a wopping $2.00 raise once because she fought for it and threatened to quit. ). So let me ask you, how much do those people in the factories get paid and how good is their lifestyle compared with the CEOS?
you see the result of a truly massive team effort. And, at that, a team with no leader.
Yeah, but it is all channelled for your own personal gain, there is no incentive for a CEO to really care about the workers, he only has an incentive to make sure that they work like dogs for the lowest possible wage. But thank goodness there are Worker's Unions to fight back, because strikes would ruin the nation like they got close to doing in the 20s and 30s.
For-profit companies create competition between themselves, which is good for the consumer. Competition creates higher quality goods and services at lower prices. Where there is no competition, there is low-quality goods being made at high prices and one person getting filthy rich off of it. This is rarely the case in a truly free-market economy. This is such a case in a non-market system.
And what if you get a monopoly that controls the entire economy? When that happened in the United States in the 19th century and with Gates in the 20th century, the government had to keep stepping in to keep up competition. It's just not worth it. Pure Capitalism doesn't work because the entire system revolves around survival of the fittest. But pure communism has proven not to work well either, so a mix of communism and capitalism would do well.
And there is competition under socialism, the workers control it and the government enforces regulations. the beauty of it all it that there can be no monopolies and CEOs can't operate off greed anymore. The workers work for their benefit under socialism which is still greed I guess, but it's used in such a way so that greed benefits all employees.
Why are the rich getting richer? This is because they keep doing what got them rich. The same goes for every other socio-economic "class". They became educated, worked hard, and now are reaping the benefits. Why do they get better health care? Because they deserve it. The rich (the people who made an honest living, not counting people who made their living illegally) are the heroes of the free market. They consume and produce more than anyone else. If you read the rest of this post, you would know that consuming and producing only makes the society more efficient and better for everyone. If it weren't for rich people like for example Bill Gates, many of us wouldn't have high-quality computers on which to read this. Many wouldn't have software to type documents and create power point presentations for work use. If it weren't for William Ford and Alan Mulally, we wouldn't have the modern automobile. Rich people do a lot more for society than many realize.
Why should the rich people hog all of the wealth because they started some lousy business? Frank Sinatra lived off ten percent of every dollar he made, and he lived a good life because he had millions. Come to think of it, let people be billionaire so that they could share some of it with the people who really work hard; the middle class. 90% tax rate for billionaires ought to level out the inequalities, and it should improve the qualities of all major public areas. And it would lower my tax rate as a citizen in a middle class family.
so socialism is partly driven by envy and selfishness. (in mindset of one) why should he get what i didn't work for? it is flawed because if you get a good thing, you want more of it! the middle and poor classes will eventually get tired of the same paycheck and demand more.
so socialism is partly driven by envy and selfishness. (in mindset of one) why should he get what i didn't work for? it is flawed because if you get a good thing, you want more of it! the middle and poor classes will eventually get tired of the same paycheck and demand more.
Actually, if you have everything you need and are making more and more in accordance to how much you contribute and how hard, that problem is completely solved under socialism. In fact, the vast majority of Americans will be much happier since their taxes will generally decrease and they'll be able to make even more money. Only, say, of the nation will be a little angry.
The daily show did something on Socialism in Sweden. ( Adult stuff, just a warning )
will be much happier since their taxes will generally decrease
thats not true.
socialism always has higher tax rate, because the state pays for more things.
take your favorite expample sweden, they have one of the highest tax rates in europe if not the world.
The Free Market, I believe, is the most efficient economic system ever to be comprehended.
Except, you know, when there's a huge economic collapse every ten years because the companies take every chance they get to earn incredulous profits with short-term solutions. That doesn't sound very efficient to me.
If everyone all of a sudden wanted as much coffee as they could afford, the market would quickly react and start producing massive amounts of coffee.
To prove my point: What happens when the "Coffee bubble" bursts? The exact same thing that happened to both the internet bubble and the housing bubble within the past twenty years or so. Everyone sees the huge trend growing in whatever market is popular at the time and invests hoping to see huge profits. It's a positive feedback loop, where the bubble continues to grow until one day, it simply bursts.
I think an extremely good example of this took place in the Netherlands in the 16th century. The economic trend was with tulips, and there are records of men selling their houses, cows, and all their food for a single tulip bulb. Sure, the people who got in early fared well in the end, but the people who were caught in the end of the bubble, even in the middle, were absolutely devastated by the effects that the free market system helped bring upon the economy.
Rich people do a lot more for society than many realize.
They weren't rich before they created their revolutionary inventions, and I'm not going to assume that they wanted to make ridiculous amounts of money off of it. Sure, they knew there would be profits, but who can predict something that will change the face of the world? Bill Gates admittedly saw something in the DOS that could change the face of computers and launch a huge business empire, but Ford? Ford saw a way to make automobiles.
Why are the rich getting richer?
Your arguments for this are feasible. However, the problem isn't that the rich are getting richer, it's that there is an ever-widening gap between the upper and middle classes, combined with inflation of the prices of goods that occurs naturally over time.
So, while the upper echelons of society are pretty well off, and always will be, the lower and middle classes continue to get the shaft as time goes on.
Why do they get better health care?
Who's to say that the rich should get the right to top-notch treatment when they have cancer, while my lower-class, immigrant grandparents couldn't get into a clinic to diagnose their disease until it was too late to treat?
Competition creates higher quality goods and services at lower prices.
Competition also drives people to control the system, resulting in either horizontal or vertical control of the market that they are in investing in, AKA monopolies and trusts.
Trusts and monopolies foster no sort of competition and bring the market to a standstill, which is why Teddy Roosevelt outlawed the former during his time as president.
While the free market may be efficient in the short-term, it's long-term principles cannot be applied, simply because there is no long-term effects besides economic collapse and recession.
As a matter of fact, it is very efficient. But it's not ethical in practice and the factory workers ( i like to call them the proletariat ) are treated like dirt. My Mother worked in a factory once, and she said that the places was utter crap and you got a 50 cent raise every year.( But she got a wopping $2.00 raise once because she fought for it and threatened to quit. ). So let me ask you, how much do those people in the factories get paid and how good is their lifestyle compared with the CEOS?
A very common argument among far left-wingers and easily answered. Lets think for a moment that these workers aren't forced to work in those filthy factories. Oh wait, they already don't. No one is forcing them to work there. If it was so filthy and had so poor conditions, no one would work there and the CEOs would fail because they have no employees. Those CEOs provide them with jobs that can pay for food and shelter. If it couldn't, no one would work there. People compete in the job market too. CEOs try to provide better jobs than their opponents to get more productive workers.
Yeah, but it is all channelled for your own personal gain, there is no incentive for a CEO to really care about the workers, he only has an incentive to make sure that they work like dogs for the lowest possible wage. But thank goodness there are Worker's Unions to fight back, because strikes would ruin the nation like they got close to doing in the 20s and 30s
The beauty of it is because its all for personal gain. That is what makes it fair. Ultimately, you work for yourself and no one else. And, there is an incentive for CEOs to care about workers. If one CEO cares and the other doesn't, all of the good workers would rush to the one who cares more. Workers that don't enjoy their job are less productive. Less productive = less profits for everyone.
And what if you get a monopoly that controls the entire economy? When that happened in the United States in the 19th century and with Gates in the 20th century, the government had to keep stepping in to keep up competition. It's just not worth it. Pure Capitalism doesn't work because the entire system revolves around survival of the fittest. But pure communism has proven not to work well either, so a mix of communism and capitalism would do well.
In any decent free market economy this wouldn't happen. There will always be competition as long as there are people who enjoy the benefits of having money. Government intervention drives down competition instead of increasing it. Obama would have you believe that he is increasing competition by opening a government run health care program. This is not the case. No private enterprise can compete with a company that is funded by taxes you are legally required to pay. They also don't have to be hindered by regulations like private companies do. Pure Capitalism does work, and it is because it revolves around survival of the fittest. Everyone works for themselves, but in the process makes it better for everyone. You can't argue with that.
Why should the rich people hog all of the wealth because they started some lousy business? Frank Sinatra lived off ten percent of every dollar he made, and he lived a good life because he had millions. Come to think of it, let people be billionaire so that they could share some of it with the people who really work hard; the middle class. 90% tax rate for billionaires ought to level out the inequalities, and it should improve the qualities of all major public areas. And it would lower my tax rate as a citizen in a middle class family.
Well, if their business was lousy, they wouldn't be hogging very much wealth. The reason they should and do hold millions is because they created jobs for thousands of people. Their work insured that those people had jobs and could pay for themselves and their families. And that they, too, could pursue their dreams. Their riches didn't just pop out of thin air because they wanted it. Someone gave it to them. Who do you think that is? You. You gave it to them. And, not only that, but you gave it willingly. Wal-Mart for example. Many like you resent the company because of its success and yet you still shop there because of its low prices and convenience. Its you who made them rich, and yet you complain. That sounds foolish. A 90% tax rate would be ridiculous in any situation. Especially for billionaires. That would highly discourage business and destroy any incentive to become wealthy. I've already talked about what wealthy people do for society. Most importantly they give you your jobs. Without your jobs you would have nothing. And who is the middle class anyway? And how hard do they work? You think the rich don't work hard? If the rich are rich and don't work hard, why doesn't everyone become rich? You overlook many things in your arguments. While it may increase quality in public areas you overlook that it would be only at the sacrifice of private areas which, as i have explained, are much more important to everyone.
Actually, if you have everything you need and are making more and more in accordance to how much you contribute and how hard, that problem is completely solved under socialism. In fact, the vast majority of Americans will be much happier since their taxes will generally decrease and they'll be able to make even more money. Only, say, of the nation will be a little angry.
Except for that socialism doesn't do that for you. Socialism destroys competition which destroys quality of life for everyone. Who is going to pay for all of this stuff that you need/want? Who decides how hard you're working? Socialism increases taxes silly.
Except, you know, when there's a huge economic collapse every ten years because the companies take every chance they get to earn incredulous profits with short-term solutions. That doesn't sound very efficient to me.
Economic collapses aren't caused by companies trying to make profits with short-term solutions. If those profits were only short-term and doomed to fail, then the company would fail. That would allow for other companies to rise and take its place. Instead, you have silly governments that try to save it and end up destroying everything.
I think an extremely good example of this took place in the Netherlands in the 16th century. The economic trend was with tulips, and there are records of men selling their houses, cows, and all their food for a single tulip bulb. Sure, the people who got in early fared well in the end, but the people who were caught in the end of the bubble, even in the middle, were absolutely devastated by the effects that the free market system helped bring upon the economy.
The Netherlands is alright now, relatively speaking. In fact, I visited Amsterdam recently, and they were just fine. And, they did that on their own accord. No one forced them to make a foolish decision.
They weren't rich before they created their revolutionary inventions, and I'm not going to assume that they wanted to make ridiculous amounts of money off of it. Sure, they knew there would be profits, but who can predict something that will change the face of the world? Bill Gates admittedly saw something in the DOS that could change the face of computers and launch a huge business empire, but Ford? Ford saw a way to make automobiles.
They may not have known it would be that successful, no one does, but the incentive was still there. And if you discourage it with 90% taxes, people like that will be few and far between.
So, while the upper echelons of society are pretty well off, and always will be, the lower and middle classes continue to get the shaft as time goes on.
Again, you act like the lower and middle classes are some defenseless man getting pummeled by a big bully. This is once again not the case. The lower and middle classes choose to be there. Whether they just don't mind having a certain income, or whether they think its too much work to start a business, or whatever reason, it is willingly. If you were to say they were getting pummeled, you would have to say they were willingly being pummeled. Everyone has equal opportunity in a free market.
Who's to say that the rich should get the right to top-notch treatment when they have cancer, while my lower-class, immigrant grandparents couldn't get into a clinic to diagnose their disease until it was too late to treat?
Everyone has a right to Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness in a free market. Your grandparents have a right to Life as well. If it would be fatal or even life-threatening, federal law requires them to treat your grandparents.
Competition also drives people to control the system, resulting in either horizontal or vertical control of the market that they are in investing in, AKA monopolies and trusts.
Competition is what keeps such monopolies and trusts at bay. Not encouraging them. You are mistaken.
While the free market may be efficient in the short-term, it's long-term principles cannot be applied, simply because there is no long-term effects besides economic collapse and recession.
You have forgotten the long-term effects of innovation, prosperity, and overall quality of life. The market sways and it always will, but it will always come back up in pure capitalism.
And what are the long-term effects of communism? Failure and poor quality goods and services? I'll take an occasional recession instead.
thats not true.
socialism always has higher tax rate, because the state pays for more things.
take your favorite expample sweden, they have one of the highest tax rates in europe if not the world.
That's not even true. And Sweden actually has a lot of private markets. They just have things such as electricity, and health care completely nationalized. They also use protectionism, which is strict government regulation when they trade. That, comrades, makes them socialist. Also, a lot of factories have government regulations and as a result their are fitness centers and better public areas for the workers. And for the last time, the tax rate for everyone isn't insanely high! It's only very high for the very richest people! The tax rate changes in accordance to the wealth that a familiy has!
Economic collapses aren't caused by companies trying to make profits with short-term solutions.
Have you been asleep since fall? The banks completely ignored the risks that handing money out to people who couldn't afford to pay it back in order to turn out sickening profits. When short-term solutions for money are applied on a massive scale such as that, you don't just bring down the United States, you bring down the whole world market.
If those profits were only short-term and doomed to fail, then the company would fail.
I.E. AIG, Bear-Sterns, Citibank GM, Ford, and the other countries who were part of the get-rich-quick idea.
Instead, you have silly governments that try to save it and end up destroying everything.
Here's the basic principles of capitalism laid out for you
You start with vice, or capital, and you attempt to sell that vice. You make a profit, and continue to sell the vice or product. Demand goes up, you produce more and make more money. Capitalism requires the circulation of goods and money in order to continue growing and creating the prosperity you talk about.
However, if the chain is broken, and if for some reason, say an economic meltdown, were to keep the consumers from spending and investing, the vital circulation of money is cut off. Demand goes down, meaning production goes down, creating a positive feedback loop that ends in further economic collapse.
By bailing out the companies, the government is insuring that a majority of the people who were working for them retain their jos, and thus continue to make money which will circulate through the banks and coffers of the American people once again. Keeping the companies alive is a matter of keeping the country and world's economy up and running.
Personally I think that the idea of a company that's big enough that if it collapses, the world goes with it, is sickening, but thus is the world.
The Netherlands is alright now, relatively speaking.
They're perfectly good now, but they were in the rut for hundreds of years. Free market trends and bubbles simply cause economic problems on a massive, almost irreversible scale.
Again, you act like the lower and middle classes are some defenseless man getting pummeled by a big bully.
You've obviously never been in a lower-class or lower-middle class neighborhood before, especially after the recent financial crisis and the collapse of the housing market. Many can barely afford halfway-decent apartments, and if they do, they don't have leeway for much else, including basic healthcare, clothing, furniture, or even food.
The entire lower and middle classes are subject to the will of the upper class; if the CEO of a company decides to ship the jobs off to China to increase profit margins, the middle and lower class workers have no choice but to sit back and lose their jobs.
The lower and middle classes choose to be there.
Bull-fucking-shit. This is the biggest pile I have seen in a long time. The American Dream is gone, and has been for a while; for every person that rises to the top, for every Bill Gates and Henry Ford, there are millions more who fail to do the same, where it was due to a matter of luck, or because of more personal reasons.
Equal opportunities don't exist. I've noticed that a lot of your arguments are based on the ideal models of a free market and other economics; while this would normally be sound, there's one huge problem with this: we're talking about the real world. As in, there are people, and nothing is perfect.
Whether they just don't mind having a certain income, or whether they think its too much work to start a business, or whatever reason, it is willingly.
As VoteSocialist has mentioned, nobody likes making minimum wage with an end-of-year raise that does practically nothing. Assuming that people are content with their situations when they're struggling to live is probably one of the biggest misconceptions I've ever seen.
In addition to this, I've already mentioned the death of the American dream and the fact that it's impossible for everybody to rise to the top. Businesses fail every day, and going to a person who barely makes enough money to feed themselves and saying "Just open a store and you'll be good" isn't feasible at all.
Competition is what keeps such monopolies and trusts at bay.
Then why, exactly, did they form in the late 1800's and early 1900's?
However, I think part of this was my fault; I used the wrong terms. It isn't necessarily competition between the companies I was talking about, it was the reason behind competing: profits. If you can make all the profits out of a single market, say steel or coal, what's the most efficient way to do so? Either go under the illusion of competition, AKA a trust, or buy out the entire industry.
I've found one purpose with the free market system and capitalism: make as much profit as possible, in the shortest amount of time. If money can be made, it will be made, regardless what it costs those whom you push aside.
Everyone has a right to Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness in a free market.
Actually, last I checked, they're inalienable rights, meaning free market or not, everyone has them.
If it would be fatal or even life-threatening, federal law requires them to treat your grandparents.
Oh? Interesting. Because I've seen people with all sorts of cancer and other terminal illnesses be turned down at hospitals because of a lack of insurance. If it's a federal offense to not treat a dying person, why are you against a government-run healthcare program?
You have forgotten the long-term effects of innovation, prosperity, and overall quality of life.
Innovation you can argue; prosperity and quality of life are extremely subjective due to changing standards with the ages. I can also argue that the free market didn't lead to quite as many innovations as mere pursuit in the names of discovery and science.
Are American citizens better off as a whole than they were 100 years ago? Of course, but can you say that that's the free market's doing? I think we're better off because of increased knowledge of the human body and advances in medicine, which eventually lead to the widespread knowledge of how to kill germs and keep yourself healthy overall.
Albeit some technologies were stemmed from researched fueled by profits earned in the system, I'm going to have to stick with my argument that prosperity is a very subjective thing to talk about when addressing an entire country. As I've mentioned many times before, the upper class is considered prosperous, while the middle and lower classes are often struggling to get by and afford themselves modern conveniences.
I.E. AIG, Bear-Sterns, Citibank GM, Ford, and the other countries who were part of the get-rich-quick idea.
Meant other businesses, sorry.
A very common argument among far left-wingers and easily answered. Lets think for a moment that these workers aren't forced to work in those filthy factories. Oh wait, they already don't. No one is forcing them to work there. If it was so filthy and had so poor conditions, no one would work there and the CEOs would fail because they have no employees. Those CEOs provide them with jobs that can pay for food and shelter. If it couldn't, no one would work there. People compete in the job market too. CEOs try to provide better jobs than their opponents to get more productive workers.
Is that how it really went when capitalism was born in Europe? Poor British children forced into labor? If you're working in a terrible factory and you're in a horrible work environment, chances are if you had a choice you'd be somewhere else. Once all of the good jobs are taken, someone who went to college might end up being a garbage burner living off a terrible pay check and working two dead-end jobs a day, just waiting for a job to open up and hoping on a dream that has long become an illusion.
The beauty of it is because its all for personal gain. That is what makes it fair. Ultimately, you work for yourself and no one else. And, there is an incentive for CEOs to care about workers. If one CEO cares and the other doesn't, all of the good workers would rush to the one who cares more. Workers that don't enjoy their job are less productive. Less productive = less profits for everyone.
Government regulations are what stop monopolies from happening, and if you get a monopoly you get zero competition, and therefore since that company has all of the wealth and controls all production in that sector, where is the incentive for them to make their products in good quality? A monopoly with no government regulations is bound to control the prices of everything as well. In an ideal capitalist system, you get the highest quality for the lowest price. But if there is no government regulation to stop monopolies from forming, that won't last very long.
In any decent free market economy this wouldn't happen. There will always be competition as long as there are people who enjoy the benefits of having money. Government intervention drives down competition instead of increasing it. Obama would have you believe that he is increasing competition by opening a government run health care program. This is not the case. No private enterprise can compete with a company that is funded by taxes you are legally required to pay. They also don't have to be hindered by regulations like private companies do. Pure Capitalism does work, and it is because it revolves around survival of the fittest. Everyone works for themselves, but in the process makes it better for everyone. You can't argue with that.
Not every free market is decent. Latin America is generally a good example besides Venezuala and Cuba, both of which are aiming for socialist reforms. And I pretty much covered the rest in the last paragraph I wrote just above this one.
Well, if their business was lousy, they wouldn't be hogging very much wealth. The reason they should and do hold millions is because they created jobs for thousands of people. Their work insured that those people had jobs and could pay for themselves and their families. And that they, too, could pursue their dreams. Their riches didn't just pop out of thin air because they wanted it. Someone gave it to them. Who do you think that is? You. You gave it to them. And, not only that, but you gave it willingly. Wal-Mart for example. Many like you resent the company because of its success and yet you still shop there because of its low prices and convenience. Its you who made them rich, and yet you complain. That sounds foolish. A 90% tax rate would be ridiculous in any situation. Especially for billionaires. That would highly discourage business and destroy any incentive to become wealthy. I've already talked about what wealthy people do for society. Most importantly they give you your jobs. Without your jobs you would have nothing. And who is the middle class anyway? And how hard do they work? You think the rich don't work hard? If the rich are rich and don't work hard, why doesn't everyone become rich? You overlook many things in your arguments. While it may increase quality in public areas you overlook that it would be only at the sacrifice of private areas which, as i have explained, are much more important to everyone.
First of all, the owner of a company will never keep giving and giving to his workers no matter how hard they work. And the CEO needs the proletariat or the simple worker at a desk job. I would completely support a semi-capitalist system if it was possible for everyone to be millionaire while cyborgs and robots do all of the dirty work. But that just is a Utopian dream. No matter what, you'll always have people that are poor. I appreciate that a lot of rich people do work hard, but they sometimes become greedy, they exploit other people, and in doing so their becoming rich will hurt someone else. They would put them selves above their own country men for the sake of themselves becoming more and more rich and powerful, and power corrupts in human nature.
Except for that socialism doesn't do that for you. Socialism destroys competition which destroys quality of life for everyone. Who is going to pay for all of this stuff that you need/want? Who decides how hard you're working? Socialism increases taxes silly.
A socialist economy doesn't always mean that you will have absolutely 100% nationalization of the means of production. If America were to be categorized as a socialist nation, the United States could still have a private Wal-Mart or Microsoft that would run basically the same way they did when America was deemed capitalist. Sweden is socialist only because they have a lot of government regulations on private companies ,they use government-directed trade, they have free medical and dental care and they have control of companies in sectors such as electricity. Sweden is a socialist republic, but it's no Soviet Union.
Economic collapses aren't caused by companies trying to make profits with short-term solutions. If those profits were only short-term and doomed to fail, then the company would fail. That would allow for other companies to rise and take its place. Instead, you have silly governments that try to save it and end up destroying everything.
Ever hear of supply and demand? Consumer confidence? Every ten years something in one of those areas ( either supply or demand ) can slip. Why is it that under capitalism, the GDP shoots down every so often and then shoots back up? In the 1990s Sweden's economy collapsed and now we have the strongly regulated market economy of Sweden you see today a decade later.
The Netherlands is alright now, relatively speaking. In fact, I visited Amsterdam recently, and they were just fine. And, they did that on their own accord. No one forced them to make a foolish decision.
If under capitalism if you allow private markets to do whatever they want, stupid choices will always happen. Government regulations have proven themselves to be needed. Think if under pure capitalism an airline company failed, where is the bail out money? How will people get from one state to another quickly? How badly will it hurt the economy since other CEOs need airlines to get from place to place especially if globalization is well under way? Face it, we just need a mix of capitalism and government.
Everyone has a right to Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness in a free market. Your grandparents have a right to Life as well. If it would be fatal or even life-threatening, federal law requires them to treat your grandparents.
Eventually, it becomes impossible for everyone to be a millionaire and by that logic happiness is prerogative of those who get their first.
Left wing economics are full of trash. (well most of them)
All they want is to get there little greedy hands on americans tax money . So they make up all thees wild ideas of the economy going down enless yuo give them money!
Left wing economics are full of trash. (well most of them)
All they want is to get there little greedy hands on americans tax money . So they make up all thees wild ideas of the economy going down enless yuo give them money!
Oh, shit, he's figured us out. Everyone go hide before they get the NRA to find us.
You must be logged in to post a reply!