Also. . .ever watched the news? The idea of the economy going down is real and in danger of coming true.
1) The mainstream media is not a reliable source.
2) The reason the idea of the economy going down is real is because of programs like these ridiculous stimulus packages that are just used to buy votes for politicians. Obamacare would finish us off.
You must be at the top of your history class.
History isn't written by the ones who were right, it was written by the ones who were left.
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.
If you knew the choice was there or really had the desire, yes you would be somewhere else. And, most people are. You really demonize the companies and their factories. You assume the worst of them and pick out the worst exceptions in the system. There will always be a place out there that has worse conditions than somewhere else, and that goes for socialism too. Socialism doesn't do anything to change it further. And also, you have to live your own dreams, you have to take action, not just sit around and wait for it to come to you, because it won't.
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.
Ok, what i don't like about your paragraphs is they don't explain why. I try to explain my arguments the best I can instead of throwing them out there. Like, explain exactly how government intervention stops monopolies? Competition doesn't just deteriorate over time. In fact, with no government intervention, it increases over time. If governments always were stepping in, like imposing regulations and restrictions and penalties to companies, less people would be enthusiastic about starting a business as it would be more tiresome and costly. It would also decrease their profits. Government intervention decreases incentive = decreases competitors = decreases competition. Checkmate.
You explain very well how monopolies destroy many advantages of the free market, but don't explain very well what causes them and how government intervention stops them. =p
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.
Your first point is answered already, because humans can only work so hard. However, he will reward them for good ideas and for further educating themselves. The more credentials you have the more money you will make because you are more valuable to the company. It is impossible for everyone to be a millionaire and for cyborgs to do all the work because who would give it to them? I wouldn't. They're not doing anything for me.
I agree that there will always be poor people, it says that in the Bible.
The greedy rich people you speak of, are rich because they are 'greedy'. They're greed did a lot of good for a lot of other people. But, there are some people who do exploit others, like Bernie Madoff, who is now in jail.
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.
Socialism is a statistic. It is % of private vs. public money and assets. No company would operate the same under socialistic regulations. Some strong companies like Wal-Mart and Microsoft may survive, but they will hurt, and even more importantly new businesses will never happen destroying jobs. These lack of new competition will lead to monopolies which will destroy what is left of the market.
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.
I don't see what point you're trying to make here. You can't expect the market to stay the same. If it did it wouldn't be as great a system as i say it is. And to be honest, I don't care one bit about Sweden.
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.
And stupid choices will not be made under any other system? The only way to prevent people from making stupid choices is to prevent them from making choices which is wrong. Freedom is very important.
If an airline fails, any smart government wouldn't provide any bail out. People could use other airlines, or even other modes of transportation as there are many. And no one 'needs' airlines. They are a luxury. The other airlines would quickly take its place. If there weren't other airlines to take its place, then we're not talking about a free market.
Eventually, it becomes impossible for everyone to be a millionaire and by that logic happiness is prerogative of those who get their first.
Of course it is impossible for everyone to become a millionaire, but your logic is flawed in the second part of that statement. Of all people, you should know that money doesn't buy happiness. It just buys everything else.
