Global capitalism is failing

[happy_Alex]

Well, you addressed me like I didn't know jack there buddy.

Alot of concepts get co-opted from the groups that figure them out, then those concepts are twisted for the gain of that co-opting group. Doesn't mean the underlying actual concept is not valid...indeed, much of them are.

But this is a discussion about whether global capitalism is failing. Which is what we should be discussing.

I cannot see, at this moment how capitalism is failing. I will say that it is not perfect, but that is mainly because, in my opinion, government (and other entities) are not wholly capitalistic. Capitalistic theory does not imply protectionism. Most developed nations still seem to cling to various notions of such.

This sounds to me like "global capitalisms not working... so what we need is more".

That's like doctors standing over an accident victim who has lost a leg and suggesting they cut of another to even it out. Also, capitlism does imply protectionism if it serves the interests of profit making organisations.

 

[El_Machinae]

What the poor country needs are stronger control over their property rights. If they could get a fair value for their exports, they'd be better off.

 

[GenMarshall]

Communism has failed, and it would most certanly fail in the future, especialy socalism. Socialism will fail in individualistic societies.

 

[Urederra]

Yep Basket makes a good point.

The purpose of capitalism isn't to get equality or fairness, it's to increase the wealth of the people born with silver spoons in their mouths and increase the servitude and poverty those born with silver spoons in their eye sockets. I contend it's working very well!

Really? And where did Tom Cruise have his silverspoon when he was born?

In a capitalistic country, one with a fair judicial system, a poor person can succeed and become rich if he/she works hard and/or gets lucky. In a comunist country the only way to become rich is by joining the rulers of the comunist party and controlling the nation's resources, preventing the others from getting out of povertry.

Oh. but, everybody else is gonna be equal, equally poor, that's it.

 

[happy_Alex]

Really? And where did Tom Cruise have his silverspoon when he was born?

In a capitalistic country, one with a fair judicial system, a poor person can succeed and become rich if he/she works hard and/or gets lucky. In a comunist country the only way to become rich is by joining the rulers of the comunist party and controlling the nation's resources, preventing the others from getting out of povertry.

Oh. but, everybody else is gonna be equal, equally poor, that's it.

This is a falacy. Not all poor people can suceed become rich etc. As I pointed out earlier, we can all play the lottery, but only few will win it.

 

[happy_Alex]

What the poor country needs are stronger control over their property rights. If they could get a fair value for their exports, they'd be better off.

They can't under the current world structure.

 

[Xanikk999]

This is a falacy. Not all poor people can suceed become rich etc. As I pointed out earlier, we can all play the lottery, but only few will win it.

But its not a fair assumption to say poor people will always be poor in general. You can earn wealth if you work hard at it.

And you can certainly earn a middle class income in the U.S if you work for it even if your poor.

 

[Irish Caesar]

They can't under the current world structure.

This is the fault of the corrupt governments running those nations. Worldwide socialism is certainly not the only solution to that.

 

[Xenocrates]

The thread isn't about what the alternatives are, only about whether Capitalism is working or not, my understanding anyway. Until we understand the operation of capitalism there's no chance of fixing it. If we think it's the best system there can be, we won't look for alternatives.

No clue about Tom Cruise, pop culture doesn't interest me. Is he a case of 'the exception proves the rule'?

 

[blackheart]

This is a falacy. Not all poor people can suceed become rich etc. As I pointed out earlier, we can all play the lottery, but only few will win it.

That's the simple truth there, not all people are meant to be rich in a capitalistic society. It's a pyramid economic structure with a few rich at the top.

Whether or not you agree with this is another matter, but I have yet to see another system to make for the same social-economic mobility that capitalism provides.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually, everyone can be rich in a capitalistic society, if you measure absolute wealth. It's just tough for everyone to be rich in an absolute sense.

But, just because someone else is rich, doesn't mean you can't be. If people value your product or labour - you'll be rich.

 

[Urederra]

This is a falacy. Not all poor people can suceed become rich etc. As I pointed out earlier, we can all play the lottery, but only few will win it.

I never said all poor people, obviously, the ones who do not want to work are gonna remain poor, but, who am I to go against their will?. Besides, I also said before that poor people in first world countries are richer than average people in developing or 3rd world countries. Being poor or rich is a relative term, showing data as if they are absolute terms is a fallacy, IMHO.

In general, historical data shows that capitalism generates wealth and increases living conditions of the people. Comunism, on the other hand, is the great equalizer, making everybody equally poor, and most often, poorer than before they were.


PS: You dropped the corn thing?

 

[Urederra]

No clue about Tom Cruise, pop culture doesn't interest me. Is he a case of 'the exception proves the rule'?

You said that poor people cannot get rich, I give you an example that proves your statement wrong. Do you want more?

 

[Xenocrates]

Deal! You list a billion people who started poor and made it rich and I'll list a billion people who started poor and stayed there!

Of course some poor people can get rich, but it's not the norm. I don't want to make the assumption that the economic system is FOR stirring wealth around.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Would you like a list of a billion people who became poorer due to economic revolution?

 

[Xenocrates]

The thread isn't about what the alternatives are, only about whether Capitalism is working or not, my understanding anyway. Until we understand the operation of capitalism there's no chance of fixing it. If we think it's the best system there can be, we won't look for alternatives.

QUOTE]

No I don't want a list of all those who were made poorer by revolution, I'll stick to milk an biscuits thanks!

 

[BasketCase]

Yes, I agree the phrasing of the thread... ....could have read 'global capitalism is failing humanity' .

Fortunatly most picked up on the intention and ignored the poor semantics

How do the things listed in the OP constitute a failure?

I myself am an example of how the system "fails humanity". I had a plum high-paying job a few years ago. The only problem was that the fat paycheck also came with extensive job stress, which, in the end, wasn't worth it.

My paycheck isn't lower because of evil corporations or whatever. It's lower because I chose for it to be lower. If I don't wish to be rich, then there is simply nothing to be done about the resulting disparity of wealth.

Whatcha gonna do, arrest me and force me to get a better job??

 

[Odin2006]

I'm sick of the "you'll get rich if you work hard enough" BS. My parents have worked thier butts of all thier lives, and they are still working class people living from paycheck to paycheck.

 

[allhailIndia]

First of all, nobody on this thread has come up with a definition of 'poor' or for that matter what 'socialism' means in actual application.
In theory, it is all very fine to use well thought out, carefully worded definitions, but they'll last as long as a duck in a trash compacter when hit with reality.

Socialism, if it means ensuring no one suffers undue want, cannot work without a vibrant capitalist economy backing up a healthy, vibrant democracy. Without democracy, it becomes oppressive and brutal; without capitalism, it becomes bankrupt. No one here is making out a case for NOT having some measure of minimum basic healthcare, education, etc. for people, but to imagine that is possible in a State where the government tries to run everything and micromanage every small movement of goods and services is simply ridiculous and unworkable.

 

[The Yankee]

This is a good argument. If the first world abandoned it's anti-competitive practices universal capitalism may work. However, I fear that resource limitations would scupper the plan. Also it's pretty unlikely that capitalism would ever be accepted by everyone.

Also take this comparison: Muslims have to spend several hours a day in prayer. Christians also have to spend time in non-productive activity, although not so much. Universal Capitalism favours those that spend all of their time in economic activity and they will outcompete people who don't. The World would quickly become devoid of art and fun as we all become automatons living only to earn.

Competition will result in everyone having to slave away and they'd be no one left to think things through or look ahead. Progress would cease.

Can those that believe in Capitalism and believe that they are living in Capitalist countries explain how and why they can spend time posting here? Unless of course you get paid for it.....

Well, one could argue that people would look for the value of getting a good night's sleep and time with their family compared to whatever might be gained from working an extra shift (if you get paid) or having a second job.

Also, fun is fairly profitable. Just look at all the businesses that cater to it.