This is why capitalism will eventually fail

[Winner]

Pure capitalism is not thriving. A mix of capitalism and socialism is what's thriving.

Capitalism with human face, I know

 

[Richard Cribb]

Most of these antiglobalisation people are upper middleclass people who never did a lick of work in their lives, never knew anybody who works for a living, and never bothered to speak to these poor exploited workers who theyre so busy trying to liberate

I resent that sort of ignorant rants.

I come from the working class myself, I have done many a day of real work including cleaning toilets and I happen to know many people in my country who belongs to what you call the "anti-globalist"-movement. Quite a lot of them are workers or lower middle class. Upper middleclass is not quite rarely busy spitting out tirades not unlike this one you just posted.

And capitalism, and with that I mean real existing corporate wealthfare one as opposed to the libertarian free-market type, is a failure in my book. Great to produce wealth, unable to distribute it fairly.

 

[Paalikles]

@Yom: 2,5 more years and I have my Master of Economics, so in a way yes.
That doesnt make me more right, just makes me have a reason for what I am saying...

 

[Japanrocks12]

Capitolism will be the end of this world for one reason. Capitolism relies on constant and increasing consumer activity in order to grow. Once all the resources are thoroughly consumed, the Capitolist economies will collapse. So, either way, if we consume less, the economy will cease to grow and likely be unsustainable. If we continue to consume resources at the current rate or greater, we will run out of resources and the economies will collapse anyway. So, the rich people figure, lets get the money and live wild while we can, besides we'll be dead when the resources run out anyway.

And what, pray is capitolism? Is it anything like capitalism, huh?


And if you do mean that capitalism will fail, then let explain my point:

Communism does not work.

If a communist society existed, it would be classless, orderless, and everbody would recieve an equal share of resources. Taking advantage of the equal resources, workers would begin to stay at home rather than work long hours in a factory. As the labor pool steadily declines, resources become more and more limited. Eventually, the daily resources for the citizens of this society will become so sparse that the workers will get angry and revolt and get a democracy.

The End.

Moderator Action: Warned for torlling. Spelling police are not needed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Paalikles]

Capitalism is efficient. People are greedy

And capitalism, and with that I mean real existing corporate wealthfare one as opposed to the libertarian free-market type, is a failure in my book. Great to produce wealth, unable to distribute it fairly.

Please explain further what you are getting at


Luce: instead of calling BE's post ignorant rant, I advise you as well to read the suggestion I posted in post #2 in this thread. He is right to some extent, but generalized a bit too strongly.

 

[crystal]

Pure capitalism is a poison, as much as pure communism.

So you oppose individual freedom, albeit only moderately? Either a society is free (e.g. capitalist) or not free (socialist). There are no such third way to run a society without resorting to centralist planning and infringing individual freedoms. Pure capitalism = freedom.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-08-99.html

 

[RedWolf]

So you oppose individual freedom, albeit only moderately? Either a society is free (e.g. capitalist) or not free (socialist). There are no such third way to run a society without resorting to centralist planning and infringing individual freedoms. Pure capitalism = freedom.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-08-99.html

You're wrong. It's not black and white. You can have a free-market economy with rules and laws to protect the least fortunate. Social safety nets, minimum wage laws, strong labour unions etc. There's a grey area.

 

[crystal]

And capitalism, and with that I mean real existing corporate wealthfare one as opposed to the libertarian free-market type, is a failure in my book. Great to produce wealth, unable to distribute it fairly.

It cannot be called pure capitalism if government interferes so significantly in market mechanisms. Actually corporate welfare is some form of socialism.

 

[Yom]

It cannot be called pure capitalism if government interferes so significantly in market mechanisms. Actually corporate welfare is some form of socialism.

Have you ever heard of market failure?

 

[crystal]

You're wrong. It's not black and white. You can have a free-market economy with rules and laws to protect the least fortunate.

Ok, ummh... let's see your arguments.

Social safety nets,

You should first define how these safety nets are provided. If it's private charity -- I don't see any problem with that. But if that means establishing a welfare state, then it's socialism.

minimum wage laws,

This was already discussed in another thread a while ago. Minimum wage laws hurt the least qualified workers.

strong labour unions etc. There's a grey area.

What do "strong labour unions" mean here? If unions are treated just like any other NGO, I don't see any problem with their existence. But if for example they have some legislated special rights or some kind of a government-enforced collective bargaining cartel exist, then it infringes individual freedoms.

 

[crystal]

Have you ever heard of market failure?

Yes I have. Have you ever heard of market intervionism?

 

[RedWolf]

Another thing, when people are "only" making 2 dollars a day, that often isn't adjusted to the local purchasing parity, and infact that 2 dollars might go a LOT longer than it would in the richer countries, especially on any products made locally.

It still isn't a fortune, but it is a hell of a lot better than what they would be making. The funny thing is that if people actually did get equal wages there for their labour, they would be richer than the wage-workers here, because of the lower cost of living.

Fair enough but it's not about "Is the job better than other jobs in the area". It's "why are the people working 15 hour days in dangerous factories producing products for the wealthy west while they're STILL dirt poor even by their standards?"

For example - These stats are a few years old but in China it's estimated that a wage of 87 cents per hour would provide a worker with a livable wage. However many of the factories producing goods for the large multinationals pay only a fraction of this:

Walmart: 13 - 23 cents
Ralph Lauren: 20 cents
Kmart: 28 cents
Nike: 16 cents
Adidas: 22 cents

Add to this dirty cramped dormitories, filth, 70 work weeks, lack of fire exists and you have an atrocity.

And possibly the worst part is that these factories aren't even contributing anything to local economies or societies. Many of the free trade zones are set up and in order to attract the factories the governments offer deep tax breaks for a limited period of time. As this happens more and more competition develops among who can be MOST hospitable to foreign capital and these "free rent" periods get longer and longer. Often what happens is a factory establishes itself, builds cheap goods for the west for a few years until their time expires and THEN they fold up and go somewhere else for another free ride.

So not only are we exploiting these economies but we're doing our best to ensure that nothing ever changes.

 

[RedWolf]

Ok, ummh... let's see your arguments.

You should first define how these safety nets are provided. If it's private charity -- I don't see any problem with that. But if that means establishing a welfare state, then it's socialism.

Fine. Call it what you want. But having free healthcare is a benefit i'll never speak out against. 80% (sorry edit: The study actually concluded 50%) of bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical emergencies. No Canadian ever has to decide between "buying groceries" or paying for their child's surgery.

This was already discussed in another thread a while ago. Minimum wage laws hurt the least qualified workers.

That's BS quite frankly. You can claim that until you're blue in the face and I'm going to deny it until I'm blue in the face so why argue about it?

Strangely when minimum wage laws kept up with inflation a worker in Canada could earn a wage above the poverty line. Now they can't. Strange realy? There is no doubt that a low earner is WORSE off then they used to be. Only the rich can claim otherwise.

What do "strong labour unions" mean here? If unions are treated just like any other NGO, I don't see any problem with their existence. But if for example they have some legislated special rights or some kind of a government-enforced collective bargaining cartel exist, then it infringes individual freedoms.

"Government enforced collective bargaining cartel"? Not sure what you mean but isn't that essentially the point of a labour union? Instead of bargaining as an individual (at which time you are exploited by the corporation despite your claims to the contrary) you bargain as a group in attempt to even out the power balance between employer and employee. Call it a "freedom infringment" if you'd like but again in Canada unionized workers make a great deal more then their non-unionized counterparts. This is true both in the manufacturing sector as well as the service industry. My dad's unionized job put me through college and ensured my standard of living while growing up. I'm not going to knock it.

 

[Yom]

Yes I have. Have you ever heard of market intervionism?

If you acknowledge the existence of market failure, then you do not believe in pure capitalism (unless you think that they shouldn't be prevented).

 

[IglooDame]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26266&item=6750430437&rd=

Making just one laptop takes lot of resources: somebody's time, energy, materials, pollution, etc. Just so capitalistic swines can do this for fun. While on other side, poor far east worker who made this probably works 10hr day just to feed his family.
Now this consumer age works cuz opressed one have to work to survive... until they all get enough pissed off on rich people owning everything and needing as much as everybody else.

I think it is a joke, and odds are that it had a motherboard failure or the like making it uneconomical to fix. I've got a laptop myself in that condition, and the only reason I haven't emptied a .45 magazine into it yet is that none of the ranges I shoot at allow non-paper targets.

 

[Paalikles]

Crystal, the majority of developing countries are mixed economies - not strictly commando economies or laissez-faire economies.

And many developed countries are the same.

IMO there isnt a clear correlation between freedom and market structure/involvement of the govt.

 

[crystal]

If you acknowledge the existence of market failure, then you do not believe in pure capitalism (unless you think that they shouldn't be prevented).

To clear any misconceptions, I certainly DON'T acknowledge the existence of market failure. In my opinion, all so called market "failures" can be traced back to government actions, which indicates that free market is not the one to blame.

Fine. Call it what you want. But having free healthcare is a benefit i'll never speak out against. 80% of bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical emergencies. No Canadian ever has to decide between "buying groceries" or paying for their child's surgery.

I'm not very familiar with the US healthcare system, but I've read that the costs are artificially inflated there because of different sorts of regulation and ridiculously high medical malpractice lawsuits.

That's BS quite frankly. You can claim that until you're blue in the face and I'm going to deny it until I'm blue in the face so why argue about it?

Strangely when minimum wage laws kept up with inflation a worker in Canada could earn a wage above the poverty line. Now they can't. Strange realy? There is no doubt that a low earner is WORSE off then they used to be. Only the rich can claim otherwise.

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/03/price_control_f.html

"Government enforced collective bargaining cartel"? Not sure what you mean but isn't that essentially the point of a labour union? Instead of bargaining as an individual (at which time you are exploited by the corporation despite your claims to the contrary) you bargain as a group in attempt to even out the power balance between employer and employee.

What I meant was a situation where unions have some kind of special priviledges granted by the law. That infringes freedom of contract and (imho) shouldn't not be allowed.

 

[WillJ]

@crystal: What in the world? You don't believe in externalities? Transactions never affect third parties?

Edit: Addressing this:

To clear any misconceptions, I certainly DON'T acknowledge the existence of market failure. In my opinion, all so called market "failures" can be traced back to government actions, which indicates that free market is not the one to blame.

 

[crystal]

@crystal: What in the world? You don't believe in externalities? Transactions never affect third parties?

Would you mention an example of externatilities or transactions affecting third parties? Many people would now mention pollution as an example of externatilities. But I would argue that the problem could be solved by privatizing publicly owned areas, so that the polluter is forced to internalize all the costs.

 

[Yom]

Would you mention an example of externatilities or transactions affecting third parties? Many people would now mention pollution as an example of externatilities. But I would argue that the problem could be solved by privatizing publicly owned areas, so that the polluter is forced to internalize all the costs.

What about air pollution? Or fishing in the ocean?