Capitalism Irredeemable

[Economy 53,072]

5 minutes ago, Infinity Wave said:

I think the problem is to think that everyone deserves the same things. 

What we should have are opportunities, bit giving everyone the same things without them earning them is pure folly. 

What capitalism rewards is enterpreneurship, risk taking, investments and competition. Without those things, if we give everyone the same things, why should one work like 10 hours a day, taking the risk whatever it is (saving lives as a doctor, taking not operative but strategic decision as a manager) while one could just work a a salesman (no shade there, obviously) and make the same money and have the same perspective? 

Most of the workers do not take the risk others do take, and taking risk is rewarded. They don't hava the knowledges or capability of doing that, and that's a shame but who does have those must be rewarded

That's what I was saying. Capitalism rewards risk taking and hard work hence why it drives growth. It's what created the industrial revolution that started in the US then spread to rest of the world

 

However it's not a perfect system at equal opportunity as some ppl have it much easier than others

 

Ppl can be disadvantaged by being born in a poor family that cant help them pay for school and it's harder to go that route. Someone could be born with a disability and have it harder in life. You could even be a smart entrepreneur but ur idea just didn't work out and now ur broke

 

Despite all it's good it does have its downsides and it can screw over some people sometimes and so I think a little redistribution with some social programs is still warranted because capitalism encourages hard work but it isn't fair to everyone. Not everyone who works hard gets fairly rewarded everytime

 

Overall I support Capitalism but I think a small amount of higher taxation on rich within reason and a bit of redistribution is fair

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

11 minutes ago, Economy said:

300 years ago a middle class hardly existed. It was a few rich priveledged people with the majority of people being poor

Actually many  diictatorships today have this economic situation....Venezuela seems to be one the more recent.   Manduro one of the few who are living a luxurious life at the expence of the poor working class who hope to get enough food 

[Othon 34,299]

14 minutes ago, Economy said:

Tbh advancement didn't even happen fast until the US led an industrial revolution. And guess what the US had? Capitalism and freedom to an extent other nations did not have

The U.S. didn't initiate the industrial revolution. 

The U.S. had a workforce comprised of enslaved human beings that were worked to death, little to no labor protection which allowed landowners and entrepreneurs to pay their employees next to nothing for unbelievably long hours in dangerous work environments, and a Western economic foundation built on centuries of colonialism and exploited capital from developing nations all around the world. We plundered, brutalized, and stole what we have in this country.

Capitalism is a direct extension of colonialism, mercantilism, and slavery that presupposes that those with more are allowed to take advantage of those who have less. It's an inherently unethical system stemming directly from the absolute worst of our shared history as human beings. 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

2 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

take advantage of those who have less.

Yet Socialist dictators do the exact same thing.

[rumours 45,521]

Every type of system is flawed. That being said, I’d argue the benefits of capitalism (in its various permutations) outweigh the costs usually. 

Is it a system that can breed inequality? Sure. 

Is it also a system that has taken millions of people and improved their quality of life? Yep. 

[Economy 53,072]

16 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

The U.S. didn't initiate the industrial revolution. 

The U.S. had a workforce comprised of enslaved human beings that were worked to death, little to no labor protection which allowed landowners and entrepreneurs to pay their employees next to nothing for unbelievably long hours in dangerous work environments, and a Western economic foundation built on centuries of colonialism and exploited capital from developing nations all around the world. We plundered, brutalized, and stole what we have in this country.

Capitalism is a direct extension of colonialism, mercantilism, and slavery that presupposes that those with more are allowed to take advantage of those who have less. It's an inherently unethical system stemming directly from the absolute worst of our shared history as human beings. 

Slavery and Capitalism is not the same thing

 

U can have Capitalism without slavery and u can have a non capitalism system that still has slaves

[Economy 53,072]

3 minutes ago, Rumours1977 said:

Every type of system is flawed. That being said, I’d argue the benefits of capitalism (in its various permutations) outweigh the costs usually. 

Is it a system that can breed inequality? Sure. 

Is it also a system that has taken millions of people and improved their quality of life? Yep. 

Basically this is what I've been saying with different arguments and different wording

 

It's not a perfectly fair system hence why I think a sprinkle of socialism (a bit of social programs for most disadvantaged and a bit more taxes on rich) is good but overall still have a capitalist system

 

It's what spurred the innovations and investments that made modern life possible

[AJRocketMan 2,684]

Pure capitalism is bad. Back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was awful. It still screws people and the planet over in many, many ways. But I think capitalism with socialist regulations is the best way to go. We shouldn’t be totally trashing capitalism when we stan a woman who worked her ass off and became the epitome of a capitalist success story. 🤐

[Infinity Wave 7,635]

5 hours ago, Economy said:

However it's not a perfect system at equal opportunity as some ppl have it much easier than others

I think a little redistribution with some social programs is still warranted

Overall I support Capitalism but I think a small amount of higher taxation on rich within reason and a bit of redistribution is fair

I totally agree with you in this topic. 

I thinks there should be some kind of redistribution, too. But not because everyone deserves the same things, because everyone deserves the same opportunities. And that's a foundamental difference. What you do with your money can't be "prosecuted", if you are able to make a profit and become rich with almost nothing that shouldn't be a shame; while if someone isn't capable of doing it, it's his "fault" but if the two people were given the same opportunities that can't be considered a problem, it can't be criticized. 

What I'm tryna say is, rich people (unless they were born rich) "build" themselves, the risked their money and made a profit, they were good enterpreneur and good managers. It can't be a fault or a shame being able to make more money than other people, but that's what communinsm thinks.

Anyway, if we're talking aboymut giving everyone the same opportunities, again, I totally agree on some redistribution.

[Economy 53,072]

2 hours ago, Infinity Wave said:

I totally agree with you in this topic. 

I thinks there should be some kind of redistribution, too. But not because everyone deserves the same things, because everyone deserves the same opportunities. And that's a foundamental difference. What you do with your money can't be "prosecuted", if you are able to make a profit and become rich with almost nothing that shouldn't be a shame; while if someone isn't capable of doing it, it's his "fault" but if the two people were given the same opportunities that can't be considered a problem, it can't be criticized. 

What I'm tryna say is, rich people (unless they were born rich) "build" themselves, the risked their money and made a profit, they were good enterpreneur and good managers. It can't be a fault or a shame being able to make more money than other people, but that's what communinsm thinks.

Anyway, if we're talking aboymut giving everyone the same opportunities, again, I totally agree on some redistribution.

Agree 100%!

 

These rich entrepreneurs took a lot of risks to build big companies. CEOs that climbed up the latter had to work very hard to get there they too shouldn't be criticized for having success. Yes some ppl are also born rich too that's where luck comes in

 

Some people work harder than others. A doctor has to go many years into school so it's fair they get a high wage.

 

Some people settle and have no ambition and don't try hard in life and then complain that they are barely getting by but then what did they do to build themselves up? And then they blame the system. There's a certain degree of self-responsibility there for their situation

 

However there are exceptions. Some people are disadvantaged in a variety of different ways. Some people could be born with disabilities or others develop serious health issues later in life that hinders their productivity as a worker. Some people could be born into an extremely poor family that cant help them pay for school and needs them to work as soon as they finish highschool to help the family and that presents a big obstacle for them... Some people could finish school during a recession an opportunities are just lacking so even with a good work ethic they struggle and studies have shown that if you start your career bumpy you have lower odds of moving up the ladder much... Maybe an immigrant family never had a chance to go to school in their country and now they are adults with bills and it's not so easy to go back and so they have to take what they can get

 

So there are countless situations where people can also be disadvantaged for no fault of their own and those people can be screwed over big time by Capitalism that's why I think a little sprinkle of socialism and wealth redistribution has its benefits to help those most in need

 

But I also think the higher taxes on rich and the social benefits programs can't be so high that they start to discourage business investment, entrepreneurship and hard work

 

So it's a balance to be had. I support Capitalism but just not taken to an extreme

[imnotyourbabe10 6,120]

I'm fine with Bernie's Democratic socialism until the US makes is way to fully automated space gay communism.  

In all seriousness, it's time to eat the rich.  It's also about time society sees that the growing gap between the ultra wealthy and the working class can create violence and the destruction of private property (of course after voting and/or non-violent, peaceful protests no longer work--not inciting violence first).  That's all extreme, I know -- and not realistic.  People are too complicit and complacent these days.  Capitalism has subdued them.   As Marx once said, religion is the opiate of the masses...well, in 2019, consumerism is the opiate of the masses.

Anyway, humanity is circling the drain either way.  Looking forward to seeing mother earth return to her natural state "sans human"

[Shadow 6,707]

Capitalism allows freedom, though. Give up freedom China style, and it might take hundreds of years to get it back. Good luck, kids!

[derpmonster 22,412]

Full free market capitalism is the issue yeah

Reagan, Thatcher, etc. 

But she needs to not say this because Americans get affected by the red scare so easily. 

9 hours ago, Woolfsmck said:

Why is Soccer .. or many other "competitive"  sports so popular in Socialist contries then?

Why don't the players simply run around the field and kick the ball any ole' place ????

Winners make more money get more laid and have a better life ….no?

That's a very naive reading of the comment. It doesn't mean that socialism doesn't have competition and that everyone gets everything. Socialism and capitalism are also not mutually incompatible. 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

57 minutes ago, derpmonster said:

Full free market capitalism is the issue yeah

Reagan, Thatcher, etc. 

But she needs to not say this because Americans get affected by the red scare so easily. 

That's a very naive reading of the comment. It doesn't mean that socialism doesn't have competition and that everyone gets everything. Socialism and capitalism are also not mutually incompatible. 

Put my comment into the context of a  the comment that "competative" economics is flawed... the point was to rebut the point....

I don't disagree that social wellness is inherently important to a capitalist system,  without a healthy society, competition is watered down.

[Didymus 34,380]

4 hours ago, Shadow said:

Capitalism allows freedom, though.

It allows for it but makes sure it never manifests though.