Go back
Capitalism is a good thing

Capitalism is a good thing

Debates


@averagejoe1 said
Soothfast says our 250 years of capitalsim has evolved, or is evolving, or devolving, into crisis.
UhHuh... and what is the shelf life of communism..>? 75 years?

And soothfast is looking at the US (250 years). What about the rest of the West,,, thousands of years?

1 edit

From a Libertarian point of view, I choose free market because it allows for freedom, not because
it makes for a better economy. And by the same token, I do not like capitalism, even if it is a resounding economic success.


@wajoma said
Money is not wealth, money is a tool that we use to measure wealth/value. Wealthy people tend to be good at creating wealth that's how they get there. Some arrive at it by dumb luck, generally it doesn't last. There's a well known trend regarding family Co's, the old guy starts it, the next generation builds on that, the 3rd generation squanders it.

The truck itself is ...[text shortened]... bout pirates, motors, satirical (?) humour (?) stories and everything but the content of the speech.
AvJoe did a treatise on the nature of 'money', a measure of wealth, a month ago, and it went higher than a kite over the heads of our shallow liberals, as they made their way to the mailbox to get a check from the government. A check. Hmmmm, is the check a measure of wealth, too? It is sooo confusing.

1 edit

@averagejoe1 said
AvJoe did a treatise on the nature of 'money', a measure of wealth, a month ago, and it went higher than a kite over the heads of our shallow liberals, as they made their way to the mailbox to get a check from the government. A check. Hmmmm, is the check a measure of wealth, too? It is sooo confusing.
Adam Smith did a treatise on the nature of money and his conclusion was that money was NOT a measure of wealth but instead wealth was produced by workers improving natural resources.

Adam Smith:

On the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities, or their Price in Labour, and their Price in Money

"Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased".


@athousandyoung said
Adam Smith did a treatise on the nature of money and his conclusion was that money was NOT a measure of wealth but instead wealth was produced by workers improving natural resources.

Adam Smith:

On the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities, or their Price in Labour, and their Price in Money

"Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that ...[text shortened]... by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased".
You are getting into the weeds, man. For that matter, a $1 bill about 70 years ago was a "Silver Certificate", it was printed on the bill. Guaranteed to swap it for silver. So think on that as you write this foolishness. Today, it is inherently worth nothing. It indeed only 'represents'. You need to change subjects.


@metal-brain said
Workers in Saudi Arabia have few legal rights, and they are not permitted to organize and do not have the right to strike. Capitalism is not required to have women's rights. Rights for women have always lagged behind men in capitalist countries and generally everywhere in the world.

Saudi Arabia is a capitalist country. Now explain why some capitalist countries are not ...[text shortened]... . Free markets are how they control nations. All they have to do is buy it up until they control it.
All you do is repeat lies. You never prove anything.

1 edit

It seems that some here are identifying capitalism with a monetary system, so as to claim (or at least intimate) that it's been a feature of human civilization for thousands of years. However, as it's defined by economists and understood by historians, capitalism hasn't really been around much longer than a couple centuries or so. What came before capitalism is generally called mercantilism, which isn't really the same thing. Mercantilism in Europe came into being around 1500 or so, when feudalism was on the way out.

So, anyway, I do not see capitalism as the end stage of human economic evolution. It will give way to a new model in time. In fact capitalism has itself already changed radically in the past 150 years when its own workhorse, the worker class, grew in size and sophistication to become able to push back against the exploitive practices of capitalist barons. Capitalists cannot squelch this dynamic, because the very successes of capitalism create higher expectations among workers. This is all to do with dialectical materialism, which is something like Newton's 3rd Law of Motion applied to historical and economic forces: Every action instigates an equal and opposite reaction.

Some say socialism is a failure. They'll point to "socialist" countries that are no more and say: "There. It failed. Capitalism is superior. QED." What's lost on these individuals is that starting around the middle of the 19th century the labor movement, and the very specter of a socialist revolution, forced capitalists and governments to enact reforms that are essentially socialist in nature in order to save capitalism from itself. Even the US has a decidedly mixed economy comprised of as many socialist as capitalist elements. I say therefore that socialism is a success. It did not annihilate capitalism, it altered its DNA and merged with it. The alternative is revolution, because pure capitalism cannot last.

The champions of capitalism would do well to not tear off its socialist bandages, or the labor upheavals of yesteryear will come roaring back as inevitably as the rising of the sun. In fact this is already happening, and when the dust settles the result will I believe be even more socialist in appearance than what came before. This is why I think capitalism is not the final stage, provided humanity does not destroy itself before something better can come along.


@wajoma said
Money is not wealth, money is a tool that we use to measure wealth/value. Wealthy people tend to be good at creating wealth that's how they get there. Some arrive at it by dumb luck, generally it doesn't last. There's a well known trend regarding family Co's, the old guy starts it, the next generation builds on that, the 3rd generation squanders it.

The truck itself is ...[text shortened]... bout pirates, motors, satirical (?) humour (?) stories and everything but the content of the speech.
If the possession of wealth creates more money than hard work and creativity, capitalism suffers over time.


@wildgrass said
If the possession of wealth creates more money than hard work and creativity, capitalism suffers over time.
If, if, if.

You didn't read Francisco's money speech did you. No worries it's 2500 words.

Wealth needs to be created, not money. Simply possessing wealth does not create money nor value. Your terms are all haywire, a pencil represents wealth, we use money as a tool so that we may trade, eg. our time and effort (wealth/value) for the pencil (wealth/value) You've provided no explanation as to how or why 'capitalism suffers over time'. And I suspect it will not be possible with the mish mash of terms you use, no doubt part of the strategy.


@wajoma said
If, if, if.

You didn't read Francisco's money speech did you. No worries it's 2500 words.

Wealth needs to be created, not money. Simply possessing wealth does not create money nor value. Your terms are all haywire, a pencil represents wealth, we use money as a tool so that we may trade, eg. our time and effort (wealth/value) for the pencil (wealth/value) You've pro ...[text shortened]... suspect it will not be possible with the mish mash of terms you use, no doubt part of the strategy.
You're a child


@wildgrass said
You're a child
For it to be possessed, wealth must first be created.

Do you have an issue with that statement?


@wajoma said
For it to be possessed, wealth must first be created.

Do you have an issue with that statement?
Usually by someone else, yes.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@earl-of-trumps said
From a Libertarian point of view, I choose free market because it allows for freedom, not because
it makes for a better economy. And by the same token, I do not like capitalism, even if it is a resounding economic success.
you're not a libertarian and you're not free under a free market economy.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@sh76 said
Military, yes.

Education, no. I have no problem with the government paying for education, but government should not be the provider of education. It's plainly incompetent to do so in many cases.
ah yes, learn evolution from the DeVos foundation. Smart. Oh wait, she would spell it "evolution"

Vote Up
Vote Down

@suzianne said
Usually by someone else, yes.
Given that there are nearly 8 billion other people there's a good chance that wealth has been produced by someone else, check out the big brain on suzi.