jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (536 posts)

What happens to a Society where Capitalism is BANNED?

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    For instance,
    1. Over-regulation of businesses preventing entrepreneurship.
    2. Confiscatory and overburdensome taxation causing businesses to flee.
    3. State control over utilities.
    4. Government control over the marketplace.
    5. Government control of media and technology.

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      1984?

      Maybe there is no solution.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        We can't throw the baby of Freedom out with the bathwater of Capitalism.
        You certainly have an open mind, Janesix!

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe too open, I keep changing it;)

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        There is, janesix.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The solution is simple.

          "Eat the rich."

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Gobble them up.
            No. See new trend.

    2. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Utilities used to be state owned in the UK.
      They were considerably cheaper than privately owned utilities.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Cheaper after including the subsidies from the tax base?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          They still receive subsidies.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Subsidies: "a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive" Dictionary

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Stop at the word "business" all the rest is wrong.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Subsidies: "a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business.' J.H.

                "A subsidy is a form of financial or in kind support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy. Although commonly extended from Government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support - for example from NGOs or implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans), indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates). Furthermore, they can be broad or narrow, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. The most common forms of subsidies are those to the producer or the consumer. Producer/Production subsidies ensure producers are better off by either supplying market price support, direct support, or payments to factors of production.

                Consumer/Consumption subsidies commonly reduce the price of goods and services to the consumer. For example in the US at one time it was cheaper to buy petrol than bottled water." Wikipedia

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Kathryn, you are missing the point. Subsidies are not given in the UK to keep prices down, they are given to  bolster profits of private corporations at the expense of the tax payer.

                  If you are not happy with me using the word "subsidy" to describe the transfer of the tax payers money to private enterprise with no advantage to the tax payer then perhaps you would like to supply a more suitable word.

                  Petrol (gas)is still cheaper in the UK than bottled water but that has nothing to do with subsidies, just market forces and the gullibility of consumers.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you mean that without the subsidy the price would remain constant, and profits fall to nothing or negative? 

                    The US is much, much different.  Very few products (rent) are subsidized, but when they are it is definitely to lower prices; without the subsidy the price will increase dramatically to maintain profits.

    3. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Banning something has never made it unobtainable.
      Simply banning it wouldn't work, what would be required is brainwashing, banish it from the minds of people and the history books, supress any mention of it, convince everybody that it simply doesn't work and that only the few benefit.
      Also convince people that if they get rid of capitalism the world would be a much better place, there would be no greed, envy or jealousy, no crime and most importantly no one would ever die ever again.

    4. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Who said anything about banning capitalism? It doesn't need to be banned to be fixed. The Canadian government is a little more involved in what corporations can or can't do. They didn't get involved in the nasty stuff that killed all those banks around the world and as such didn't suffer at all. It's also a little more involved in healthcare and prescription drug prices. The results of the regulations are that Canada has less expensive healthcare per person and everyone can access it, I believe it's something like 25% cheaper and far less expensive prescription drugs. The US elderly come over by the buss load to purchase prescription drugs. Canada also has a higher minimum wage, I think it's about 30% more.

      Capitalism works but corporations need to know what they can and can't do.

    5. 61
      tbHistorianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8800187_f248.jpg

    6. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
      wba108@yahoo.composted 2 years ago in reply to this

      1) In short tyranny, Whether that tyranny constitutes fascism or socialism? Fascism is a form of collectivism in which the state controls the private sector through heavy regulation. And we all know what socialism is. The important thing to remember is that both of these are tyrannical because power is concentrated in the hands of the government without any real checks or balances.

      2) Poverty and debt is also sure to occur. Capitalism is just a euphemism for free markets and free markets are what bring prosperity. Collectivism whether it be in the form of socialism or fascism always brings poverty because it misjudges what basically motivates people.

      3) Corruption in government and in the people. Corruption in government because of the concentration of power and wealth in their hands without any accountability. Corruption also occurs because the resulting poverty that collectivism brings will motivate low level bureaucrats to use their great power to enrich themselves.

      The people themselves will be corrupted because of the great temptation to compromise themselves to garner favor with the ruling elite and corrupt bureaucrats.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately you do not all know what socialism is.

  2. dragonflyfla profile image57
    dragonflyflaposted 2 years ago

    Millions and millions of people die - government is responsible for more civilian deaths than any war:

    Mao's China
    Stanlin's Russia
    Hitler's Germany
    Khmer Rouge - Reeducation camp

    What happens with capitalism? Take a look at Hong Kong vs China or North Korea vs South Korea.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      No, we are looking at what happens without it.

      1. dragonflyfla profile image57
        dragonflyflaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Right - millions of people die.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          your point?

        2. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          What! Without capitalism millions die!  And what of the millions killed by capitalism?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Ah Ha! Is it 50/50?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know about that but the thing is we can all accuse other institutions of causing countless deaths.

        3. Paul Wingert profile image81
          Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Khmer Rouge were dictators and it was they who were responsible for millions of deaths, not Communism and Fascism.

          1. 83
            Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's like saying that bacon isn't bad for you; the sodium, saturated fat, and nitrates in bacon are bad for you.

            1. Paul Wingert profile image81
              Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Bottom line, bacon tastes good.

    2. maxoxam41 profile image80
      maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Or the US, South Africa, Israel... Democracies too?

  3. 0
    Sooner28posted 2 years ago

    I'm not sure this would fit the definition of "banned."  I think "prohibitory" would probably be more accurate.  If you believe in capitalism, all of the points you mentioned would just make it function less effectively than it otherwise would.

    Though, the last points are really vague.  Government "control" of a marketplace could mean a lot of different things.  Do you mean government controls everything?  I doubt this is your meaning since you singled out utilities.  It could also be paradoxical to claim government controls a marketplace, since by your definition, a marketplace couldn't exist with government control.

    Do you mean heavy-handed regulation, but still using the market model?   If I had to guess, that would be what I'd bet you mean, but I don't know.

    I expected you to use North Korea or Russia as your example.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think I was suggesting that the United States is on the path toward govt. control of utilities and market as it is in North Korea and Russia,  I would say the first two come before the others.
      No?

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Ohhhh.  You meant this as a sequence.  Okay.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

        I think it's a bit of a stretch to say government imposing higher taxes and regulations on business means the next step will be a complete government takeover of the economy.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          ...little by little.
          - not steps.
          like frogs in hot water.
          If you boil the water right away, the frogs are motivated to hop out. But if you turn up the heat little by little, they do not jump out...
          and they get cooked.

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You are assuming that's the ultimate goal if ANYONE who calls for more regulation.  There are many who just capitalism regulated because of its excesses.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              HOW?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I'll tell you how… I'll tell you what the boundaries are and who brought us the boundaries… any guesses?

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No guesses here. You tell us.smile

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I think I will present it as a forum topic. It will be shocking. Stay tuned.

                2. 0
                  Sooner28posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow.  That post was full of typos.  I apologize.  My keyboard isn't cooperating with me.

  4. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    Redistribution of wealth
    Exploitation of the country wealth by the people and for the people
    Access to education, healthcare... for free or at a privileged cost
    Regulation of the market, banks, economic actors against any abuse
    No monopoly trigged by cartels, no loopholes to corporations and the elite, no corporations controlling the government policies to their benefits versus the people...

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, so if the activity of capitalism ceased, these things would result and be good.
      How Good?
      How Bad?

      1. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Venezuela and Southern America are rediscovering what life is without capitalism.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "Southern America" as in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama or as in Brazil, Peru, Argentina? 

          Either way, Louisiana, Texas, Brazil and Argentina are all "exporters" of oil products, sold in the capitalist market. Kind of hard to say any of them is "without capitalism" with capitalistic numbers like they all have.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I don't see in what way exporting a national good is proper to capitalism. Venezuela does so but profits go to the people. To export a national good for private interests is capitalism. The ALBA gathering is aiming at excluding capitalism as their economical system.

  5. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    Rod, well said.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think he is mentioning the *excesses* of capitalism.  The excesses are caused by human greediness. You still can't throw capitalism out with the bathwater of human greed. Just the human greed. And that will never happen.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Capitalism is excess otherwise it wouldn't be capitalism.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Oh I see!  And what is the opposite of excess?  as far as an ism?   Minimalism? Scarcityism? Povertyism? Reduductionism? Frugalism? Miserlyism? Tightism?


          Yes, let us adopt Tightism! I am all for tightism.
          ...the world under Tightism.
          How would that work?
          No one owns anything. Because the government is so tight that the people get nothing.  Yay for Governmental Tightism!

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Opposite of excess? Try socialism.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Tightism

      2. Rod Rainey profile image83
        Rod Raineyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Civilization as we know it, through capitalism, drives those “*excesses*”.  The blood is on our hands whether we know it or not, believe it or not and we CAN do whatever WE want.  Additionally, I like to think that if the motives and prices of these atrocities were more widely known, people would want to abolish the systems that facilitate them.   

        Kathryn Hill, if you're right, our species will collapse.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          ...only under tightism.  Under capitalism It will thrive. It will thrive due to the abundance of the bounty found on earth and through willingly sharing it through individual economic motivations combined with goodwill and charity. We need to rightly use our resources and rightly promote industry.

          Those darn greedy. What do we do about THEM?

          I say we just do NOT buy their products. Or are we all greedy as well.
          What do we do about GREED?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Capitalism and sharing do not co-exist.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Of course, it does. How do you explain the economic success of any great nation? Isn't there more sharing going on in China and Russia during these modern times?

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                OK, go and see your local capitalist and ask him to share his food with you.

          2. Rod Rainey profile image83
            Rod Raineyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The average consumer hasn’t the time nor the wherewithal to do all the in depth research of every company they buy from and cast ethical “votes with dollars”.  Indeed, due to the ceaseless demands of capitalism, when most people get “free” time, they want to relax, veg out to the tube, escape from their reality for a while.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              But, what is the option?  To have no liberty?  It is up to the individual to choose to decide to lessen the suffering of others around him. Not a far removed Governmental body,
              GOSH!

              Why do you think Scotland wants to separate form England, John? Why do we here in US insist on states rights, Rod? You can't obliterate of the power of the people for the sake of exorcising the so called evils of capitalism.

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                This society will almost undoubtably fail. Not because capitalism is wrong, but because WE haven't regulated it well enough. We have let corporations take over on the one hand, and the entitlement mindset on the other. It will stretch us out in both directions unless a middle ground can be found again.

                But you are correct in that people need to be allowed to make their own mistakes. It's how we learn to better ourselves. Maybe one day we will get it right.

              2. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You are either confused Kathryn, or you're confusing me!

                What has capitalism and sharing/not sharing got to do with an independent Scotland?

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It has to do with the power of the individual. The Scottish don't want to answer to the government of England. Or do I have it wrong. Have not done the research.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    The implication is that capitalism = liberty.
                    Liberty for what? To be fleeced by a minority?

                2. Silverspeeder profile image61
                  Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Alex Salmond has based his whole independence campaign on the conception that they will be better off financially under independence. That's because people associate financial solvency with liberty and freedom.


                  The OP stated "What happens to a society where capitalism is banned?" and I would say that you take away a freedom, a freedom to chose. People have had a freedom to chose socialism if they please (at least here) and yet the majority have never chosen it (they may pay lip service to it with their social programs) Why? Because the majority believe they are better off under a system where they can make the choices, good or bad.

              3. Rod Rainey profile image83
                Rod Raineyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                “Why do we here in US insist on states rights, Rod?” I’m not following.  I see the state as one of those entities that facilitate (and perpetrate) atrocity.  Capitalism and the state go hand in hand.  Capitalism gobbles up anything with intrinsic value and the state plays guard dog. They should both be dismantled.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  individual states.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    What is better... to be fleeced by your own kind, who you can boycott if you so choose, (okay, so we have to do a little research…) or the wonderful angels, (also a minority,) in Government?

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Boycott!
      Can you really live without food, shelter, clothing, electricity, gas and everything else we use in the 21st century?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes we can. We can live in caves near streams or lakes and grow our own food. Those who are the most capable, will survive.  Per usual. Give me liberty or give me death. Whomever is not on the same page…woe to them.
        I guess that would include John.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Who mentioned a minority?

          Show me a corporation that doesn't put its and its shareholders profits before everything else?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You, did.
            "The implication is that capitalism = liberty.
            Liberty for what? To be fleeced by a minority?"

            and I answered,
            " What is better... to be fleeced by your own kind, who you can boycott if you so choose, (okay, so we have to do a little research…) or the wonderful angels, (also a minority,) in Government?"


            Can you boycott a government???
            ...without blood shed? and misery?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The minority of the people are the corporate capitalists, not the minority of capitalists.

              Why not elect a government that is not made up of capitalist sympathisers?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Why not not elect a government that is made up of capitalist sympathizers? While we still have a vote?

                Cuz if you don't they will take away your vote, tax you way too much and tax you more than you would EVER agree to.
                NO FREEDOM
                Death is preferable.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  What freedom do you have under capitalism?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Q. What freedom do you have under capitalism?
                    A. Freedom from state/governmental intrusion.
                    Unfortunately,  governmental intrusion in the US has given rise to the failure of capitalism.

                    For instance if you get health care for free, and you then get a job you will then have to pay for it.  Why get a job? This intrusion will effect the human spirit of industriousness and dare I say it…goodwill toward man?

                2. Rod Rainey profile image83
                  Rod Raineyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Please forgive me, now I’m confused. Are you saying that if we don’t vote for capitalist sympathizers, we will lose our vote and be more heavily taxed?  Can you get anything other than a capitalist sympathizer with your vote in the U.S.?  Who has ever really agreed to the amount of taxes they have to pay?  I mean it’s not like you can haggle with the government.  Am I wrong?

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, you can get Obama, who promises everything to the citizen for free.  Free food, free cars, free health care, "free" citizenship - everything in life is free, and that is NOT capitalism.

                    Actually, people WILL agree to taxes until they become too high.  My area just had a whole raft of school systems vote for more money, levies, etc. - all but 2 out of a dozen or so passed without problem.  People will pay reasonable taxes.

      2. 61
        tbHistorianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I produce my own food.
        I produce my own electricity.
        I produce my own fuel.
        I create my own shelter.
        Yes - I can live easily in the 21st century.
        And, I will probably live much longer than those who choose the soft path.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Here in the UK all the land is owned by capitalists who want lots of money to let you even use it. Acquiring enough land to live off would, for the majority, be totally impractical. And how many patients would a doctor get round to seeing if he had to spend most daylight hours producing food?

          Yes we can produce our own electricity, but see previous point. Unless I'm missing something producing electricity in any quantity needs land or water.

          Again, you produce your own fuel, were do you get it from and how much time does it take you?

          You could create your own shelter in the UK but you would have to jump through hoops to get permission and then you would have to pay a considerable amount each year for living in it. As all your time is taken up by feeding yourself and searching for fuel how would you earn the money to pay those taxes?

          By the way, what do you do for internet access?

          1. 61
            tbHistorianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I own a communications tower.
            I live in a simple manner and help a neighbor in need.
            I pay no personal taxes as I earn no taxable income.
            I pay no property taxes because I bartered for relief from these by building and owning the tower.
            It is strategically placed upon my land where I can easily support the multitudes who take the lazy path.
            One must learn to use the system even when they do not like the system.
            When you find that path, you can easily follow the simple life.
            God provides plenty for those who are willing to simply seek it.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That you have badly overpopulated your country and then overtaxed the people in order to share the wealth is not the fault, or problem, of capitalism.  A long term solution is to stop reproducing, short term solutions range from the Chinese approach to immigration (outbound) to letting those that cannot support themselves starve.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              We are hardly badly over populated, there's a fair few of us but it is still possible to travel for days and not see another soul. 
              However high taxes to share the wealth is the fault or problem of capitalism, or are you claiming that the bankers aren't capitalist?

              Our government is already working on your third suggestion and letting those who can't feed the capitalist machine stave.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Really?  You can travel for days and not see a person?  On what - the back of a sea turtle? 

                Somehow, I don't think those evil bankers lobbied for higher taxes.

                Well, good for them!  How many bodies have they produced that way so far?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No, not on turtle back but by doing something uncommon to you of the USA, walking.

                  They might not have lobbied for higher taxes but I didn't see them refusing the £9,000 from every man woman and child in the UK.

                  Unsurprisingly the government are very quiet about the number who die as a result of their policies.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, it is your country and I really can't say.  I do know that it would be very difficult to walk for days anywhere in the US without seeing another person, even in the Wilderness areas (no motor vehicles allowed) in the deep forest or top of mountains.

                    So the capitalists didn't raise taxes at all - the socialists did!  But that's what I said, isn't it?

                    No doubt they are.  Perhaps you could hang out around a mortuary for a few days and count the emaciated bodies - that would not give an accurate country wide count, but would certainly provide an indication that the government is actively starving people to death.  Or at least someone is; I guess it wouldn't actually show the PM has a hand in it.

                    Because truthfully, I just have a little doubt that the UK government(s) have begun a pogrom to wipe out the population via starvation.  It's almost as if the truth is being bent a little here, a little socialist spin being applied.

              2. 61
                tbHistorianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Britain has the world's most dense population with 256 people per square kilometer.
                In 2011 - 47.2% of children were born to un-married women
                Average Life expectancy for this group is between 78 and 85 years.
                Britain is still popular for immigrants issuing over 200,000 visas yearly.
                average earnings in Britain = $48,100 which is perfectly aligned with the USA average of $47,880
                People still love to immigrate to Britain - 310,000 in 2012

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, Britain is 51st in the list of most densely populated.
                  If I could be bothered to check the rest of your "facts" they'd probably be just as accurate as your first one.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    PS Freedom must have common sense boundaries. What could these be based on…
    how about giving a man what is his due?  One cannot just do as one pleases! One must consider how one's decisions affects others.

    1. Rod Rainey profile image83
      Rod Raineyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Uh, okay. Not buying it.

    2. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes how about giving man his due? That is something that capitalism fails to do for the majority. That and not caring how their decisions affect others.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not capitalism, itself, but human greed unchecked by common courtesy to fellow humans.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Then why promote a system that encourages human greed and discourages common courtesy?

          1. 83
            Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            This statement implies that other systems don't encourage greed too.  The leaders in communist and socialist countries tend to be quite wealthy too; that fact speaks for itself.  Ideology and reality aren't necessarily the same thing.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              No it doesn't, it implies that other systems may be less susceptible to greed.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Because it also promotes inventiveness, productivity, entrepreneurship, higher standard of living and independence.

            When govt. forces business to pay more for labor, for instance, than it is worth it promotes laziness, lack of productivity, an entitlement philosophy, dependence on government and a low standard of living. 

            The superior method should be obvious.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              We've actually covered the inventiveness myth in considerable depth before and concluded that capitalism does nothing to encourage inventiveness.

              I'd like you to give me some facts and figures for businesses that have been forced to pay more for labour than it is worth.

              The superior method is obviously not obvious to many.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                YOU may have covered the inventiveness question, deciding that socialism is equal or superior to capitalism - I haven't.  It seems natural to me that capitalism, rewarding new ideas and thoughts to a much greater extent (those ideas turn into WalMart) encourages inventiveness much more than a socialistic attitude that limits what can be earned from them.

                Minimum wage is not set according to value of work done: employers thus pay more for some work than it is worth.  Unions are usually able to force such compensation; otherwise no one would join a union.  And, once in a while, local labor conditions allow labor to demand more than it is actually worth simply because of scarcity.  Rare, but it happens just as the ability to pay less can happen when labor is plentiful.

                Well, yes - that's what I sad.  It should be obvious, but the socialists wanting to share the wealth deny it is obvious.  Although...even socialists may actually recognize it, but are unwilling to give up the power involved in forcing others to "share" their wealth.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  We didn't decide that socialism was superior to capitalism, we decided that capitalists weren't very good at innovating and that most significant inventions were government backed.
                  Wal mart is a very bad example of the benefits of capitalism.

                  You avoid answering my question. When has government forced anybody to pay more for labour than it is worth?

                  The capitalists are doing OK sharing the wealth upwards.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You're mistaken (I think) - I don't recall having that conversation about innovation.  And I can't think of much that is government backed (in the US) outside of military items.  The UK, being further along the socialist road, will of course have more.

                    But I DID answer - most businesses paying an artificially high minimum wage as decreed by the government.  Few of those jobs are actually worth what is being paid.

                    From a FB page:


                    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8820034_f248.jpg

                    There is probably truth here, but the question is why?  Because we continually try to get it away for our own use, via the tax code?  Just maybe, wealth in the hands of a few is not the evil imagined by socialists?

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Why NOT promote a system which gives each individual a chance to contribute to himself and in so doing, to the good of all?

    When used rightly, Capitalism is not evil. It is a tool for a percolating economy. Anyone who does not understand this truth needs a government to rule his life, because he has no joy of self-motivation, power of self-incentive or sense of inner joy of life, itself. Every person must develop his own strength of will which comes from a healthy robust psyche.
    Capitalism:
    "capitalism noun
    free enterprise, private enterprise, the free market. ANTONYMS communism. Thesaurus."

    Capitalism enables individual strength. Without progressing on this level life is worth absolutely nothing. 

    Socialism fosters permanent infancy. Socialism promotes a perpetual state of keeping humans at the level of infants in a crib who can't even use their hands to provide their own food. They open their mouths expecting the bottle to be shoved in.
    Shame on those who misuse and abuse the freedom of capitalism! Shame on them!  Boundaries ensure freedom. With out boundaries there can be no freedom. There is no denying that wealth and power when unchecked by human compassion for one's fellow man but, rather encouraged by BLIND ambition is detrimental on both the local and grand scale.

    However, capitalism must reign supreme for the sake of the sovereignty of the people. It is a tool to be used rightly. Just like our computers.

    "sovereignty noun

    2 autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-determination, freedom."  Thesaurus

    TWISI

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "Capitalism enables individual strength."

      This is a problem.  With strength comes gains in various fields.  In the context of Capitalism it results in accumulation of wealth or, in the opposite of weakness, the result is poverty.

      This does not fit with equality for all and is frowned upon by some.  And the result of that is that the inevitable differences in people result in a bad name for capitalism.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Capitalism is a product of freedom. Freedom MUST have boundaries. it is really as simple as that. The only check will come as mankind becomes less selfish and more compassionate. It is one thing to be selfish and it is another thing to be self-caring. Caring for Others is part of caring for Self.

        Ambition must be tempered with wisdom. Power must be tempered with love. Bottom line: Love.

        Are we capable of Love along with our Power? Yes. can we enforce love?  Ask Gandhi.
        TWISI

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          There are not many Gandhi's around, unfortunately.  But, yes, freedom AND capitalism both have limits to be useful.  So the rest of us limit those few that are both capable and unwilling to limit themselves.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            HOW?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Prevent monopolies, do what we can to maintain competition.  Provide for safe workplaces instead of sweatshops.  Do what we can to prevent racism or other forms of intolerance.

              None are perfect, none ever will be.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, and monopolies are already illegal. Who is allowing monopolies… the status quo, Republicans and Democrats, unfortunately.
                How is a rigged game equal access to opportunity?
                Country club Republicans and Democrats are both keeping the game rigged.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Some monopolies are legal; my electrical utility comes to mind as does the local water company.

                  Depending on the meaning of "equal access" we do not guarantee such a thing and cannot. 

                  "Rigged" is rather subjective; for the most part only those than have difficulty competing use the word.  Those that can make the system work for them do not.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    (For instance this is a rigged game: Supposedly 1, 200 liberal organizations were able to obtain tax exempt status for their non-profit tax exempt organization and in this same period of years not one conservative non-profit status application was approved by the Obama administration.  Is there equality under the law or not? It depends on the justice department (EPA, FCC…)
                    So, we must be careful how we vote.

                  2. Rod Rainey profile image83
                    Rod Raineyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    So the man made system cannot work for all men?  What are these men to do? Depend on the "winners"? Die?

      2. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not equality for all but equality of opportunity. It is not always weakness that leads to poverty but lack of opportunity.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          1. Question:
          What contributes to weakness?

          Answer:
          We are all born with a deck of cards. Some of us have more aces and full houses than others. Inequality is natural and cannot be helped.

          2. Question:
          What contributes to a lack of opportunity?

          Answer:
          1. Socialism.
          2. Social democracy
          3. Soft despotism
          4. Communism
          5. Tyrants like Castro

          3. Question: What contributes to weakness and lack of opportunity?

          Answer:
          1. All of the above.

          4. Question who should help the weak and provide opportunity? Choose the correct answer:

          A. The people
          B. The government by taxing the people ever increasing amounts.

          Correct Answer: A
                                                                       

          FYI

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            inequality of opportunity is not natural and can be helped.

            What contributes to a lack of opportunity?

            1. Capitalism.
            2. Right wing ideals.
            3. Right wing ideals.
            4. Right wing ideals.
            5. Tyrants like Obama, Cameron, Putin, et al.

            All, and many more, contributing to weakness and lack of opportunity.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image61
              Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Capitalism isn't the problem John people are the problem.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Who invented capitalism? Do animals have capitalism?

                1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                  Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Animals eat each other, are you suggesting we should become like animals?

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I'm just suggesting that it is rather silly to defend a man made system from the depredations of man.
                    It is a system geared for greedy men by greedy men.

                2. 61
                  tbHistorianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  yes, animals do operate in a capitalistic environment.
                  The strong eat the weak.  The weak are devoured.
                  This is further supplemented by the natural existence of regrowth in the vegetation normally eaten by the weak.
                  Therefore, the capital model for animals begins on the foundation of vegetation much like the human model foundation of sustenance.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry, can't be bothered to correct that slew of fantasy.

            2. 61
              tbHistorianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Weakness = the state or condition of an individual lacking personal work ethics
              Cause = an ideology demanding social organization that advocates a means of production, distribution, and exchange regulated by government.
              Result = failure of proper support for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Rubbish, work ethic has nothing to do with it.

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            She's got it at last! Not the bankers and other capitalists but the people.

        2. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So John would you seek to ban capitalism? And if so can you guarantee I will receive the trappings of the rich?

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That would make you no better than them.

    2. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But when has capitalism ever been used rightly? It has always been a tool of oppression and for making a few people rich at the expense of the many. It does not motivate people instead it holds them back, removes incentive to excel and kills all joy of life. Socialists do not need government to rule their lives and tell them what to think, that is a role for capitalist government.

      Capitalism actually fosters permanent infancy and keeps people at a dependent level.
      As you say, shame on those who misuse capitalism, that's an awful lot of people carrying shame.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not the ism the people that misuse the ism!  If electricity is dangerous, shall we not have rock bands? DOWN with CAPITALISM and ROCK AND ROLL! Capitalistic marketing of the Beatles has ruined America by influencing millions (no proof of this and may not be true, but if it was true...) of teens to play with dangerous electricity which killed them while learning to use amps and electrified instruments! 
        http://forward.com/articles/188384/meet … ian-epste/
        (See video about evil capitalistic Brian Epstein)

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    ...not equality of outcome , but equality of opportunity. Equality is very misunderstood.
    EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY! 
    1. Does excessive taxation add to equality of opportunity?
    2. Does excessive regulations add to equality of opportunity?
    3. Does holding out on natural resources add to the equality of opportunity?
    4. Does holding out on school vouchers add to equality of opportunity?
    5. Has Obama care really added to the equality of opportunity? (Not for me... My insurance went up so much I had to cancel it. Now, I don't have any.)


    HUH?

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Rod. What is the alternative? If mankind is not ready for freedom, free market and capitalism, then we should just stop propagating the species. If mankind is so horrible, not one more person should be born. 
    O population.
    That is the only solution.
    Bah.

    1. Rod Rainey profile image83
      Rod Raineyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You do not speak of freedom for anyone! Go build your "house" you "long straight nail" you and pray those short bent losers don't organize and burn it down.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Why thank you for calling me a long straight nail! That is quite a complement! Maybe you should move to a place where the humans are like the fancy nail/screws that can be hammered in. They are probably superior to simple long straight nails.

    2. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That is an oxymoron, there is no freedom in capitalism and capitalists only want a free market for themselves, everybody else should be restricted or bought out if too competitive.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well, there is certainly none in socialism where someone else tells you what you shall pay and what you shall earn, where you don't have any say at all in it.  Where bargains may not be made, where value determines price and where private contracts between people are forbidden.

        No, John - capitalism really is about freedom, but that will always include the freedom to do stupid things.  Like pay too much or sell for too little; responsibility for yourself is a part of freedom.  It can be hard (reality often is) and it definitely takes more effort, but one is free.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No, it's capitalism where somebody else tells you what you earn and what you pay and where you have no say at all.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Did you know...that repetition of tales without truth does not make them true?  While some people will accept the 100th repetition as being true, it still isn't, and another thousand repeats still won't make a falsehood true.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ...looks like its a wrap! smile
              The long straight nails win.
              Hammer on America.

              1. Rod Rainey profile image83
                Rod Raineyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "Cognitive-dissonance is just one of many biases that work in our everyday lives. We don’t like to believe that we may be wrong, so we may limit our intake of new information or thinking about things in ways that don’t fit within our pre-existing beliefs. Psychologists call this “confirmation bias.”

                We also don’t like to second-guess our choices, even if later they are proven wrong or unwise. By second-guessing ourselves, we suggest we may not be as wise or as right as we’ve led ourselves to believe. This may lead us to commit to a particular course of action and become insensitive to and reject alternative, perhaps better, courses that come to light. That’s why many people seek to avoid or minimize regret in their lives, and seek “closure” — imposing a definitive end to an event or relationship. It reduces the possibility of future cognitive dissonance." John M. Grohol, Psy.D.

                http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2 … ourselves/

            2. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I know that. Now how many times have you claimed capitalism is about freedom?

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Several.  And showed exactly why.

                While you claim it is about slavery, showing...that people have a choice (freedom) but claim they do not.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So where is the freedom for a person who has to hold down two jobs to make a basic living?

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Very few people HAVE to hold two jobs to make a basic living.  But even if they do, they still have the option (choice to find something different or a higher paying employer.  They can go to school.  They can start their own business. 

                    You keep trying to claim that people are locked into whatever it is they don't like, or locked into low paying jobs, but it isn't true.  There is always a choice, at least in a capitalistic economy.  When government sets wages and determines who can go to school or what for it gets harder and when it assigns jobs as well it gets impossible. 

                    And finally, we highly disagree on just what that mythical "basic living" is - I figure it to be subsistence but both of our countries requires employers to pay considerably more than that at the minimum.

      2. 83
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Capitalism is about freedom.  Business owners are exercising a business freedom by being bought out.  That's their choice.

      3. Rod Rainey profile image83
        Rod Raineyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        In some ways, the “winners” of the game are fettered by it too; in the eyes of the poor masses, the rich capitalist is often seen as the bad guy.  Now I’m sure that some are sociopathic douche bags who see people as tools or playthings, but they can’t all be bad. Others want what they have which can instill paranoia, prompting them to hide behind armed guards and the “law” in gated communities, suspecting their spouses of gold digging and wondering who their real friends are.  And consider how they feel when there is talk of revolt.  They’re having nightmares.

        Again, our enemies are ideas, not each other.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Oh indeed. I don't believe that all are evil.
          Rather they do things because that is the way things are done.
          We only have to look at the many messages on here to see that they have the complicity of most.
          They are as brainwashed as the majority.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image61
            Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Brainwashed into believing what?
            That the fact that socialism will not afford me the opportunity to live my life how I please? The fact that capitalism however bad it is still affords me to dream that I will be able to? The fact that with education and hard work I may become successful and have the means to carry out my aspirations.

            We only have to look at the messages on here to know that nobody actually knows what socialism is or how it would work.
            We only have to look at history to know that any system that has been modelled on a socialist system or any of its offshoots has never worked.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Brainwashed into believing what you've claimed is wrong about socialism and right about capitalism.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Of course I am not brainwashed, I understand it doesn't work and that's the reason that everyone is not flocking to it.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I suppose you're another who believes that capitalism is working wonderfully well!

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                    Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    No John but as there is no socialist system it must be working better than socialism.

                    There will never be a socialist system unless it is forced upon the people.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Rick Perry of Texas and the the Governor of Ohio would not agree with you in the least. They are cutting the red tape of government and are actually succeeding in preventing government intrusions into the lives and businesses of their citizens. They are currently making huge efforts to streamline the citizens' ability to survive by lowering taxes, cutting regulations and unfair fees etc.
    For instance, the first year in office, Scott Walker went from a $46.million deficit to $380 thousand dollar surplus and that surplus is growing every year. He is cutting the taxes even more because of it. This is causing the economy to grow and jobs to increase. It is a snow-ball effect which Kennedy and Reagan promoted… and it works every time its tried.
    So, women keep having wonderful children. smile

  12. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    John, people should be paid based upon their education, skill levels in addition to their work experience, no more, no less.    People with a high level of education and/or skills should be paid more than someone with less education and less skills.    In other words, a heart surgeon or executive should be paid more than someone flipping burgers as the latter job does not require a high skill set.   Skill level+ education level= commensurate pay.

  13. Mani39 profile image55
    Mani39posted 2 years ago

    you want the shortcut.............We die..........hhhhhhhhh

 
working