How do you make capitalism work for everyone?

1. 58

   Billjordanposted 12 years ago

   Capitalism is economic of America but it's not working for the whole, submit your comments on how to make it work for the whole

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      By being charitable with your own money. If you are charitable with other people's money it's not charity, it's socialism.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      CHRIS57posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Try this one
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
      At least there is a mutual understanding in economies that follow these priciples that it could be much worse. In fact it is quite successful.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You don't!
      Capitalism requires the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Billjordanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Capitalism will work if economics was regional and not Global.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No, it will always depend on exploiting the many for the benefit of the few whether on a global or local scale.

            replyreport
      2. 59

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Nonsense. You agree to work for a wage. You're better off with an employer than without.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You don't actually have to get involved with capitalism to earn a wage.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Well then why aren't you doing so?
               
               Is it because capitalism gives you a better wage?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  well actually I mae much more money in socialist Argentina then in capitalist America so your comment is presumptous.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Awesome!
                     
                     ... but you OWN the money, right?
                     
                     ... so it's actually capitalist?
                     
                     Yeah, socialism requires there be a) no money, and b) no property.
                     
                     Nice try!

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        No Evan, that's just what those who try to promote capitalism inflict on those who oppose it.

                        replyreport
               2. 61

                  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Er, no, I engage in commerce, not capitalism.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     If you use a computer at work, then you're a capitalist.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Absolute rubbish Evan!
                        How on earth do you work that one out?
                        
                        It makes as much sense as me saying that everybody who owns a gun is a mass murderer.

                        replyreport
         2. 86

            Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I wonder how all of us who are self employed manage?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Then you're an entrepreneur -- one who can't exist in a socialist world.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Who said anything about wanting a socialist world?

                  replyreport
2. 59

   Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

   If you want capitalism to work for everyone, you need to actually LET it work.
   
   It's actually quite easy to pinpoint most problems of the Capitalist structure to government.
   
   We need to trust in the billions of people to make their own decisions, and NOT in the few who think they know what's best for everyone.
   
   Voluntary association is one of the most precious rights humans have.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Rubbish, capitalism doesn't allow for people making their own decisions. It depends on blind obedience and unquestioning acceptance.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I believe you are confusing capitalism with communism. Hence communist countries are ran by dictators and not the people, and if they disagree they disappear. But I suppose we are all blinded by our affluent wealth in America that we can't see how miserable we really are. LOL!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I most certainly am not confusing capitalism with communism!
            
            Communist countries are not run by dictators, I assume you're alluding to Russia here. Russia for a very few years was a communist country but rapidly reverted to capitalism, state capitalism, the very worst kind of capitalism there is.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               So Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong Il, Joseph Satlin, Che Gueverra, all were a bunch of nice guys, not communists, who didn't collectively kill over 100 million of their own people?
               Tell me John, when was the last time an American tried desperately to escape from the clutches of capitalism into one of those countries? I'll give you a hint, it was never.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You're showing your ignorance, with the exception of possibly Castro, none of the names that you list were communists.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     A classic case of suppression of ideological subversion. Thank God we don't live in a world where people like you are the majority, I would freaking shoot myself. Actually I would most likely cry in the streets for fear of life at the demise of my beloved leader.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        What? Eaten a dictionary have we?
                        
                        Do a bit of homework rather than just spouting what your masters have told you to believe.
                        
                        With the possible exception of Castro,none of  them were communists.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           See the map?, commies...

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Wow, an uncredited map, must be true!

                              replyreport
                           2. 60

                              Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Funny map, Sri lanka isn't highlighted on there. A socialist state?

                              replyreport
                        2. 0

                           Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           See how they are disappearing? Ah.... Much better!
                           

                           replyreport
                     2. 60

                        Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Well, according to your theory onusonus, as Obama is a socialist, then you do live in a country full of men like John. Didn't all those men like John give Obama a huge majority in 08?

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           

                           replyreport
                        2. 0

                           Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Nope, he won with 52.6% of the vote. That was with the mainstream media drooling all over him.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Erm, no, that was the population voting for him. Admittedly though, Fox thought he was the best thing since sliced bread!

                              replyreport
                           2. 60

                              Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Is 52% plus not considered a majority in the US?

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Hollie, of course it's the majority, but it's not the "overwhelming majority". Do you really think that 52.6% is the overwhelming majority?
                                 
                                 The liberal media did all they could to pump in to the American psyche as much iconography, and identity politics as humanly possible. They promoted him to rock star status, and that's why he got in.
                                 You would think that after all the disdain that was felt towards his predecessor it would have been an "overwhelming majority" that voted him in as you stated earlier, but it was not. Hmmmmmm....

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    In the UK Thatcher was elected with about 45% of the vote and that was described as a landslide.

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 60

                                    Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    In the US and the UK, many parties are voted into office because they are the largest minority party. In other words, they may have secured the largest share of the vote for the party, but they have not  secured the the majority of votes cast. I believe the Obama's victory in 08 was the exception in this case.
                                    
                                    Let's be honest, what campaigning would be President would not want to acquire the status of an icon. It's not Obama's, or Liberal voters fault for that matter, that the Republican party  can't put forward a candidate that can summon that kind of respect.

                                    replyreport
               2. 59

                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually there were about 30 000 american defectors to Cuba and Russia one of them interestingly eneough was Harvey Lee Oswald who was refused the right to go to Cuba (he was a socialist) this was one of the main reasons he shot Kennedy.

                  replyreport
      2. 59

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Nonsense. If you agree to work for someone, then you voluntarily choose NOT to start your own business, and you voluntarily choose NOT to start your own communist utopia.
         
         The simple fact that you are not attempting to create a socialist business tells us that socialism is inferior to capitalism.

         replyreport
3. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 12 years ago

   I am going to be quite realistic regarding this premise of capitalism supposedly should be working for all.   Not!  Capitalism is a system designed to benefit those who are strategists, risk takers, work smart, and/or visionaries.    Capitalism frankly does not reward everyone nor should it.   
   
   America was founded upon the principles of a free market system.  The free market system amply reward those who can supply and satisfy the demand of the most number of people.   In other words, if one diligently gives the people what they want either through talent or a product, one becomes quite wealthy.   Yes, it does not come easy and takes smart work, not "hard" work. 
   If one cannot adequately supply the demand and/or talent of the market, one does not become wealthy.   
   
   Capitalism is a free for all system which rewards the fittest-i.e. the most creative and enterprising.   Capitalism is not for the meek and weak.  One must always sell a product whether it is themselves or another product in order to succeed within the system.   Capitalism is a meritocracy of sorts.  The more one produces and creates, the more amply he/she is rewarded.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You confuse capitalism with a free market. There is nothing free market about capitalism.
      When America was based on a free market system was when it was great.Now it is based on the capitalist system and see how the majority of your people are thrown on the scrap heap sacrificed to the god of capital.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Capitalism IS the free market.
         
         America is now a Corporatist nation. This is a form of Fascism. Companies put people in DC, they make the rounds, become lobbyists, and then the companies are the ones writing the legislation regarding regulations.
         
         This is fascism, not capitalism.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No, capitalism is fascism.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No, actually it isn't.
               
               Sorry.

               replyreport
4. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

   This ought to confuse the heck out of everything.
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
   
   In other words, first a mutual definition for the purposes of this thread must be figured out.

   replyreport
5. 59

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   The collective work of any number of people produces profit which is either divied up equally to all contributing members called socialism, or is sliced off the top by private owners who subcontract the labor called capitalism.

   replyreport
6. 59

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 415AAdtaGT

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That's got to be the most ridiculous list I've ever seen.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      Billjordanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If you clicked on this link you might better understand what happens when capitalism works best....

      replyreport
7. 59

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   Oswald was CIA, FBI or both.

   replyreport
8. 60

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   That's the point...Capitalism can't work for everyone. There needs to be a fine pile of casualties of the system for those who are on top to have climbed over.

   replyreport
9. 57

   dornerposted 12 years ago

   Capitalism is not a system that is designed to work for everyone, and in the US we do not have a full capitalist system. A Capitalist system is not regulated the way the US regulates our economic system. In a Capitalist system there is a need for separation or classes of people. The people at the bottom see the people at the top and work harder to try and get there and the people at the top work hard to stay away from the bottom. The tough thing about a capitalist system is the people at the top make it extremely hard for the people at the bottom to move up too far. A capitalist system need some socialist policies to make sure the bottom class doesn't get too low.

   replyreport
10. 66

    maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

    Why would capitalism have to work? Why not accepting that it is a failure and move on with another ideology or another idea?

    replyreport
11. 59

    knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

    Communism is dead.
    "In economics, BRIC is a grouping acronym that refers to the countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China, which are all deemed to be at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development. It is typically rendered as "the BRICs" or "the BRIC countries" or the BRIC economies" or alternatively as the "Big Four".
    
    The acronym was coined by Jim O'Neill in a 2001 paper entitled "Building Better Global Economic BRICs".[1][2][3] The acronym has come into widespread use as a symbol of the shift in global economic power away from the developed G7 economies towards the developing world. It is estimated that BRIC economies will overtake G7 economies by 2027"
    
    Also include South Africa and Iran as partly a player as well as others. These are the new enemies of the empire in which present and future 'Great Game' theater is and will take place.

    replyreport
12. 59

    knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

    "Yeah, socialism requires there be a) no money, and b) no property." That is pure communism having nothing to do with socialism.
    "Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
    Section 8 - Powers of Congress"
    "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
    So the treasury coins coins. Socialism.
    The private banks print all the paper money.
    ""To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,"
    Capitalism but they stole the regulation of money.

    replyreport