First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Capitalism: Development of a strong nation or the crippling of another?
90 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 6/12/08

froofroo123 wrote:


projectevo5 wrote:


froofroo123 wrote:

What I don't get is why some people say everyone has an equal opportunity in a capitalistic system. Apparently not, since there are how many billion people in the world living below America's poverty line? What some people don't see is the number of people that are being screwed over just so the few get what they want. Why are there tens of thousands of people dying every day from hunger when our supermarkets are horded with food? What of those African countries that are completely fucked over by international debt. It costs them billions just to pay the goddamn interest. What does free market globalization do for the farmers that can't provide for their own families? What of the sweatshops that make our clothes? There are people who work 20 hours a day for less than a dollar, and you say capitalism provides equal opportunity..


not even one billion since the US population is not that high


Please re-read the highlighted above.



still not a very good comparison, just because a person lives below america's poverty line does not mean that they are doing terribly in their own country.
520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Heaven
Offline
Posted 6/12/08
Hell no to capitalism im for social capitalism
397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 6/12/08
I think capitalism is cold-hearted and evil.

I just don't have any idea what anyone can actually do to "solve" the "problem" of capitalism.

Capitalism actually functions fundamentally on greed and hedonism. On top of that, it strips people either of resources or incentive to fight against it. Those exploited don't complain because they're too busy trying to survive. Besides, they don't have the resources to do so. Those in the middle don't complain because they're too busy trying to get on top. Those on top don't complain because... well, they're on top.

If you were to think about it like that, its a hard system to beat.
150479 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 6/12/08
Contrary to popular belief, an Capitalism does not severely cripple a party. Rather it just doesn't solve the monetary gap between the rich and the poor. Certainly the rich get richer but that doesn't equate to the poor becoming more poor. Say that the poor makes $1,000 compared to the rich with $1,000,000. An increase in profits say another $1,000,000 that goes to the rich whereas 1% of that is given to the poor as their wage, then that's a $10,000 increased income for the poor. The distribution of wealth may not have been solved but at least the poor get the chance to experience an increased standard of living even if it may not seem much.
16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 6/12/08
Let's all go back to being hippies ,maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.......
1652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/12/08

projectevo5 wrote:


froofroo123 wrote:


projectevo5 wrote:


froofroo123 wrote:

What I don't get is why some people say everyone has an equal opportunity in a capitalistic system. Apparently not, since there are how many billion people in the world living below America's poverty line? What some people don't see is the number of people that are being screwed over just so the few get what they want. Why are there tens of thousands of people dying every day from hunger when our supermarkets are horded with food? What of those African countries that are completely fucked over by international debt. It costs them billions just to pay the goddamn interest. What does free market globalization do for the farmers that can't provide for their own families? What of the sweatshops that make our clothes? There are people who work 20 hours a day for less than a dollar, and you say capitalism provides equal opportunity..


not even one billion since the US population is not that high


Please re-read the highlighted above.



still not a very good comparison, just because a person lives below america's poverty line does not mean that they are doing terribly in their own country.




and i can see how he is doing well in his own country
90 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 6/12/08

froofroo123 wrote:


projectevo5 wrote:


froofroo123 wrote:


projectevo5 wrote:


froofroo123 wrote:

What I don't get is why some people say everyone has an equal opportunity in a capitalistic system. Apparently not, since there are how many billion people in the world living below America's poverty line? What some people don't see is the number of people that are being screwed over just so the few get what they want. Why are there tens of thousands of people dying every day from hunger when our supermarkets are horded with food? What of those African countries that are completely fucked over by international debt. It costs them billions just to pay the goddamn interest. What does free market globalization do for the farmers that can't provide for their own families? What of the sweatshops that make our clothes? There are people who work 20 hours a day for less than a dollar, and you say capitalism provides equal opportunity..


not even one billion since the US population is not that high


Please re-read the highlighted above.



still not a very good comparison, just because a person lives below america's poverty line does not mean that they are doing terribly in their own country.




and i can see how he is doing well in his own country


so one picture proves your point? for every one starving person in africa, there is at least someone else, somewhere around the world thats surviving below America's poverty line. North America has a higher standard of living and thus more money is required in order to sustain such a lifestyle. we don't need more than a few hundred dollars in order to survive on the bare essentials.
5103 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / it's all in your...
Offline
Posted 6/13/08
My professor once told me that while Capitalism advertises free-trade, those with a low capital and income would find it hard to succeed when faced by gigantic corporations that seem to only get richer by the minute.
25644 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 6/13/08 , edited 6/13/08
Capitalism is based on small percentage of people who dictatorial lead their country.Capitalism is based on big buisness and free trade over social fundaments or any other political gesture.Crippiling and hampering any form of sensuality within the system proving it to be hectic for parts of the middle class and the lower class.Capitalism works only for a few decades due to that diversity isn`t necessary if that is the only usable source of energy.Now theirs prolific alternatives which downsize and proclamate a new form of government.
13133 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 7/3/08
Capitalism is economic imperialism or-at least-global capitalism is.(How can it not be?)How can the poor developing nations possibly compete w/the rich developed nations?They can't,thus,the rich developed nations 'prey' upon and exploit the poor developing nations.....& perpetuate their 'developing' status.(They arrest their development!)And, I'm referring-esp.-to the developing nations of sub-Saharan Africa & Latin America(The so-called 'South'.)China is a developing nation,but,due to strong cultural factors it is not so easily preyed upon or exploited-if at all.And,the same thing can be said of India,but to a-somewhat-lesser degree.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 7/4/08 , edited 7/4/08

Dusterbayala wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


Dusterbayala wrote:

I absolutely LOVE capitolism.... however, i love FREE MARKET capitolism, not the government regulated socialistic version the US has...

But then again, i'm an objectivist... you're only as good as the amount you can produce.

Read up on Ayn Rand.. you might find that interesting


She had some good ideas but really come on. Do you not find her to be just a bastardized Nietzsche? Read him he is far superior to her. I read The Foutainhead as lad and liked it quite a bit (I suspect because it played to my egotism) and then read Atlas Shrugged. I read it later in a life and I thought it was awful. Rand is far far to cruel in my opinion. The way she views society is not how it truly works (my opinion). Who is John Galt? Who gives a flying fuck?


You totally missed the point of Atlas Shrugged then, if all you focused on was the rhetorical question "who is John Galt" Keep in mind the book was written in 1957 (well actually the twelve years prior to) The was she portrays society is what was happening in those times. Women were not able to take the jobs they wanted, and could do, People blindly followed the government. (as they still kind of do) She's portraying an IDEAL to the world, not as the world really is. She's showing HER PHILOSPHY in action. She's not saying that everything will follow this path if a, b, and c aren't followed. She's showing one possible outcome.
Look at the money makers of today.
Look at the laws that govern them.
Look at the amounts of money that the business owners of today have to pay, just to stay in business.

She adresses (in a round about way) illegal aliens working, she adresses poor people and WHY they STAY poor. She adresses the things that society doesn't want to see.

She shows the problems and the issues that corporations and companies face EVERYDAY!

How can you not see what she's saying?

Or, are you a socialist? If you're a socialist, or a Kant fan, i could see why you'd hate her.

However, if you like free market, and open trade, without governmental restrictions and less taxation, an less government involvement, then you'd like her ideas that she shows in her books.

The basic essence of her ideas is that people should rely on their own ability. If a person is unwilling or unable to succeed, it's not the governments place to step in and force the ones who CAN succeed to pay for those who are unwilling or incapable of success.
This is why i'm against welfare, and against almost every socialistic ideal that the US has, with one exception. I'm all for the socialist education. Everyone should be educated and given that chance to succeed. Which, IMO, i don't think that Ms. Rand is against.

I know that as a small girl, she witness the first shots of the Bolshevik revolution. I know that she taught herself to read. and i know she's against organized religion.
All of these things are a part of who she is, and why she believes the way she does.

You said you read the Fountainhead, good for you. I'm glad you read that, however, it's a very rough story that focuses more on the world according to Mr. Rourk. rather the the entire world. It's a good story. It shows that you should stand up for what you believe in and succeed by your own merit.

Atlas Shrugged takes that idea ten million steps further.
Dagny achieves because she's willing to fight for everything her grandfather believes in, which is why she was the last one to go to Galt's Gulch.
The oath they all swear in Galt's Gulch is a great oath that everyone should share.


I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Ayn Rand


She also has said:

The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it.
Ayn Rand


Are you seeking the truth? or are you faltering in self denial?

You compare her to Nietzsche, that's good, at least you know her roots, the basic concepts in which she took a step further.

Every modern philospher has roots in another philosopher's work.
Ms. Rand also got quite a bit of her philosophy fro Aristotle. Maybe you should read up on aristotle as well.
She doesn't bring her philosophy into existentialism, with one exception, she does say this, about the concept of man.

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand


Sources:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ayn_rand.html
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_aynrand_biography
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1211-Existentialism_and_Ayn_Rand.aspx
http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rand.htm

So you can see for yourself, i'm not just pulling this out of my ass. I do happen to know quite a bit about Ayn Rand.


She is the worst philosopher/writer of the 20th century. She contributes nothing to philosophy (just rips off a bunch of others like Nietzsche, Kant, and Descartes) and her own 'objectivist' philosophy has internal contradictions and faults she cannot get out of. Not to mention her 'quotable' quotes are so general, they can be interpreted in a million different ways.
1352 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/11/08
Though my knowledge is limited, capitalism is basically one giant international pyramid scheme where the proletariat is fed idealolgies like the american dream while the rich stand atop their shoulders. right? Still beats communism. I think we've all seen how well that worked out. No matter which system we are to choose, someone will always get f*cked over in the end. I don't think capitalism is great system , some people get a head start and others don't even get a fighting chance, but the freedom and oppurtunity it offers makes it the best system we've got.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 7/12/08
Communism is ONE alternative to capitalism, not THE. Communism is an economic system, not a a political one. Therefore the result varies with the people that come into power. Castro is for instance much much gentler than Stalin. Mao had more plans than Allende, and was better at doing it. Communism is not necessarily a mess, or messes with the people. Communism has not been tried as many times communism. Also: capitalism has failed in many countries. All those bankrupt countries with still increasing debt: failed capitalism. The difference is: capitalism continues, because there is more money to be made by continuing. While communism fails by a complete lack of essential production and keeping alive services. But as I said: capitalism has still failed, many times. Other alternatives to capitalism are for instance agricultural ones with perhaps a little bit of goods trading, anarchist communities. Just saying there are more. Capitalism is historically speaking rather recent, in many countries just introduced.

The problem with developing countries are not as easy as them trying to deliver goods on the open market, and not being able to compete. You need planning, administration, resources, infrastructure. Many countries have regimes that just sells, put themselves in debt, and import too expensive goods. And this does not even include corruption. It is the envention ofthe modern finance system (banks) that has made colonialism obsolete. Even when poor countries get a regime that plans ahead, it can be replaced with a new one that doesn't easily. In modern economic systems everything is based on money also. Which for instance makes war more expensive. You can look at Egypt. Africas first modern state. Everything was going well. Tobacco and cotton being exported. 10doubled income. Yet in the end it didn't matter because of teh increasing debt. And this was where there was real planning. For development to happen in Latin America for instance, you need to take it real slow. But the comparison with further developed countries makes it seem too endless. People get too impatient. Also there is one area where people might get a very technologically advanced object: weapons. In Europe when development really started, the commoner had no or pathetic weapons. So riots would almost invariably get beaten down. Today you got bazookas to match the absence of cannons, and machine guns. Maybe not even odds, but enough to make real trouble, nothing of the old pitchfork vs cannon stuff. And there are a lot of troublemarkers Nationality, politics and religion makes sure of that. Making sure of instability and army expences. But debt is the essential factor.
13133 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 8/24/08

azino wrote:

Hell no to capitalism im for social capitalism

If Azino means market socialism for 'social capitalism',then,I agree with her 100%!
Global capitalism-a.k.a. 'economic imperialism'-is not going to survive the 21st century. Why? Simply because every nation could not possibly become capitalist.(Hell,not even a majority of nations could become capitalist.) Capitalism requires 'victims' in order to sustain itself. A few strong/wealthy nations,which,have 'traditionally' preyed upon the numerous weaker/poorer nations. What would happen if the 'strong' nations nolonger had the weaker nations to prey upon? Chaos is what would happen! Because the rich nations would nolonger be able to consume the lion's share of the world's resources. Which is another reason why the rise of China &-soon to be-India are regarded as 'threats'. 'Threats' to the 'traditional' order/run of things;and, 'threats',because, they threaten to greatly diminish the lion's share of the world's resources,which, the rich nations have grown extremely accustomed to & arrogantly think/feel,that, they deserve.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.