Does Capitalism represent the best economic ideology?

page 1 of 1 20 total items

EmpixusXast

The SyperSymmetric Soul

Cancel

Obviously, since the exhaustive fall of the only notorious opponent of Capitalism, that is Communism, no one has ever objurgated anymore our(at least for most) so-called perfect economic mechanism. Goofs like the Stock-Market-Crash-of-1929 were nothing more than little blunders created by money avidity according the capitalist henchmen . Notwithstanding, lurking beneath this pageantry of glorifications and propitious contemporary effects on rich nations, we ignore drastically the real underpinning blights of this ideology:for example, the mentality based on the will to maximize the profits, and this, even though it might have disastrous repercussions. For instance, wood industries don't care about destroying the majority of essential forests and chemical industries don't pay attention over the environment. If our recent sensibilization as regards these noxious acts didn't exist, it appeared they(industries, tycoons) will continue without any impediments. Just by seeing the monetary power of Bill Gates ( 100 billions of US dollars), capable thereby to inveigle the most stern of gouvernment, their influence increases in a tremendous trice and, of course, there are no limits( consequence of capitalism: mondialization). Indeed, a monarch had some powers but not as ominous as Tycoons' powers. At last , it exists a myriad of colloraries like the augmentation of poverty-richness discrepancy, thraldom of weak or fledgling nations by richer ones, etc. Furthermore, I have even heard that 4 % of population of the world possesses together the sum of all country PIB.
Interesting to see that this basic statement, profit motive, possesses so much consequences, not only good results.

Anyway, anyone, cogitate, mull over this and express yourselves.

Empixus Xast
:angry: :)

By the way, you can afford your own economic ideology coming from the figment of your imagination as an idea........

Cancel

Capitalism with government intervention is better than unrestricted capitalism.

Acyx

Ork Warlord

Cancel

Quote by ArinamiCapitalism with government intervention is better than unrestricted capitalism.

Laissez-faire capitalism, or the unrestricted sort you speak of is of course a nineteenth century system of economy that has very much outlived it's useful lifespan. Compassionate conservatives, and advocates of the unfettered free market will claim that by loosening up restrictions on big business and granting the upper class kickbacks and tax cuts will provide economic incentive for growth, but this is all just an excuse to dismantle the new deal and funnel more wealth upward.

Capitalism is not a bad system when properly regulated and bridled, although when you remove the yoke that keeps it under control, you begin to see many of the practices that it has been infamous for in portrayals such as Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", and other sorts of illegal or deleterious activity. Laissez-faire capitalism in it's essence does not care about the average worker, once the unions are (completely) disassembled and broken, the wages bottom out to paltry levels, and practices such as hiring on scabs, rampant outsourcing, and blacklisting occur.

The environment according to most capitalist enterprise is an afterthought as Arinami mentioned above. The costs of harvesting or extraction of resources is taken into account, although none of the long-term environmental effects are mentioned, or have any mind paid to them. This shortsightedness is of course extremely dangerous in the ecological context for obvious reasons. With decreasing biodiversity and habitat destruction comes the prospect that within the next fifty years if changes are not made, that we may very well be in serious trouble as a species.

There is an old Chinese curse that states: "May you live in interesting times."; And to date, we do live in times that do resound with this same epitaph. It is not too late to reverse the problems that are present in this society, or worldwide. Many aspects such as unbridled individualism (along the lines of laissez-faire) in the big business environment cannot be allowed to exist, sure it nets in more votes for the politicians who endorse such measure, although in the long run it is more harmful to the economy, and the nation's people than it is beneficial. Perhaps one day people will realize this, that there is more to their choice of candidate than the "moral" issues that are tacked onto or associated with each respective party. Destruction of series of particularly momentous reforms (I.E. the proposed privatization of social security) in favor of policies that favor tax cuts to the rich should raise more than a few warning lights, especially when the economic policy of the current Republican party was all laid and set in stone almost eighty years ago, with a treasurer named Andrew Mellon; And all of it matches to a near perfect degree of what I mentioned above.

Still, either the current system needs to be either re-tooled and modified to be once again made free of the de-regulations, or replaced entirely with an alternate system, or perhaps even a new economic system that we do not currently possess. Existing as it does will inevitably lead to disaster, perhaps even another great depression which will take years to recover from. I'd certainly hope that there is at least some foresight to prevent these sorts of things from spiraling completely out of control, as of yet, it is apparent that nobody in the business world is doing much thinking ahead, and that worries me.

Then again, perhaps they're all so far entrenched in their bubbles that they don't want to think ahead, and through their sickness of greed have refused to acknowledge consequences for their actions. Either it's government regulation or extensive overhaul for peaceful solution, no others will do if we are to keep a stable economy.

"And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and large chu..."

  • May 31, 2006

miaowmiaowmiaow

miaowmiaowmiaow

In pursuit of a glorious dream.

Cancel

My stand is just based on my knowledge of the history of economics...

The best economic policy is determined by our current resource demand, currency, trends, and the status of the world market. For example, looking back in the times where money is just gold or olive oil, the most appropriate policy might be feudalism or the like. Now we have money and international trade, it can be considered capitalism. In the future where bank money becomes the general means of currency, changes can be made to modify our current system. Government control over several market failures can be modified in the future. Allthough capitalism might have become an appropriate economic policy, it will become obsolete in the future where our lifestyles and technology are different.

Economy evolves; no policy will ever be permanently the best.

"Truth is relative"
A statement which is relatively true...

  • May 31, 2006
Cancel

Quote by ArinamiCapitalism with government intervention is better than unrestricted capitalism.

It's really hard to make this claim. What you're saying is correct if, and only if, the government has no vested interest in the corporations themselves. Heard of the railroad monopolies? Those were due entirely to government intervention. The purpose of government is to protect people from each other and from other powers. That's it. By involving themselves in economics, yes they find a way to tame and control the wild fluctuations, but they also heavily regulate policies that influence how business happens. Becuase of this, it is in big business's best interest to get a hold of politicians' ears and make it worth their while to pay attention to what big business wants. Better yet, make all the top government officials (oil?) (weapons?) tycoons and see where that leads you. Wait, I guess we've already done that.

  • May 31, 2006
Cancel

capitalism is dead its all globalization now

  • May 31, 2006

EternalParadox

Retired Moderator

EternalParadox

.:Enigma Mod:.

Cancel

Quote: capitalism is dead its all globalization now

Please do not make such uninformed assertions. Globalization is an effect of the free flow of capital across national boundaries. In otherwords, it is an effect of capitalism in the global economy. Globalization is not a system of economy.

Quote by miaowmiaowmiaowMy stand is just based on my knowledge of the history of economics...

The best economic policy is determined by our current resource demand, currency, trends, and the status of the world market. For example, looking back in the times where money is just gold or olive oil, the most appropriate policy might be feudalism or the like. Now we have money and international trade, it can be considered capitalism. In the future where bank money becomes the general means of currency, changes can be made to modify our current system. Government control over several market failures can be modified in the future. Allthough capitalism might have become an appropriate economic policy, it will become obsolete in the future where our lifestyles and technology are different.

Economy evolves; no policy will ever be permanently the best.

What you describe is still mixed market economy. A generally free flow of capital with certain government interventions, present or future, is still the definition of a mixed economy, regardless of what specific form of currency is used.

Acyx:

Theoretically, a true laissez-faire market economy does not need to "care" for the worker, because the flow of labor capital will determine the required conditions that firms must provide in order for them to gain the necessary labor capital from the worker. The firms will have demand for the supply of labor. The "laws of supply and demand" in the resource market will determine the requisite "price" of labor, or wages as we normally term it. In practice, of course, that may not be the case, but in theory true supply-demand dynamics has its merits.

In order to completely make the economy free of de-regulations, as you support, then it is not merely the economic system that must change, but also the form of government. If we reverse all deregulation to regulation, then we have a planned economy more or less. From an efficiency perspective, an entirely planned economy lack the competitive edge to survive. Both the original Soviet and Chinese models of planned and heavily regulated economies faultered against foreign, free market competition. I think we have seen enough examples of the benefits of free market competition toward economic, technological, and social development.

The solution to many problems, in my view, is to fine tune continuously what and by how much the government regulates in a mixed economy. The real problem in what you have mentioned is not so much economic but rather the injection of political objectives into economic policy. How we solve that, well, I think that's up to another debate.

EternalParadox
Previously the Forum, Vector Art, and Policy Moderator

  • May 31, 2006

Inuyasha-FAN

Inuyasha-FAN

I'm back

Cancel

Quote by seanchroniccapitalism is dead its all globalization now

No, It is not "Dead" Capitalism is still very much Alive. In my opinion still the best.

Captialism did not start the Stock Market Crash of 1929, The people did because they stoped buying and they all Sold they're stock, how is that Capitalism's falt? Captialistic Country's are very rich, well most of them. It is better then most others, such as Commusnism, Fashism, and some others. In my opinion Captialism is the Top and will remain as a top kind of Govement. It doesnt matter if Bill Gates is a very Rich man. He did it all of those things.

  • Jun 01, 2006
Cancel

going back to the topic question. capitalism is not the best economic ideology. and ideal economy requires ideal citizens, and man is far from ideal. Take communism for example, if taken in its ideal state, it would work and benefit everyone, but man is corrupt and corrupts what he touches. Capitalism was desigeined to minimize the corruption and keep the economy running though it does have its issues. so, "ideally" capitalism is not the best choice, but in reality (and due to man) it is one of the most pratical methods.

  • Jun 05, 2006

ShrinkNerv4Eva

ShrinkNerv4Eva

Wanna-be Anime Junkie

Cancel

Quote by Heerothegreatgoing back to the topic question. capitalism is not the best economic ideology. and ideal economy requires ideal citizens, and man is far from ideal. Take communism for example, if taken in its ideal state, it would work and benefit everyone, but man is corrupt and corrupts what he touches. Capitalism was desigeined to minimize the corruption and keep the economy running though it does have its issues. so, "ideally" capitalism is not the best choice, but in reality (and due to man) it is one of the most pratical methods.

I kind of agree with this. Communism is closer to an ideal economic system, but ideal systems do not fit the real world. Capitalism works by taking advantage of people's greed and since it's base is something non-ideal, it cannot be ideal either.

  • Jun 05, 2006
Cancel

Capitalism encourages people to love money and status, which tends to make them unhappy.

This isn't really a good idea.

blazinstreaks

blazinstreaks

Persocom Technician

Cancel

Capitalism isn't the best ideology. But it's the best working one we've got so far.

  • Jun 12, 2006

candy-chan

Retired Moderator

candy-chan

Cancel

bis.

Shinsengumi89

Shinsengumi89

The Watcher of Movies

Cancel

Yeah i agree with mineban.

http://mt-environmentalists.minitokyo.net/ -Protect the Environment
http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/ - Philosophy is disscused here.
http://true-colors.minitokyo.net/ - Human Rights Group
http://mt-gay-straight-club.minitokyo.net/ - We help bridge the gaps between the different sexual orientations.

  • Jun 18, 2006
Cancel

The ideology behind capitalism is that performance is rewarded. I work hard to make a product, and then I sell that product at a value I deem reasonable to recompense the materials used and the time it took me to make it.

If I make an inferior product, and there are others in competition with me, those who make a superior product will benefit and I will not.

Some miniscule government regulation to ensure that the products we purchase are safe and useable helps to give us a serviceable society.

  • Jun 21, 2006
Cancel

I like the idea of communisim however I know that the system can become corrupted very easily (ex. J. Stalin). Capitalisim to me is based on greed and only so many higher ups get the rewards from it.

  • Jun 22, 2006
Cancel

Man is not tainted. I'm tired of this idea of the rooted evil of mankind. Everyone (and I mean everyone) acts according to the enviroment where everyone lives and grows. Such as an animal has to adapt to the enviroment in order to strive and survive, so does man. But, man has a difference: he can create his own enviroment. He can modify the structures, so that there is no place for this 'rooted evil' everyone is out there talking about. If we just remember that there are things that are actually wrong, that there are a set of morals that have to be followed to achieve universal convivence, we may see that it isn't all fault of a supposed inner evil. If we just forget our everyday boundaries and dream of a world without the limits that today's society presses on our minds, then we may be a step closer to a perfect society.

Capitalism is by no means the best system. The best system is that which makes everyone of us equal, and that where no issues arrive (because, if it is the best, why would there be problems at all?). Capitalism is full of problems. And if we say that it's the best we got so far, and we stop just with that statement, it means we can't look ahead of ourselves. We have to see our problems, we have to fight, we have to strive to make a better society, to reform the current structures so that less and less problems begin to arise. And I don't mean only enviromental issues, I mean human issues too. Africa like we know it today is a big consecuence of capitalism. South America, where I live, is a consecuence of Capitalism. And it ain't nice. But we have to believe that, always, where there are still problems, that we can be better. If we can do that, many things will start to change.

  • Jun 26, 2006

zeroenna57

zeroenna57

The Ultimate Eye/ Jew

Cancel

John D. Rockefeller and Carnegie Melon both ran monopolies on there businesses and became rich while others suffered did you know that America once owned 90% of the worlds oil supply due to the fact of Rockefeller? practically all off the world was getting oil from us and we were prospering until the Great Depression all because of Laissez-Faire which is why a Mixed Economy is much better

"Always do the right thing. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest" -Mark Twain
Signature
	Image

  • Jun 26, 2006

Krawczyk

Wzwejtes

Cancel

Blame christians, WK. Just a way of throwing the blame off of themselves. At least it's gotten a little better in the modern era, don't see too many go "Can't convict me! Devilmademedoit!" and get off nowadays.
Falls to lack of responsibilty or apathy, every time.

A fish should swim thrice: in water, in sauce, and in wine.

  • Jun 26, 2006
Cancel

Quote by wanderingknightMan is not tainted. I'm tired of this idea of the rooted evil of mankind. Everyone (and I mean everyone) acts according to the enviroment where everyone lives and grows. Such as an animal has to adapt to the enviroment in order to strive and survive, so does man. But, man has a difference: he can create his own enviroment. He can modify the structures, so that there is no place for this 'rooted evil' everyone is out there talking about. If we just remember that there are things that are actually wrong, that there are a set of morals that have to be followed to achieve universal convivence, we may see that it isn't all fault of a supposed inner evil. If we just forget our everyday boundaries and dream of a world without the limits that today's society presses on our minds, then we may be a step closer to a perfect society.


Regardless of religion, accepting that humans are flawed creatures is pretty essential to living at all successfully, and I don't see how this can be argued. Your theory seems to state that if everyone lived in the same ideal environment, so-called human flaws would not manifest (forgive me if I interpreted this wrongly).

But any look at people growing up in similar homes, in similar neighborhoods shows they can result in very different people, even people who live in the same home, go to the same school etc. There are the murderers who were never mistreated or in want, came from good families, never got in trouble and such just as there are delinquent kids from inner cities who become great religious or cummunity leaders.

Frankly I don't see how any environment can ever be made where all humans can get what they want, especially when so much of what so many want effects what others want. If you want to make comparisons to animals the result is the same. It doesn't matter what environment my pet dog is in or how well he is fed, he'll still hoard any food he gets and try to snatch what he can from any other dog he can. Selfishness is as instinctual in humans as altruism is, if not more so, hence the great paradox that is humanity.o_0

I think I agree with what one wise man once said (I forget who though unfortunately ^_^'), "Capitalism is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms."

  • Jun 27, 2006

page 1 of 1 20 total items

Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.