This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Lethalhazard"]Couldn't stand no environment guidelines. Communism.jetpower3
Wasn't the Soviet Union a monstrous polluter to the point that it helped hasten the disintegration of the system? I don't see how communism automatically assumes any more of a concern for the environment.
correct, and lets not forget communist china's record for pollution. under a capitalistic market, true externality's would naturally regulate companies into making sound environmental decision.[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Wouldn't complete free market capitalism have a similar effect to communism? Instead of government-owned monopolies, you'd have corporate monopolies, and there would be just as little incentive to improve the product. The only difference would be the government would hold some responsibility to control the working conditions and emissions, whereas the corporations would hold no care for anything other than making products at the lowest possible price. Your only hope of a better life in the free market scenario would be to get in on that top 0.1% of the world's population that would hold all the money and power.Major_Commietrue free markets can in fact lead to communism, even without violating any rules of individualism. your both mistaking capitalism with corporatism, big difference
[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"] lol that couldnt be further from the truth lol Most if not all true laissez-faire capitalist philosophers predict under a trust capitalist system there will be no monopolies what so ever since there will be no government regulation to companies entering the market or government favortism. The market will determine which companies succedd while there will always be oppportunities for other companies to enter the market. If a companie abuses its powers people will buy from another company since its a free market. UnknownmuncherYou over-estimate the general public. how is assuming a few powerful people at the top deciding whats good for society and using some sort of utilitiarian calculous more productive than the market doing the consuming in the first place? i'd rather think myself as a person, just like everybody else can decide my own choices in what i consumer, rather than someone making that decision for me That wasn't even remotely related to my statement, I just said you over-estimate the general public.
[QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="Lethalhazard"]Couldn't stand no environment guidelines. Communism.Unknownmuncher
Wasn't the Soviet Union a monstrous polluter to the point that it helped hasten the disintegration of the system? I don't see how communism automatically assumes any more of a concern for the environment.
correct, and lets not forget communist china's record for pollution. under a capitalistic market, true externality's would naturally regulate companies into making sound environmental decision. That sounds great in theory, but when it comes to the actual application, why would government regulation for pollution, environmental protection, etc even be an issue if this was the case?
I feel like you're asking "How would you rather die? AIDS or Leukemia?" But I'll go with the extreme capitalist side; people would eventually get pissed and the military wouldn't necessarily step in to stop them.
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]Wouldn't complete free market capitalism have a similar effect to communism? Instead of government-owned monopolies, you'd have corporate monopolies, and there would be just as little incentive to improve the product. The only difference would be the government would hold some responsibility to control the working conditions and emissions, whereas the corporations would hold no care for anything other than making products at the lowest possible price. Your only hope of a better life in the free market scenario would be to get in on that top 0.1% of the world's population that would hold all the money and power.Unknownmunchertrue free markets can in fact lead to communism, even without violating any rules of individualism. . your both mistaking capitalism with corporatism, big difference
im not confusing anythibg, voluntary communism can easily be applied inside a capitalist structure. you had no reason to say anything about corporatism unless you dont know what it is
in order for the market to correct its self it would need initial situations that were bad, as in ecoli or just an unsafe product in general. by allowing it to happen in the first place you are devaluing the rest of humanity in favor of individual business owners. negative, in a true capitalistic society, it would be governed by property rights, thus there is still ramifications to a company (ex. food) having ecoli in their product. Common ignorant assumption that a pure capitalistic market has absolutely no regulation. What if everyone who owns property decides to share? pure capitalism DOES have no regulation. your little conservative swing in the past 6 months isnt fooling anyone. what you learned while watching glenn beck apparently wasnt enough[QUOTE="Major_Commie"][QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"] lol that couldnt be further from the truth lol Most if not all true laissez-faire capitalist philosophers predict under a trust capitalist system there will be no monopolies what so ever since there will be no government regulation to companies entering the market or government favortism. The market will determine which companies succedd while there will always be oppportunities for other companies to enter the market. If a companie abuses its powers people will buy from another company since its a free market. Unknownmuncher
[QUOTE="RushMetallica"]Capitolism, but not laisez-faire. True Keneasian (or however its spelled) works the best. If only people could view things long-term.SeanDog123No it doesn't... Keynesian economics are fun and easy, but only build up debt long term. Thats the problem, we don't use the second part. In upturns, the government is supposed to be rid of social security, so that it can afford it in a downturn.
Laissez-Fire Capitalism is equivalant to anarchy. You get big gangs taking advantage of the population.
Laissez-Fire Capitalism is equivalant to anarchy. You get big gangs taking advantage of the population.
EMOEVOLUTION
At least there are multiple "big gangs" than one "gang" that has no incentive to attract but rather force the person.
[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]
Laissez-Fire Capitalism is equivalant to anarchy. You get big gangs taking advantage of the population.
leviathan91
At least there are multiple "big gangs" than one "gang" that has no incentive to attract but rather force the person.
I don't buy that. The centralized structure.. at least has some interest in self preservation.. which would be beneficial to the entire population..It's emotion based because its so sad to me that America is becoming a socialist country. The free market produces the best products at the lowest cost because the people determine them. Socialism is very far from freedom, and very close to communism.[QUOTE="SeanDog123"][QUOTE="Major_Commie"] such compelling (emotion based) arguments.theone86
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
If that were true people would only pay enough for a product to justify its production cost plus the profit necessary to keep the company operational. You need only to look to the profits companies are posting for things as simple as toys to see that statement is false.
Actually, if you look at the profit margins of companies in high-competition markets, you'll often see that its pretty close to true (There will, of course, always be some level of profit as that's the motivating factor).Retail chains, for instance, usually operate on very thin profit margins.[QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]
Laissez-Fire Capitalism is equivalant to anarchy. You get big gangs taking advantage of the population.
EMOEVOLUTION
At least there are multiple "big gangs" than one "gang" that has no incentive to attract but rather force the person.
I don't buy that. The centralized structure.. at least has some interest in self preservation.. which would be beneficial to the entire population..Sounds great to have a centralized structure. Too bad it doesn't work, otherwise the US public education system would be the best in the world and collective farming wouldn't of starved millions of Russians.
Competition works because when you have people who are wise enough not to spend like crazy, competitors would have to compete to sway them. And they can't just force them, otherwise they wouldn't be a success. When you have a centralized structure, what incentive does it have to achieve the best for its people? They have the power and the law on their side.
I don't buy that. The centralized structure.. at least has some interest in self preservation.. which would be beneficial to the entire population..[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]
At least there are multiple "big gangs" than one "gang" that has no incentive to attract but rather force the person.
leviathan91
Sounds great to have a centralized structure. Too bad it doesn't work, otherwise the US public education system would be the best in the world and collective farming wouldn't of starved millions of Russians.
Competition works because when you have people who are wise enough not to spend like crazy, competitors would have to compete to sway them. And they can't just force them, otherwise they wouldn't be a success. When you have a centralized structure, what incentive does it have to achieve the best for its people? They have the power and the law on their side.
IT works better than giving free reign to corporations.I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.
Ace_WondersX
what about the idiot who got millions from mcdonald's for spilling coffee on herself while driving? lol
in order for the market to correct its self it would need initial situations that were bad, as in ecoli or just an unsafe product in general. by allowing it to happen in the first place you are devaluing the rest of humanity in favor of individual business owners.Major_Commienegative, in a true capitalistic society, it would be governed by property rights, thus there is still ramifications to a company (ex. food) having ecoli in their product. Common ignorant assumption that a pure capitalistic market has absolutely no regulation. What if everyone who owns property decides to share? pure capitalism DOES have no regulation. your little conservative swing in the past 6 months isnt fooling anyone. what you learned while watching glenn beck apparently wasnt enough now now lets leave the personal attacks to the side. 1) i started reposting here about a month ago, 2) glenn beck is a tool and being pro war isnt exactly a capitalistic ideal, ex. war costs money and to raise the money either money is printed causing inflation, or the people are taxed. doesnt sound to capitalistic free market/individual rights to me, but you knew that already.... bahah
in order for the market to correct its self it would need initial situations that were bad, as in ecoli or just an unsafe product in general. by allowing it to happen in the first place you are devaluing the rest of humanity in favor of individual business owners.Major_Commienegative, in a true capitalistic society, it would be governed by property rights, thus there is still ramifications to a company (ex. food) having ecoli in their product. Common ignorant assumption that a pure capitalistic market has absolutely no regulation. What if everyone who owns property decides to share? pure capitalism DOES have no regulation. your little conservative swing in the past 6 months isnt fooling anyone. what you learned while watching glenn beck apparently wasnt enough pure capitalism does have regulation, its called property rights. also known as the theory of liberty, this isnt exactly something i made up or is unknown, its a pretty common idea that is generally accepted as the regulatory body of a pure capitalist society, i suggest you do some readings, i could suggest some if you wanted, just pm me
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"][QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"] negative, in a true capitalistic society, it would be governed by property rights, thus there is still ramifications to a company (ex. food) having ecoli in their product. Common ignorant assumption that a pure capitalistic market has absolutely no regulation.What if everyone who owns property decides to share? pure capitalism DOES have no regulation. your little conservative swing in the past 6 months isnt fooling anyone. what you learned while watching glenn beck apparently wasnt enough pure capitalism does have regulation, its called property rights. also known as the theory of liberty, this isnt exactly something i made up or is unknown, its a pretty common idea that is generally accepted as the regulatory body of a pure capitalist society, i suggest you do some readings, i could suggest some if you wanted, just pm me What? pure capitalism doesn't guarantee civil liberties.. that's actual a socialistic ideal. That only a centralized government could ensure.Unknownmuncher
[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]
Laissez-Fire Capitalism is equivalant to anarchy. You get big gangs taking advantage of the population.
At least there are multiple "big gangs" than one "gang" that has no incentive to attract but rather force the person.
I don't buy that. The centralized structure.. at least has some interest in self preservation.. which would be beneficial to the entire population.. question: how exactly do you figure a centralized structure who you admit, first interest is self preservation, be more benefitial to the general public than say a free market where the general public first self interest is the general public itself aka the market[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]I don't buy that. The centralized structure.. at least has some interest in self preservation.. which would be beneficial to the entire population.. question: how exactly do you figure a centralized structure who you admit, first interest is self preservation, be more benefitial to the general public than say a free market where the general public first self interest is the general public itself aka the market because.. the crossfire between the competing corporations would cause far more damages on a population of people than a central authority would ever be capable of doing.At least there are multiple "big gangs" than one "gang" that has no incentive to attract but rather force the person.
Unknownmuncher
pure capitalism does have regulation, its called property rights. also known as the theory of liberty, this isnt exactly something i made up or is unknown, its a pretty common idea that is generally accepted as the regulatory body of a pure capitalist society, i suggest you do some readings, i could suggest some if you wanted, just pm me What? pure capitalism doesn't guarantee civil liberties.. that's actual a socialistic ideal. That only a centralized government could ensure. pure capitalism guarentee indivdiual liberities 100%, the whole idea is voluntary trade of private property without infringing on other peoples natural rights. a socialistic ideal of 100% civil liberties is laughable since its basis is social intervention whihc in itself takes away the rights of those affected[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"][QUOTE="Major_Commie"] What if everyone who owns property decides to share? pure capitalism DOES have no regulation. your little conservative swing in the past 6 months isnt fooling anyone. what you learned while watching glenn beck apparently wasnt enoughEMOEVOLUTION
[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]What? pure capitalism doesn't guarantee civil liberties.. that's actual a socialistic ideal. That only a centralized government could ensure. pure capitalism guarentee indivdiual liberities 100%, the whole idea is voluntary trade of private property without infringing on other peoples natural rights. a socialistic ideal of 100% civil liberties is laughable since its basis is social intervention whihc in itself takes away the rights of those affected[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"] pure capitalism does have regulation, its called property rights. also known as the theory of liberty, this isnt exactly something i made up or is unknown, its a pretty common idea that is generally accepted as the regulatory body of a pure capitalist society, i suggest you do some readings, i could suggest some if you wanted, just pm meUnknownmuncher
not at all.. the corporations will exploit the population and force them to buy their products, even if they are inferior quality.. it's no different than tyranny. You need a regulating force to guarantee civil liberties. But, I don't really want to get into this. Because we're not going to agree no matter what we say to each other. it's equivalant to anarchy.
pure capitalism guarentee indivdiual liberities 100%, the whole idea is voluntary trade of private property without infringing on other peoples natural rights. a socialistic ideal of 100% civil liberties is laughable since its basis is social intervention whihc in itself takes away the rights of those affected[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"]What? pure capitalism doesn't guarantee civil liberties.. that's actual a socialistic ideal. That only a centralized government could ensure.
EMOEVOLUTION
It also means 100% liberty for the powerful to treat the less powerful like garbage. And garbage doesn't have much freedom to do anything other than end up in a landfill.
question: how exactly do you figure a centralized structure who you admit, first interest is self preservation, be more benefitial to the general public than say a free market where the general public first self interest is the general public itself aka the market because.. the crossfire between the competing corporations would cause far more damages on a population of people than a central authority would ever be capable of doing. how is competition between companies damaging to society... this also contradicting your claim that there would be no competition in a capitalist society but only monopolies or one big central company who sells a good.... whihc is it a monopoly or competition. I admit i dont quite understand your argument, you say "the cross fire of COMPETING corporations" is bad (so competitive markets), and yet then you say a centralized authority is good but also you say a big central monopoly is bad. So you think a central authority is good? yet a central monopoly (which let it be noted taht i claim will not exist in capitalistic society) to each market is bad.... hhhmmm[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] I don't buy that. The centralized structure.. at least has some interest in self preservation.. which would be beneficial to the entire population.. EMOEVOLUTION
pure capitalism guarentee indivdiual liberities 100%, the whole idea is voluntary trade of private property without infringing on other peoples natural rights. a socialistic ideal of 100% civil liberties is laughable since its basis is social intervention whihc in itself takes away the rights of those affected[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] What? pure capitalism doesn't guarantee civil liberties.. that's actual a socialistic ideal. That only a centralized government could ensure.
EMOEVOLUTION
not at all.. the corporations will exploit the population and force them to buy their products, even if they are inferior quality.. it's no different than tyranny. You need a regulating force to guarantee civil liberties. But, I don't really want to get into this. Because we're not going to agree no matter what we say to each other. it's equivalant to anarchy.
tyranny does not equal a free market lol, and with your comment on anarchy, do you even understand the definition of market anarchy? you realize most modern socialist philosophers advocate anarchist communision, or anarcho syndacalism. For example i did quick search and this is a direct quote from "Anarchism" on its wiki page: "Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[12][13][14] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics;" key words incase you dont realize include: left wing, communism, collectivsim, syndiclism.tyranny does not equal a free market lol, and with your comment on anarchy, do you even understand the definition of market anarchy? you realize most modern socialist philosophers advocate anarchist communision, or anarcho syndacalism. For example i did quick search and this is a direct quote from "Anarchism" on its wiki page: "Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[12][13][14] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics;" key words incase you dont realize include: left wing, communism, collectivsim, syndiclism.Unknownmuncher
Tyranny is just as likely in a free market as it is an entirely socialistic one. The corperation has the power to controll all means of production and exploits the population. It's just a question of who you want to give the power of tyranny.. and you're choosing the corperation. There is not fair competition in pure capitalism. The bigger businesses will use strong armed tactics to ensure they don't have compeitition.
[QUOTE="Major_Commie"][QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"] negative, in a true capitalistic society, it would be governed by property rights, thus there is still ramifications to a company (ex. food) having ecoli in their product. Common ignorant assumption that a pure capitalistic market has absolutely no regulation.What if everyone who owns property decides to share? pure capitalism DOES have no regulation. your little conservative swing in the past 6 months isnt fooling anyone. what you learned while watching glenn beck apparently wasnt enough pure capitalism does have regulation, its called property rights. also known as the theory of liberty, this isnt exactly something i made up or is unknown, its a pretty common idea that is generally accepted as the regulatory body of a pure capitalist society, i suggest you do some readings, i could suggest some if you wanted, just pm me pure capitalism is the absence of all economic regulations outside of the government stepping in during a breach of contract. if a company spread ecoli the government would not step in. property rights are not considered regulations.Unknownmuncher
[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]What? pure capitalism doesn't guarantee civil liberties.. that's actual a socialistic ideal. That only a centralized government could ensure. pure capitalism guarentee indivdiual liberities 100%, the whole idea is voluntary trade of private property without infringing on other peoples natural rights. a socialistic ideal of 100% civil liberties is laughable since its basis is social intervention whihc in itself takes away the rights of those affected[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"] pure capitalism does have regulation, its called property rights. also known as the theory of liberty, this isnt exactly something i made up or is unknown, its a pretty common idea that is generally accepted as the regulatory body of a pure capitalist society, i suggest you do some readings, i could suggest some if you wanted, just pm meUnknownmuncher
the problem with that is that it often gives certain individuals too much power over others. if someone buys the land surrounding you you're screwed. it was all voluntary, but the guy in the middle isnt free. this is one example of how capitalism cannot be freedom
tyranny does not equal a free market lol, and with your comment on anarchy, do you even understand the definition of market anarchy? you realize most modern socialist philosophers advocate anarchist communision, or anarcho syndacalism. For example i did quick search and this is a direct quote from "Anarchism" on its wiki page: "Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[12][13][14] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics;" key words incase you dont realize include: left wing, communism, collectivsim, syndiclism.Unknownmuncher
Tyranny is just as likely in a free market as it is an entirely socialistic one. The corperation has the power to controll all means of production and exploits the population. It's just a question of who you want to give the power of tyranny.. and you're choosing the corperation. There is not fair competition in pure capitalism. The bigger businesses will use strong armed tactics to ensure they don't have compeitition.
asdasdasdqafd "there is not fair competition in pure capitalism", how can you say something like that, its rediculous, do you even understand the definition of pure capitalism? a free market with equal competitive markets, inwhihc everybody has an equal opportunity to enter the market. The point of the thread was the ideal of each option, the ideal of capitalism would be a free market with a fair chance of competition entering. Lets stick to the question of the thread instead of coming up with our own separate definition of each system.[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] What? pure capitalism doesn't guarantee civil liberties.. that's actual a socialistic ideal. That only a centralized government could ensure.
pure capitalism guarentee indivdiual liberities 100%, the whole idea is voluntary trade of private property without infringing on other peoples natural rights. a socialistic ideal of 100% civil liberties is laughable since its basis is social intervention whihc in itself takes away the rights of those affectedthe problem with that is that it often gives certain individuals too much power over others. if someone buys the land surrounding you you're screwed. it was all voluntary, but the guy in the middle isnt free. this is one example of how capitalism cannot be freedom
again id really rather not be spitting out the same old arguments time and time again, i suggest you do some research on what pure capitalism really it. this issue would be resolved the same way it was in medival iceland, in terms of social contract, communial contract would apply, pretty simple solutiontyranny does not equal a free market lol, and with your comment on anarchy, do you even understand the definition of market anarchy? you realize most modern socialist philosophers advocate anarchist communision, or anarcho syndacalism. For example i did quick search and this is a direct quote from "Anarchism" on its wiki page: "Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[12][13][14] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics;" key words incase you dont realize include: left wing, communism, collectivsim, syndiclism.Unknownmuncher
Tyranny is just as likely in a free market as it is an entirely socialistic one. The corperation has the power to controll all means of production and exploits the population. It's just a question of who you want to give the power of tyranny.. and you're choosing the corperation. There is not fair competition in pure capitalism. The bigger businesses will use strong armed tactics to ensure they don't have compeitition.
asdasdasdqafd "there is not fair competition in pure capitalism", how can you say something like that, its rediculous, do you even understand the definition of pure capitalism? a free market with equal competitive markets, inwhihc everybody has an equal opportunity to enter the market. The point of the thread was the ideal of each option, the ideal of capitalism would be a free market with a fair chance of competition entering. Lets stick to the question of the thread instead of coming up with our own separate definition of each system. I understand it perfectly.. a definition.. is nothing more than an ideal. It doesn't predict what will actually happen. There will be poor labor practices.. and large businesses will corner the market through strong arm tactics, and thuggery. You can believe in your ideal that this pure an entirely free market would make things cheap, and create better business, but then you'd be lying to yourself.tyranny does not equal a free market lol, and with your comment on anarchy, do you even understand the definition of market anarchy? you realize most modern socialist philosophers advocate anarchist communision, or anarcho syndacalism. For example i did quick search and this is a direct quote from "Anarchism" on its wiki page: "Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[12][13][14] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics;" key words incase you dont realize include: left wing, communism, collectivsim, syndiclism.Unknownmuncher
Tyranny is just as likely in a free market as it is an entirely socialistic one. The corperation has the power to controll all means of production and exploits the population. It's just a question of who you want to give the power of tyranny.. and you're choosing the corperation. There is not fair competition in pure capitalism. The bigger businesses will use strong armed tactics to ensure they don't have compeitition.
asdasdasdqafd "there is not fair competition in pure capitalism", how can you say something like that, its rediculous, do you even understand the definition of pure capitalism? a free market with equal competitive markets, inwhihc everybody has an equal opportunity to enter the market. The point of the thread was the ideal of each option, the ideal of capitalism would be a free market with a fair chance of competition entering. Lets stick to the question of the thread instead of coming up with our own separate definition of each system. ... You seem to be confused.. The United States is not a pure capitalism, there are numerous regulations and laws to ensure there is fair compeititon.. IN the extreme, there is no such thing in which the elite choke the rest of the population.. This should be common sense..tyranny does not equal a free market lol, and with your comment on anarchy, do you even understand the definition of market anarchy? you realize most modern socialist philosophers advocate anarchist communision, or anarcho syndacalism. For example i did quick search and this is a direct quote from "Anarchism" on its wiki page: "Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[12][13][14] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics;" key words incase you dont realize include: left wing, communism, collectivsim, syndiclism.Unknownmuncher
Tyranny is just as likely in a free market as it is an entirely socialistic one. The corperation has the power to controll all means of production and exploits the population. It's just a question of who you want to give the power of tyranny.. and you're choosing the corperation. There is not fair competition in pure capitalism. The bigger businesses will use strong armed tactics to ensure they don't have compeitition.
asdasdasdqafd "there is not fair competition in pure capitalism", how can you say something like that, its rediculous, do you even understand the definition of pure capitalism? a free market with equal competitive markets, inwhihc everybody has an equal opportunity to enter the market. The point of the thread was the ideal of each option, the ideal of capitalism would be a free market with a fair chance of competition entering. Lets stick to the question of the thread instead of coming up with our own separate definition of each system. No, the point of the thread was Laissez-Faire Capitalism vs. communism, in other words two extremes. Competely free market =/= fair competition, in fact it would end up being quite the opposite.[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]What? pure capitalism doesn't guarantee civil liberties.. that's actual a socialistic ideal. That only a centralized government could ensure. pure capitalism guarentee indivdiual liberities 100%, the whole idea is voluntary trade of private property without infringing on other peoples natural rights. a socialistic ideal of 100% civil liberties is laughable since its basis is social intervention whihc in itself takes away the rights of those affected "Pure" capitalism does no such thing. All it leads to is an extremely unequal society and wage slavery, among other things. The entire reason the socialist movement was created and took off was as a response to all the suffering and hardship that was inflicting the working class in various capitalistic society around the world.[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"] pure capitalism does have regulation, its called property rights. also known as the theory of liberty, this isnt exactly something i made up or is unknown, its a pretty common idea that is generally accepted as the regulatory body of a pure capitalist society, i suggest you do some readings, i could suggest some if you wanted, just pm meUnknownmuncher
[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]asdasdasdqafd "there is not fair competition in pure capitalism", how can you say something like that, its rediculous, do you even understand the definition of pure capitalism? a free market with equal competitive markets, inwhihc everybody has an equal opportunity to enter the market. The point of the thread was the ideal of each option, the ideal of capitalism would be a free market with a fair chance of competition entering. Lets stick to the question of the thread instead of coming up with our own separate definition of each system. No, the point of the thread was Laissez-Faire Capitalism vs. communism, in other words two extremes. Competely free market =/= fair competition, in fact it would end up being quite the opposite.Tyranny is just as likely in a free market as it is an entirely socialistic one. The corperation has the power to controll all means of production and exploits the population. It's just a question of who you want to give the power of tyranny.. and you're choosing the corperation. There is not fair competition in pure capitalism. The bigger businesses will use strong armed tactics to ensure they don't have compeitition.
F1_2004
Not necessarily at all. Entry level competitors could start up under capitalism, and the leading competing firm would be forced to to compete. At any given point where a group of greedy investors think they could make money by undercutting a price jacking monopoly, there could be competition. I am unsure why there is this insistence that in a free market there would be more monopolies than competition. The only industries in which this could happen are those with extremely high barriers to entry.
[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]
I don't think a lot of people here understand what laissez-faire capitalism means. That means there is no regulations of trusts and monopolies, so almost every industry will surely be monopolized. No safety guidelines means, a company can sell you a appliance, and when it bursts into flames, they aren't at fault. Or when you get E. Coli from your food the company that made the food is not at fault.
HomicidalCherry
It is still vastly preferable to a society in which intelligence and hard-work has no reward.
Um no I disagree. Subjectively obviously. I dont mind being equated with everyone so long as I feel a bit safe. The descritpion Ace_Wonders gave didnt make feel safe at all.[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]asdasdasdqafd "there is not fair competition in pure capitalism", how can you say something like that, its rediculous, do you even understand the definition of pure capitalism? a free market with equal competitive markets, inwhihc everybody has an equal opportunity to enter the market. The point of the thread was the ideal of each option, the ideal of capitalism would be a free market with a fair chance of competition entering. Lets stick to the question of the thread instead of coming up with our own separate definition of each system. ... You seem to be confused.. The United States is not a pure capitalism, there are numerous regulations and laws to ensure there is fair compeititon.. IN the extreme, there is no such thing in which the elite choke the rest of the population.. This should be common sense..Tyranny is just as likely in a free market as it is an entirely socialistic one. The corperation has the power to controll all means of production and exploits the population. It's just a question of who you want to give the power of tyranny.. and you're choosing the corperation. There is not fair competition in pure capitalism. The bigger businesses will use strong armed tactics to ensure they don't have compeitition.
sSubZerOo
just being curious... but where exactly did i mention anything about the USA being anywhere close to pure capitalism lol....... bahah
hewkii, the reason that Wal-mart and other large corporations "control" the market is BECAUSE they keep prices low. This is why Wal-mart has so much control; They sell an enourmous amount of goods while maintaining an incredibly low profit-margin on each good sold. If they made a high profit-margin, then they would be driven out of the market place by competition.[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
[QUOTE="Hewkii"] so you prefer entity to control the entire market, but (hopefully) keep prices low, even though they have no incentive to do so, instead of entity to control the entire market, but (hopefully) keep prices low, even though they have no incentive to do so.chessmaster1989
in an unfettered market, profit always tends towards zero, and so the Capitalist is a deadweight on the system. The only reason companies make a profit is because of changes in the marketplace.
Assuming no barriers to entry, yes... but most markets will have some barriers to entry...
and because of certain institutions like hedge funds and banks, those barriers to entry can't be sustained.before the US instituted labor laws and other social protections and programs the ppl were basically being indentured servants to the corporate masters. workers had terrible working conditions and little recourse. do we really want to go back to those times before we had a middle class?OntainActually the reason that US workers earn so much nowadays than 150 years ago is because of Education and the massive amount of capital investment that corporations have made into workers. The more capital invested in workers, the more they produce, and by extension the more they get paid.
pure capitalism guarentee indivdiual liberities 100%, the whole idea is voluntary trade of private property without infringing on other peoples natural rights. a socialistic ideal of 100% civil liberties is laughable since its basis is social intervention whihc in itself takes away the rights of those affected "Pure" capitalism does no such thing. All it leads to is an extremely unequal society and wage slavery, among other things. The entire reason the socialist movement was created and took off was as a response to all the suffering and hardship that was inflicting the working class in various capitalistic society around the world. It's hard to call a system where the military breaks up labor strikes "capitalistic"[QUOTE="Unknownmuncher"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] What? pure capitalism doesn't guarantee civil liberties.. that's actual a socialistic ideal. That only a centralized government could ensure.
-Sun_Tzu-
great posts ^^^
You don't know much about politics do you? Perfect communism, is theoretically the best way to govern a country. No one get's extra, no one get's less, and everyone has a job to do. People work for society, they don't work for self benefit. It may take a lot of enjoyment out of life for the upper class people, but the middle class stays the same and the lower class gets raised to middle. (Just theoretically speaking here, I bet the middle class would lose some luxuries too if we were governed in perfect communism. Of course, it is very hard to have perfect communism. You need a leader who is not power hungry (as well as having the same standard of living as everyone else), and you have to convince people that their role in society is the best possible thing they could do for themselves. It may sound bad and controlling, but it's the only way to ensure everyone's needs are met. Celebrities who have millions of dollars, fancy houses and over ten different cars would be stripped and brought down a few notches, while the families in developing countries would be brought up a few notches, and given a better chance of having shelter, clean water and food (if we had perfect communism on a global scale). On paper, it sounds nice, in reality, it would never work. Human's like their freedom of choice way too much. Greed and envy don't help the cause either. Laissez-Faire is really nice too, but with limits. You can't have someone monopolizing products, or resources without limits. Could you imagine if someone had all the resources or production of a necessity? They would be able to charge whatever they wanted, and because people would need that product, they would be forced to pay the extreme prices. When there is bad weather in foreign countries, and some of the fruits and vegetables have a bad growing season, you see the prices increasing, and yet people still buy them because they have nutrients that we need for survival. Imagine if someone controlled the world's supply (or even a countries supply) of fruits and vegetables. They could charge whatever they wanted I think we have found fair balance. I don't know how it works in America, but the higher your salary is, the more you get taxed, but you only get taxed on what's over the amount of the last percentage of tax. I don't have the exact numbers, but it works likes this. If you make 10$, you pay no tax. If you make 11-15$, you pay 10% tax on everything over 10$. If you make 15-20$, you pay no tax on the first 10$, 10% on the 11-15, and 15% on the 16-20$ This way, the people who can afford more, pay more, but they still make more than people under them because they aren't being taxed 15% on the whole 20$. It's actually quite the common misconception. I've heard of people asking for less money so they don't have to pay extra tax because they think their entire salary will be taxed because they broke 50,000$ rather than being under the 50,000$ they usually make.thats scary that 41% suports communism. if you don't like capitalism then move to north korea or cuba and get out of America.
x-wing20
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment