Is Capitalism based on Greed are the Capitalists Greedy do they just want more more a

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is Capitalism based on Greed are the Capitalists Greedy do they just want more more and more Money Wealth and Power ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

[Zealot]

Yes, next question

[RGacky3]

Capitalism is a system that rewards greed.

[Rooster]

I think not. Capitalists are compelled to be capitalists and to be greedy. It's not like all greedy people are capitalists and the more greedy you are, the more of a capitalist you are. So no, it's not based on greed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is Capitalism based on Greed are the Capitalists Greedy do they just want more more and more Money Wealth and Power ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

While greed is involved in many different levels - this is just a basic observation that I don't think anyone would deny irregardless of their judgment of capitalism - but I don't think that's the compelling force behind capitalism. It's not just about the self-enrichment of induviduals (but of course this is one outcome) capitalism has a logic of its own and expansion and accumulation and competition are all built into the system and drive the system irregardless of the wishes of the induviduals involved.

Greed is definitely a big part of capitalism, but to boil it down to just that doesn't answer questions like, for example, why billionaires who might give billions away in philanthropy (although this often has an ulterior or political motive) or why we couldn't just replace corrupt CEOs with good ones.

[RichardAWilson]

Capitalism needs greed to grow, survive and prosper. So yes, capitalism without greed wouldn't survive for long. I love this quote from the Movie Wall St.



Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A.


And so it would happen during 3 Decades of Trickle Down Economics. Here we are in 2011. Was greed good? Maybe... LMAO!

Was it sustainable? Hell No! Just as greed (in love) at another's expense will never be long lasting, neither will financial greed at another's expense. Greed can truly create a zero sum game.

[Judicator]

Individuals pursue their own interests in any system. The unique thing about capitalism is the huge productivity that results from these pursuits.

[RGacky3]

Individuals pursue their own interests in any system. The unique thing about capitalism is the huge productivity that results from these pursuits.

Thats true, but it also comes with huge inequality, poverty, and eventually collapse.

[Judicator]

Thats true, but it also comes with huge inequality, poverty, and eventually collapse.

Higher productivity moves people out of poverty, inequality is a non-issue as poverty is alleviated, and the claim about collapse has minimal empirical support.

[RGacky3]

Higher productivity moves people out of poverty, inequality is a non-issue as poverty is alleviated, and the claim about collapse has minimal empirical support.


More people are in poverty, percentagewise now than 40 years ago, the same goes for people living off a dollar or 2 a day. So inequality is not a non issue, btw, NO economist aggrees with you.

ANd my claim about collapse has plenty of minimal support, look at the 30s and now, the only reason we got out of it from the 30s was a world war and tons and tons and tons of keynsian economics, now we might not get out of it.

[piet11111]

Higher productivity moves people out of poverty, inequality is a non-issue as poverty is alleviated, and the claim about collapse has minimal empirical support.

Only if higher productivity is coupled with higher wages but that does not happen instead we either put more people out of work or we produce more then we can buy eventually leading to crisis.

[Dumb]

I honestly thought we'd be past this point by now! Ha ha.

[Judicator]

More people are in poverty, percentagewise now than 40 years ago, the same goes for people living off a dollar or 2 a day. So inequality is not a non issue, btw, NO economist aggrees with you.

ANd my claim about collapse has plenty of minimal support, look at the 30s and now, the only reason we got out of it from the 30s was a world war and tons and tons and tons of keynsian economics, now we might not get out of it.

This is just a math exercise that involves moving the poverty line up and up and up. Today you can be in "poverty" and own a car, cell phone, cable TV, AC, and so on.

On the $2/day figure this is simply because the poorest countries grew the most.

The biggest worry now is the concern that we will have a "lost decade" or two like Japan. This is hardly collapse. Where are the countries that have *actually collapsed* because of higher productivity?


Only if higher productivity is coupled with higher wages but that does not happen instead we either put more people out of work or we produce more then we can buy eventually leading to crisis.

Wage growth can be concentrated in certain industries, those that are fired may suffer from a mismatch between their skills and what the market demands, but this is temporary.

[Troopa]

In its roots, Capitalism does NOT equal greed. In fact, a perfect Capitalism can even be compared to a perfect Communism. How so? Quite simple: The ideals of a perfect Capitalist system is that of opportunity, where one's quality of life is equal to the value they put into it.

One can even argue that the ultimate goal of capitalism is to BRIDGE social classes!

Unfortunately, broken governments have ignored their responsibility to fulfill Capitalism's ideals. I will not point fingers at a certain imperialist country I'm sure you're all familiar with, but just as it is hard to establish a communism, it is quite difficult to establish the reality of what people call the "The American Dream."

"life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" ~ James Truslow Adams, 1931.

[Pioneers_Violin]

In its roots, Capitalism does NOT equal greed. In fact, a perfect Capitalism can even be compared to a perfect Communism. How so? Quite simple: The ideals of a perfect Capitalist system is that of opportunity, where one's quality of life is equal to the value they put into it.

One can even argue that the ultimate goal of capitalism is to BRIDGE social classes!

Unfortunately, broken governments have ignored their responsibility to fulfill Capitalism's ideals. I will not point fingers at a certain imperialist country I'm sure you're all familiar with, but just as it is hard to establish a communism, it is quite difficult to establish the reality of what people call the "The American Dream."




Actually, Capitalism is shot through with greed from top to bottom. Without greed, it will not function as the main purpose of Capitalism is to enrich the Capitalist.

So far as "Bridging Social Classes", Capitalism may have eliminated some old social classes but merely replaced them with new ones, namely the Haves and Have-Nots and perhaps a few in between.

So far as "broken governments" being to blame for Capitalism's excesses, well, that just doesn't make sense:

Capitalism is supposed to thrive without ANY government oversight and events time and time again prove less oversight = more excesses.

For example, a long time ago Capitalism was given a free reign with practically no government oversight. Did this result in anything approaching your class-less "American Dream"?

No, it did not. Capitalism gave us the Robber Barons and Railroad Tycoons with a tiny handful of people living better than royalty and the vast majority slaving away at sustenance wages.
Some of their excesses include machine-gunning workers willing to strike for better wages and assassinations of prominent labor leaders.

Class-less? Hardly. More like an even bigger divide than Feudalism.

If you're trying to say that Capitalism requires heavy regulation by the State to function "correctly"..... is it really Capitalism at that point?

[Geiseric]

The problem is that the perfect theoretical capitalism only exists in ideology in the same way that perfect communism has existed in ideology. Semantics aside, any private enterprise system always ends up with the banks and huge corporations, quite literally, buying the state. When that happens, all possibilities for egalitarian capitalism are gone, and imperialism happens in order to compete with other states that are at the same stage in capitalist development. It isn't immoral, it's an ammoral situation after a while. Either they imperialise or they collapse. when it's impossible to do imperialism, the bourgeois state goes fascist and has more aggressive competition i.e. war over colonies with other powers.

[RGacky3]

This is just a math exercise that involves moving the poverty line up and up and up. Today you can be in "poverty" and own a car, cell phone, cable TV, AC, and so on.


I trust the sociologists and mathamatitions more than you, sorry.


On the $2/day figure this is simply because the poorest countries grew the most.


Yet the world GDP grew a ton more, why did none of that stuff go to the third world countries? Because capitalism centralizes wealth and creates bubbles.


The biggest worry now is the concern that we will have a "lost decade" or two like Japan. This is hardly collapse. Where are the countries that have *actually collapsed* because of higher productivity?


Its not that they've collapsed due to higher productivity, its that they've invested so much in that higher productivity if it does'nt make a return you have a collapse, an example is the 1930s ... and now, Japans recession is not much compared to hte worldwide recession happening now.

[Judicator]

I trust the sociologists and mathamatitions more than you, sorry.

You trust them on what? All I said was they are moving up the poverty line (which you trust them to do?) That's fine, the point is the picture is misleading.


Yet the world GDP grew a ton more, why did none of that stuff go to the third world countries? Because capitalism centralizes wealth and creates bubbles.

Plenty of it did. China was a third world country and lots of stuff went there. Now tons of them are living on above $2/day. Ditto for any country that was third world in 1960 and is now industrializing.


Its not that they've collapsed due to higher productivity, its that they've invested so much in that higher productivity if it does'nt make a return you have a collapse, an example is the 1930s ... and now, Japans recession is not much compared to hte worldwide recession happening now.

Feel free to edit this so it's consistent with your ideology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_collapse#The_Great_Depression_of_the_1930 s

[RGacky3]

You trust them on what? All I said was they are moving up the poverty line (which you trust them to do?) That's fine, the point is the picture is misleading.


When did they move up the poverty line?


Plenty of it did. China was a third world country and lots of stuff went there. Now tons of them are living on above $2/day. Ditto for any country that was third world in 1960 and is now industrializing.


China, had giant giant giant influx of capital. Either way, the facts stand, there is MORE poverty and MORE people living with less than $2 a day.


Feel free to edit this so it's consistent with your ideology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...n_of_the_1930s (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_collapse#The_Great_Depression_of_the_1930 s)

Feel free to listen to some real economists, like the ones with Nobel Peace Prizes.

[Judicator]

Feel free to listen to some real economists, like the ones with Nobel Peace Prizes.


Who? The point was you claimed the great depression was a "collapse," failing to distinguish between a large recession and a collapse.



China, had giant giant giant influx of capital. Either way, the facts stand, there is MORE poverty and MORE people living with less than $2 a day.


And it's through capitalism, which allows and encourages people to pursue China's high rate of return, along with Chinese trade liberalization, that pushed the capital there in the first place.

How is the population growth in poor countries (the fact that underlies your claim about population living with <$2/day) a salient point to the success of capitalism? There are also more people living on more than $2/day, so what?



When did they move up the poverty line?


They pay out more and more benefits, but fail to count any of them as income, so you can be "poor" while marginally below the poverty line and collecting benefits worth thousands or tens of thousands per year.

[Broletariat]

Marx's theory on Commodity Fetishism is highly relevant for this.

In short, the goal is to accumulate as much as possible, so role-theory takes over, and when your goal is to accumulate, you will participate in the market to accumulate in anyway the market allows.

[RGacky3]

Who? The point was you claimed the great depression was a "collapse," failing to distinguish between a large recession and a collapse.


Take Peter Stiglitz, or Paul Krugman.

But its interesting that in almost every argument you are reduced to arguing over semantics, it shows the weakness of your arguments.

A recession is something that capitalism can just get out of normally, a collapse requires totally drastic rebuilding.


And it's through capitalism, which allows and encourages people to pursue China's high rate of return, along with Chinese trade liberalization, that pushed the capital there in the first place.


China was a closed economy for a long time, when you open it up its a totally virgin market, EVERYONE, even marxists would have predicted this, but as time goes on, even in china, you'll have growing wealth inequality, followed by growing poverty and eventually a depression that leads to collapse.

How is the population growth in poor countries (the fact that underlies your claim about population living with <$2/day) a salient point to the success of capitalism? There are also more people living on more than $2/day, so what?


How is the population growth in poor countries (the fact that underlies your claim about population living with <$2/day) a salient point to the success of capitalism? There are also more people living on more than $2/day, so what?


THere is a higher PERCENTAGE of people living on less than $2 a day.


They pay out more and more benefits, but fail to count any of them as income, so you can be "poor" while marginally below the poverty line and collecting benefits worth thousands or tens of thousands per year.

THey pay more benefits? Since when?

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

Is Capitalism based on Greed are the Capitalists Greedy do they just want more more and more Money Wealth and Power ?

That seems like the same thing to me.

[Judicator]

Take Peter Stiglitz, or Paul Krugman.

But its interesting that in almost every argument you are reduced to arguing over semantics, it shows the weakness of your arguments.

A recession is something that capitalism can just get out of normally, a collapse requires totally drastic rebuilding.


Do you have a quote?

This is the first instance you've claimed I'm arguing semantics. The debate over what is a collapse versus what isn't is inherently an argument about semantics, so I don't know how that could go any other way.



China was a closed economy for a long time, when you open it up its a totally virgin market, EVERYONE, even marxists would have predicted this, but as time goes on, even in china, you'll have growing wealth inequality, followed by growing poverty and eventually a depression that leads to collapse.


You'll have growing poverty? How can poverty grow from your starting point where everyone is poor?

You will certainly have setbacks, but capitalism is quite capable of producing long run growth. Marxists had England collapsing a century ago because of the same "inevitable collapse" theory you're invoking, but was completely wrong. Why would you think you're right today?



THere is a higher PERCENTAGE of people living on less than $2 a day.


If non capitalist corrupt countries account for massive growth in % of people living on under $2/day, that's not capitalism's fault.



THey pay more benefits? Since when?


Since GDP went up and they kept giving out the same % of GDP in govt spending.

[RGacky3]

Do you have a quote?

This is the first instance you've claimed I'm arguing semantics. The debate over what is a collapse versus what isn't is inherently an argument about semantics, so I don't know how that could go any other way.


I'll find you a quote if you seriosly doubt that Paul Krugman and Peter Stiglitz believed that the great depression required massiave government invervention, because that basically their whole economic philosophy.


You'll have growing poverty? How can poverty grow from your starting point where everyone is poor?

You will certainly have setbacks, but capitalism is quite capable of producing long run growth. Marxists had England collapsing a century ago because of the same "inevitable collapse" theory you're invoking, but was completely wrong. Why would you think you're right today?


Not everyone was poor, and more will come from non capitalist economies into capitalist economies as the poor.

Capitalism is good at growth but not indefinately, Markets have physical limits.


If non capitalist corrupt countries account for massive growth in % of people living on under $2/day, that's not capitalism's fault.


What non Capitalist countries? THe whole world works on a mostly capitalist system.


Since GDP went up and they kept giving out the same % of GDP in govt spending.

Yes and GIANTLY raise military spending.

[CommunityBeliever]

You will certainly have setbacks, but capitalism is quite capable of producing long run growth. Marxists had England collapsing a century ago because of the same "inevitable collapse" theory you're invoking, but was completely wrong. Why would you think you're right today?Capitalism was once very capable at producing economic growth (before the great depression?) but now it is just leading us to a new dark age/global recession.

The "free market" has totally failed to function effectively in the modern world - which is why there is ever more black markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market) like the emerging black market for pirated media.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-bazaar&page=2

Yet they have become the global norm. Today more than half the workers of the world, or approximately 1.8 billion people, earn their living off the books. And their numbers are growing. By 2020 the informal economy will encompass two thirds of the global workforce, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

[Judicator]

I'll find you a quote if you seriosly doubt that Paul Krugman and Peter Stiglitz believed that the great depression required massiave government invervention, because that basically their whole economic philosophy.

Do they say the great depression was an economic collapse? Is this the consensus among economists?



Not everyone was poor, and more will come from non capitalist economies into capitalist economies as the poor.

Capitalism is good at growth but not indefinately, Markets have physical limits.


If you have 99% of your labor force in agriculture, everyone is poor.

What do you mean "more will come from non capitalist economies into capitalist economies as the poor?"



What non Capitalist countries? THe whole world works on a mostly capitalist system.


Countries with poorly defined property rights/crappy legal systems. Here, the presence of capitalism doesn't explain economic outcomes, but rather the legal system/lack of property rights.



Yes and GIANTLY raise military spending.


Nope, mostly healthcare and some education:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending


Capitalism was once very capable at producing economic growth (before the great depression?) but now it is just leading us to a new dark age/global recession.

After the great depression you had plenty of growth. South Korea was a shithole 40 years ago and now it's quite rich. Same story for much of Asia.

Downturns are consistent with long run growth. Nobody ever claimed growth means 2% per year without fail.

[CommunityBeliever]

After the great depression you had plenty of growth. South Korea was a shithole 40 years ago and now it's quite rich. Same story for much of Asia.I didn't state that there wasn't any growth after the depression, I am just questioning rather it was free market capitalism in particular that was at the source of it. After the depression there was WW2 and the cold war which both involved huge amounts of state-funding directed for economic growth and new military technology projects like the internet.

Our post cold-war era, on the other hand, has seen a reduction in state-funded research, which has seriously hindered growth, and the systemic inadequacy of modern capitalism has resulted in an increasing number of black markets, with as much as 2/3 of the workforce predicted to be a part of them by 2020. If free market capitalism isn't a complete failure why does it produce so many black markets and criminals?

[RGacky3]

Do they say the great depression was an economic collapse? Is this the consensus among economists?


What they say is that huge government spending got the economy out of it, meaning it would'nt ahve done it by itself.


If you have 99% of your labor force in agriculture, everyone is poor.

What do you mean "more will come from non capitalist economies into capitalist economies as the poor?"


WHat I mean is that a lot of the eocnomy in China was feaudal, some communal and so on. BTW, of coarse China will get rich peopel from Capitalism, because you have giant investment.


Countries with poorly defined property rights/crappy legal systems. Here, the presence of capitalism doesn't explain economic outcomes, but rather the legal system/lack of property rights.


All countries have property rights for people that can afford them, almost all the world has property rights.

ALl those systems produce wealth and have it extracted.


Nope, mostly healthcare and some education:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png/800px-U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png)

If your including medicare in healthcare, that does'nt really count because it mostly pays for itself, whereas military spending pulls only from tax dollars.


After the great depression you had plenty of growth. South Korea was a shithole 40 years ago and now it's quite rich. Same story for much of Asia.

Downturns are consistent with long run growth. Nobody ever claimed growth means 2% per year without fail.

South Korea 40 years ago was'nt developed yet and it just came out of a giant civil war.

After the great depression you had plenty of growth AFTER the war, AFTER the Marshal plan AFTER FDR and after the huge government intervention.

Asia is different because it was starting capitalism, not trying to get out of a crisis in capitalism.