To the cappies

[Subversive Pessimist]

Do you have a link that explains why Capitalism is good, just (if, indeed, you believe so), why and how it brings prosperity to normal people? If so, I will read it with an open mind, and we can discuss the article later together. If you do not have a link, can you try to explain it with your own words? Thanks

[thatCHEr]

I believe the free market is the best way of handling the problem of infinite wants vs limited resources, if thats what you mean. But I dont really care for the term capitalism, its too general, and used in too many different senses.
As for being just, it provides the most democratic way of deciding how we should spend our resources, and what firms should or should not do(in terms of production, pollution, wages, etc). If the majority of people disagree with a firms practices, then the demand curve will change correctly as people adjust their value of the good. So no morals or excessive regulations are imposed on society by government.

[thatCHEr]

Oh. A link. It's too big a subject to explain all in one article. The best way to learn about it, if you really want to, would be to look on an education site for economics. Google something like 'economics introduction' and look for any large sites that look like they are aimed at students. They should give you information, but not go into TOO much detail.

[Purple]

I think youll have to really set yourself into it to understand it... Most of the ideology gets covered up in blood and mayhem therefore more difficult to see the positivities.... read alot of ideology articles....


capitalism seemingly seems mostly based on "the free market", and wealth in individual capital... but you should really look into it properly, see behind the lairs of blood....

done alot of research on capitalism but didnt find it very "good", therefore im a lefty...

[Subversive Pessimist]

Thank you. I will do some research.


I believe the free market is the best way of handling the problem of infinite wants vs limited resources, if thats what you mean.

I am more thinking of how to handling the problem of needs vs. ability to work.

What do you tihnk of the fact that a quarter of the wealth of Moscow, lives in the hands of 100 people?

[John Galt]

I think thats more due to the failed communism than capitalism.

Russia is extremely screwed up.

[Osman Ghazi]

Der! It is due to the fact that Yeltsin's government sold all the state firms to anyone willing to buy them, so the rich guys bought up all they could. As far as I know, Yeltsin was not a Communist, therefore, it can hardly be the fault of communism, can it?

Number of people living under ther poverty line at the end of the soviet era:2 million.

Number of people living under the poverty line under capitalism: 60 million.

[Shredder]

If you want to learn about capitalism, here (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mussolini/works/fascism.htm) is a good place to start.

;)

[Nyder]

So according to you if I get robbed at gunpoint that is capitalism in action? :rolleyes:

It is no wonder you are so ignorant with such erroneous beliefs.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 14 2004, 08:03 PM
Der! It is due to the fact that Yeltsin's government sold all the state firms to anyone willing to buy them, so the rich guys bought up all they could. As far as I know, Yeltsin was not a Communist, therefore, it can hardly be the fault of communism, can it?

Number of people living under ther poverty line at the end of the soviet era:2 million.

Number of people living under the poverty line under capitalism: 60 million.
"Poverty" is relative :rolleyes:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 04:34 PM
I believe the free market is the best way of handling the problem of infinite wants vs limited resources, if thats what you mean. But I dont really care for the term capitalism, its too general, and used in too many different senses.
As for being just, it provides the most democratic way of deciding how we should spend our resources, and what firms should or should not do(in terms of production, pollution, wages, etc). If the majority of people disagree with a firms practices, then the demand curve will change correctly as people adjust their value of the good. So no morals or excessive regulations are imposed on society by government.
No, the freemarket system isn't effective in handling limited resources. Because certain people (Economic Capitalists) gain by stimulating the need for products. Thus making the "infinite want" even greater. You can produce as much as you want, but you can't catch up with the need. Why would a Capitalist Society try to catch up with the need? Afterall a pleased human doesn't bring in as much money as a needy. People before money or money before people?

And no free market isn't democratic. Democracy; the will of the people. Suggesting that all people have an equal amount of power and have as much influence as the other in deciding how to spend resources. Which is utterly false. Hopefully you can imagine that Bill Gates has more influence and power then the common man in the "deciding how we should spend our resources". Having money means, having the power to buy and controll resources. Since people do not own an equal share of money in Capitalism, that power isn't equally divided. Democratic hai?


If the majority of people disagree with a firms practices, then the demand curve will change correctly as people adjust their value of the good. So no morals or excessive regulations are imposed on society by government.

False. One man with the power to buy 1,000,000 PC's has as much value as 1,000,000 men buying each one PC. You don't need the majority of the people to agree with your product, just the people with money. I have never seen or heard of PC commercials beeing sent to the 1 billion poorest people, apparantly their vote doesn't count in this democratic proces?

Democracy :lol: It's almost like it's the will of the American, British, Dutch and all those other countries people to wage war. The majority is against the war, in a true democracy there wouldn't have been a war.

[revolutionindia]

Capitalism aims at creation of maximum amount of wealth in the hands of the minimum required number of people needed to achieve this at a rate which leads to destruction of the planet.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 17 2004, 09:32 AM
Since people do not own an equal share of money in Capitalism, that power isn't equally divided. Democratic hai?
Attempting to equate economic power with political power ? Dream on. Bill Gates gets one vote just like everyone else.


Democracy It's almost like it's the will of the American, British, Dutch and all those other countries people to wage war. The majority is against the war, in a true democracy there wouldn't have been a war.

So if you are attacked, do you just defend yourself or run around hoping for "multilateralism" ?

[thatCHEr]

I am more thinking of how to handling the problem of needs vs. ability to work.
What do you tihnk of the fact that a quarter of the wealth of Moscow, lives in the hands of 100 people?

People have infinite needs. So your problem can never be resolved. And ability to work is very flexible, and can increase a lot, but still cannot meet needs.
The Russian economy is in tatters from corruption and the remnants of communism. People during the privatization of russias industry have been able to buy it very cheaply if they have had the right connections.


You can produce as much as you want, but you can't catch up with the need. Why would a Capitalist Society try to catch up with the need? Afterall a pleased human doesn't bring in as much money as a needy. People before money or money before people?

I disagree with the assumption that people have only limited needs. And you know, I dont think its really possible anyway to make infinite wants even greater heh. Why would capitalist society try to meet needs? Because it makes firms money. They make more goods, which will lower their average costs and make them more money.


Suggesting that all people have an equal amount of power and have as much influence as the other in deciding how to spend resources. Which is utterly false. Hopefully you can imagine that Bill Gates has more influence and power then the common man in the "deciding how we should spend our resources". Having money means, having the power to buy and controll resources.
On important goods such as food and so forth, there soon becomes a dropoff point where earning more money doesnt mean you spend more on food. This makes the influence of those with a lot of money smaller, so not too large a proportion of the demand for a good comes from them.
And luxury goods are becoming more and more niche markets, so the rich often will buy different goods to the poor. Though still your point is valid to a degree, firms don't entirely recognise the potential markets that lie in various minorities and in some cases the 'working class'. This can be changed though, I think, as markets become more and more specialized.

[thatCHEr]

apitalism aims at creation of maximum amount of wealth in the hands of the minimum required number of people needed to achieve this at a rate which leads to destruction of the planet.

Erm, no. People are constantly being encouraged to start their own businesses. It is one of the key ways to boost economic performance(supply-side economics).


Attempting to equate economic power with political power ? Dream on. Bill Gates gets one vote just like everyone else.

It's because I was talking of how in the free market there is an 'economic democracy' of sorts. The consumers are the voters, and able to determine through demand what products are produced and what aren't.

[Sloth]

Right on, thatCHEr.