Are there any positives at all to attribute to Capitalism?

[rikules]

I am a capitalist.

I believe in the free market.

I also believe it has to have regulations to keep greed from distroying it.

An unfettered market results in concentration of the wealth in any free market into smaller and smaller hands until you no longer have a free market.

Unfettered capitalism has been proven over and over again by history to evolve into something else.

That is how the kings of europe all developed.

I don't know whether your grasp of basic economics or history is more tragicomic.

you get an A in ECONOMICS

you get an A+ in MINDLESS OBEDIANCE

but you fail REALITY

you are merely repeating what you've been taught by TRUE BELIEVERS


people who can actually think and analyze know better

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You need to watch the History Channel. The common Roman was dirt poor, so poor that those with money walked with armed guards, of heavily armed themselves, in Rome itself.

but

Compared to the people living ruff outside the Empire.. sure, to the Romans and standard civilization, living free in a tent of long house was poor.

And again..that really depends on what part of the Empire you are talking about. I personally suspect that Rome was far more advanced then we really know. And my visits to many of the countries Rome occupied also lead me to suspect they lived pretty well.

Oh, of course. Anywhere Rome went it killed those that didn't want it there, and in return they built roads that are used to this day, built bath houses - Who doesn't like a hot bath? Put in aquaducts, etc, etc,,,,

But lets not look at Rome with the rose glasses on. These were some of the most blood thierty people ever.

They were conquerers and tyrants. The upper class had all the power, the poor had jack and squat, and plenty of it. They were given just enough to keep them happy, and as long as the coffers were filled by war booty, everthing was fine.

War boody is the best boody.

 

[Two Thumbs]

And again..that really depends on what part of the Empire you are talking about. I personally suspect that Rome was far more advanced then we really know. And my visits to many of the countries Rome occupied also lead me to suspect they lived pretty well.

Oh, of course. Anywhere Rome went it killed those that didn't want it there, and in return they built roads that are used to this day, built bath houses - Who doesn't like a hot bath? Put in aquaducts, etc, etc,,,,

But lets not look at Rome with the rose glasses on. These were some of the most blood thierty people ever.

They were conquerers and tyrants. The upper class had all the power, the poor had jack and squat, and plenty of it. They were given just enough to keep them happy, and as long as the coffers were filled by war booty, everthing was fine.

War boody is the best boody.

Every time I came back from deployment I wanted some booty.

I fought for piece, and wanted a piece of what I was fighting for.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh, of course. Anywhere Rome went it killed those that didn't want it there, and in return they built roads that are used to this day, built bath houses - Who doesn't like a hot bath? Put in aquaducts, etc, etc,,,,

But lets not look at Rome with the rose glasses on. These were some of the most blood thierty people ever.

They were conquerers and tyrants. The upper class had all the power, the poor had jack and squat, and plenty of it. They were given just enough to keep them happy, and as long as the coffers were filled by war booty, everthing was fine.

War boody is the best boody.

Every time I came back from deployment I wanted some booty.

I fought for piece, and wanted a piece of what I was fighting for.

Amen bro.

 

[boedicca]

earnings and accumulations are redistributions, fuckknot.

Gee, you're dumb.

No, they are not redistributions. They are the result of voluntary transactions between buyers and sellers, and the seller's discipline to save and/or invest.

iow redistributions of wealth. Only a dum dum would think otherwise.

No moron. Creation of, not redistribution.

 

[hortysir]

Please identify an economy that does NOT fall in to either one of those 2 categories.
I'll try to stay awake

Still waiting, ass-hat

I already did, try to read the thread.

Mercantilism, barter systems, tribalism, the family unit, social democracy (LIKE THE USA), fuedalism, empire, monarchy, oligarchy, and hundreds and hundreds of hybrids.

The vast majority of econs that ever existed were unique hybrids incorporating elements of many isms.

You realize that you are absolutely stuck in a rut of Marxist thinking right? Because you are. The idea that capitalism is an alternative to socialism and communism is an idea that is purely Marxist.

Then allow me an answer to this:
How many of the (losoely defined) economies you've listed have survived as long and flourished as much as capitalism?

 

[Bern80]

I won't use the word "capitalism" being such that it is a pejorative. I do believe that a market economy is the most practicable means of distributing goods and services to those in the market for them, but an imperfect one to say the least. It falls upon the community that benefits from the market to bear the responsibility for mitigating the side effects, either through voluntary association, or democratic action--and likely both.

Bingo. THAT is the only problem with capitalism in this country imo. There are too many loosecannon's in the system who refuse to hold up their end of the deal. They want everything while at the same time want to be responsible for nothing.

 

[Ava]

your input please, please include a definition of beneficial in your entry. Thanks.

For one, any entitlement check you may be receiving, would be the result of a free market economy, that we capitalists are struggling to hang onto, from those that are trying to steal it away.

 

[Samson]

In a CAPITALIST system there is no wealth redistribution.

No, LC is correct in saying that there IS wealth redistribution within a capitalist system.

However it is largely voluntary.

A capitalist has optimized producing goods and services within a competitive environment because there is a demand for them from individuals who have independently decided to convert their earnings to those goods or services.

These individuals ELECT to redistribute their wealth however they please.

Non-capitalist systems rely on non-competitive environments and centralized, authoritarian planning to determine what is best for individuals to have or not.

 

[JBeukema]

Someone care to inform the idiot that capitalism in concerned with wealth creation?

Splain your thinking. But you better put on your "A" game.

Various Formula for the rate of Surplus-Value

 

[Sallow]

You need to watch the History Channel. The common Roman was dirt poor, so poor that those with money walked with armed guards, of heavily armed themselves, in Rome itself.

but

Compared to the people living ruff outside the Empire.. sure, to the Romans and standard civilization, living free in a tent of long house was poor.

And again..that really depends on what part of the Empire you are talking about. I personally suspect that Rome was far more advanced then we really know. And my visits to many of the countries Rome occupied also lead me to suspect they lived pretty well.

Oh, of course. Anywhere Rome went it killed those that didn't want it there, and in return they built roads that are used to this day, built bath houses - Who doesn't like a hot bath? Put in aquaducts, etc, etc,,,,

But lets not look at Rome with the rose glasses on. These were some of the most blood thierty people ever.

They were conquerers and tyrants. The upper class had all the power, the poor had jack and squat, and plenty of it. They were given just enough to keep them happy, and as long as the coffers were filled by war booty, everthing was fine.

I don't look at Rome with Rose colored glasses. The Romans were ruthless..but ruthless with benefits. You are right..if you accepted them..you accepted the best technology in the world. If you didn't, they wiped you out. But I don't think "the poor" had squat...or they would have been many more revolts and revolutions.

 

[Bern80]

your input please, please include a definition of beneficial in your entry. Thanks.

This is of course not a serious question. Yet another troll post from someone who already thinks he knows the answer (see second post).

The more I try to figure out people like loose the more confusing it becomes. I mean how is it people like loose think wealth accumulation is supposed to work? Where do they think money comes from? The only thing to conclude is that apparently the value of your skills in an economy are meaningless. We should all have exactly the same amount of money no matter what divided from a pool that must be finite.

 

[JBeukema]

Capitalism and social darwinism have long been found as two tenents of the same perspective.

 

[JBeukema]

Unfettered capitalism is not survival of the fitest its survival of the most dishonest.

Those willing to do anything for money will win.

The decent people end up getting robbed by the not so decent people.

Communism: from each according to his ability to each according to his need

Capitalism: from each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed?

That's not even close to the truth.

first off, communism requires a huge murder count to get properly installed. Then it needs more murder to keep it in place.

Intentional Communities - ecovillages, communes, cohousing, coops

As for capitalism?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbFTX9sB2Kk[/ame]

 

[JBeukema]

Every American engages in and benefits from capitialism.

and 90% of Americans benefit from the fact that we're a socialist civilization.

 

[boedicca]

In a CAPITALIST system there is no wealth redistribution.

No, LC is correct in saying that there IS wealth redistribution within a capitalist system.

However it is largely voluntary.

A capitalist has optimized producing goods and services within a competitive environment because there is a demand for them from individuals who have independently decided to convert their earnings to those goods or services.

These individuals ELECT to redistribute their wealth however they please.

Non-capitalist systems rely on non-competitive environments and centralized, authoritarian planning to determine what is best for individuals to have or not.

I would not call free exchange "wealth redistribution".

As both parties benefit at the agreed upon price, the exchange is even.

 

[JBeukema]

And again..that really depends on what part of the Empire you are talking about. I personally suspect that Rome was far more advanced then we really know. And my visits to many of the countries Rome occupied also lead me to suspect they lived pretty well.

Oh, of course. Anywhere Rome went it killed those that didn't want it there, and in return they built roads that are used to this day, built bath houses - Who doesn't like a hot bath? Put in aquaducts, etc, etc,,,,

But lets not look at Rome with the rose glasses on. These were some of the most blood thierty people ever.

They were conquerers and tyrants. The upper class had all the power, the poor had jack and squat, and plenty of it. They were given just enough to keep them happy, and as long as the coffers were filled by war booty, everthing was fine.

I don't look at Rome with Rose colored glasses. The Romans were ruthless..but ruthless with benefits. You are right..if you accepted them..you accepted the best technology in the world. If you didn't, they wiped you out. But I don't think "the poor" had squat...or they would have been many more revolts and revolutions.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso[/ame]

 

[boedicca]

Intentional Communities - ecovillages, communes, cohousing, coops

As for capitalism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbFTX9sB2Kk

All of what you are citing as examples of collectivism are small scale and voluntary - quite different than a monolithic command and control economy based on communism.

Capitalism is also voluntary.

 

[Two Thumbs]

And again..that really depends on what part of the Empire you are talking about. I personally suspect that Rome was far more advanced then we really know. And my visits to many of the countries Rome occupied also lead me to suspect they lived pretty well.

Oh, of course. Anywhere Rome went it killed those that didn't want it there, and in return they built roads that are used to this day, built bath houses - Who doesn't like a hot bath? Put in aquaducts, etc, etc,,,,

But lets not look at Rome with the rose glasses on. These were some of the most blood thierty people ever.

They were conquerers and tyrants. The upper class had all the power, the poor had jack and squat, and plenty of it. They were given just enough to keep them happy, and as long as the coffers were filled by war booty, everthing was fine.

I don't look at Rome with Rose colored glasses. The Romans were ruthless..but ruthless with benefits. You are right..if you accepted them..you accepted the best technology in the world. If you didn't, they wiped you out. But I don't think "the poor" had squat...or they would have been many more revolts and revolutions.

At the risk of derailing....

Roman poor feared the outside world that was full of barbarians that wanted nothing more than to kill them in some horrid fashion. Fear, just enough welfare, and an Army that was loyal to who paid them, kept the poor in line.

And back on the rails...

I'm ~ 85% certain that thier economy needed conquests. And when that came to an end, Romes days were nearly over. A victim of thier own success.

the rose glasses thing wasn't a slight. I can't help but be sarcastic sometimes.

 

[Bern80]

Capitalism and social darwinism have long been found as two tenents of the same perspective.

And your point?