Why capitalism?

You are thinking of profit for America as a country, while I am talking about profit of corporations. Yes, America lost a lot of money in this war, but George Bush and his friends and allies became quite rich.

Why is it, then, that most of the Chinese products you buy in the US were only manufactured in China, but designed in the US? Ever wondered why those products were so cheap? How are these people going to be pulled out of poverty if the only jobs they get from the US are for manufacturing of cheap products?

So now it's suddenly alright to allow governments to interfere with businesses? Where did your Capitalist ideas about it all sorting itself out come in here? And by the way, if this monopoly is to be broken, all diamonds will immediatly become worthless, since it will be possible to manufacture them instead of mining.

 

Cronyism isn't capitalism. Corporate welfare isn't capitalism. The government being bribed by campaign contributors certainly isn't capitalism.

The same way every other country in the world has. Manufacturing is merely one step in the economic life of a country. The United States went through it in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and seems to have done all right. Why wouldn't China follow a similar pattern of economic growth?

The Chinese economy is doing better under capitalism than it ever did under communism, by any measure you can think of.

Yes, of course it's all right for the government to prevent cases of market failure such as monopolies. Where did my capitalist ideas go? I recognize that no "pure" ideology is perfect and am capable of seeing shades of gray. Don't mistake my strong support for capitalism as a system for some kind of dogmatic extremism.

As far as I'm concerned, capitalism is more about competition and a free market, than it is about preventing the government from ever getting involved under any circumstances.

So? Why would that be a bad thing?

 

Among the key points of Capitalism is the rule of corporations and businesses, which is why it can be directly blamed for it.

I don't think the US ever went through a phase like modern China. Sure, they had periods when most of what they did was manufacturing, but conditions were very different. You can't quite compare the two.

First of all, to call Mao's dictatorship "communism" is just plain wrong. China was never communist. But even if you want to make the comparisson, you are not making it correctly. Just like you yourself stated, we should judge a country by how much it improved by the change of government, not what state it is in now. Looking at it from this point of view, China benifited a lot even from their not-quite-communist government. Yes, there was much unjustified suffering caused because of it (and having absolutly nothing to do with calling it communism but Mao's fanaticism and corruption. Consider that even with all that suffering, many if not most Chinese people honour Mao. Why? Because he industrialized their nation and improved it in ways that Capitalism never can, did or will. And just so that there are no misunderstandings, I do not have any respect for Mao, his government and policies, but you have to agree that the parts that he did take from communism did good to his nation.

If the government is allowed to get involved, how is the market free? If the government gets involved just because some company managed to gain a monopoly (as they should, in my opinion) your capitalism can hardly even be called capitalism.

I'd consider it to be a good thing. I am all for breaking monopolies, remember? But I don't think that your capitalist government is even allowed to do it.

 

No it isn't. Capitalism is about the free market and allowing businesses to make a profit as long as they don't hurt anyone. Corporations and businesses bribing government officials is a problem of the more socialist aspects of our government; the less power the government has to start wars on a whim, or hand out corporate welfare checks to campaign contributors, the less likely it is that businesses will bribe them in the first place.

The conditions may not have been identical, but they were certainly very similar. America had a heavy manufacturing base with wages and conditions we (today) would consider appalling. The fastest way to move out of the "sweatshop phase" of economic development is to stay out of it and let the market do as it will.

Most of the economic improvements Mao made came in the first few years he was in power...BEFORE he started controlling the market. Regardless, capitalism has unquestionably done better than Mao ever did. China basically abandoned communism (or "planned economy" if you don't want to call it communism) in 1979. Ever since, China's economic growth has been unprecedented.

India started liberalizing their economy in the 1990s and abandoned socialism, with similar results. This cannot possibly be a coincidence, because the trends are too long to be a random market fluctuation.

Call it what you like...regulated capitalism, free-market capitalism, etc. You're right that government involvement means that the market is not completely free...but allowing monopolies also means that the market is not completely free. As I said, competition and the long-term preservation of the free-market, in my view, trumps any short-term concerns about government involvement.

There are cases where I feel that the government should get involved, called "market failure," in which the logical conclusion of a free market will ultimately lead to a market that is not free. A monopoly is one example of market failure (others are pollution, basic power/transportation infrastructure, etc).

To insist that ANY ideology be followed to the letter, allowing for no exceptions, is dogmatic and will ultimately lead to problems.

Most industrialized nations (all except Hong Kong, I think) have anti-monopoly laws on the books. I'm almost certain the British government does, which is the main culprit behind allowing DeBeer's to monopolize the diamond market.

 

No, I don't have to agree. I think he murdered millions and set his country back decades. Why do you think Taiwan is so much richer than China when they never had Mao to bring them the Cultural Revolution and the Greal Leap Forward? Mao was about nothing but economic destruction and mass murder. It takes a really determined approach to try to look at the lighter side of Mao while complaining about the "sweatshop" economy which is raising living standards for hundreds of millions.

By the way you've been dodging the original question, which is if American capitalism causes starvation, how come the poorest nations have the least trade with the US?

Also, you need to read some history of industrialisation in the west if you think we never went through the sweatshop era (never mind that Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc did also). Or just read Charles Dickens. It wasn't a pretty process, but it wasn't a dead end economy either - it brought prosperity.

 

Do you have any idea what actually went on in China? Mao was the first person who abolished colonialism, feudalism, and capitalism in China, and he worked to get rid of the oppressive class society. China was ready to be industrialized in 1200 AD (!), but that did not happen until the revolution occured.

He fought against the Japanese, who slaughtered babies and killed millions of Chinese men, woman, and children.

He got rid of old brutal customs, and for the first time in history, male and females were equal. But even then, some men were mocked and laughed at, because they helped the woman in the family with cooking etc.

Health and knowledge was improved, China was modernized, and people, for the first time in this fucking history, did not have to live under an oppressive land owner. That's why they won Chinese hearts: Because they were an example. Because they treated the peasantry in a respectful manner.

 

There's no way to defend what Mao did to China, it's like saying what Stalin did with the Soviet Union, but at least Stalin actually did build a whole lot of industry.

 

Plenty of people starve in the US AND plenty of people starve because of it, we have a huge problem with poverty in this country and it's because it's every man/woman for his/herself, no safety net, no socialized health care, nothing, so our goal is to accumulate wealth so we've got "security" (there's no such thing by the way).

Forgive me if I repeat the obvious, i'm new to this forum, it seems to me most of the posts i've seen that have an accurate perspective on things are the folks from foreign countries, good for you for bringing this stuff into the picture, most Americans have no clue what's going on because we're fed the rubbish our government wants us to hear, and they own the media. On the whole we're fat, imperialistic, and miserable as hell, bad karma. but there is a lot of good to be had in this country, we just need to make some changes...

Back to the point of this thread, capitalism is good when it's regulated properly, people are motivated to succeed and be innovative because they're rewarded for it, and that's a good thing. i'd like to see an America that is balanced between capitalism and socialism, i'm sure it can be done. the problem with capitalism is that, when left to it's own devices, it falls short in the sense that people are, by nature, self centered and greedy, and they're willing to compromise their morals to get ahead financially. as they accrue more wealth, they become consumed by it, their possessions affectively own them, and they're no longer happy with what they have, there's no longer a sense of community.

 

Capitalism cannot b regulated properly, the while point is that it's a free market.Economics shou7ld be based on need not supply and demand.

 

capitalism feds itself with wars

 

...or is it the other way around?

I think a lot of wars serve as an agenda in which a group of politicians and corporations use the war as a means of profiting at the expense of the tax payers, a prime example being the war in Iraq. They say they're introducing democracy to Iraq (now that they can no longer claim "weapons of mass deception"), but that's just an excuse for a few fat cats to get rich. Our tax dollars fund this nightmare, yet companies like Haliburton, Lockheed Martin, and other defense contractors are laughing all the way to the bank now that they are able to drain Iraq's resources for their own financial gain. Meanwhile, we don't see any benefits, the cost of oil as high as it's ever been, social programs are being cut in favor of military spending, and class disparity is growing. I don't think Capitalism is the problem, though, I think it's what this country has done with Capitalism that is the problem.

 

But what has been done, is a direct result of capitalism. The people in control of the government are rich people. The people who financed the wars, the blood, the misery, will still be there if some Liberal who will just do some minor changed, get "elected". These rich greedy people will stay unless we remove them from power, both economically and politically speaking. Common people must have control over society, not the rich people. Capitalism isn't the cure, it's the problem. Capitalism isn't medicine, it's the virus. Now we just have to find a way to cure the disease.

Don't forget that over 100 000 civilians have died, journalists killed by both sides, not to mention the countless people who tried to defend their nation.

 

capitalism is a good idea because it breeds inequity, war, slavery, exploitation, coersion, and hate; without those things, what will i have to protest???

 

capitilism is lots of little switches each of which can go towards good or evil


communism is one big effing switch, it usually goes towards evil, if it went towards good that'd be great, but that's just not long term feasible, it's also not agile in times of economic turmoil....

 

communism would work if the emphastructure was stabilised, by not giving one person too much power at one time, which is exactly what happened in the ussr. aheiving this is not really too difficult either.

 

Capitalism is a natural system. Why shouldn't Shaquille O'Niell get paid more
than the average basketball player?

The amount of force required to re-distribute wealth is too much.

rescrictions on freedoms, ( reading matter, assembly )
are too high a price for any potential harmonizing balance of wealth.


Gain from the growth of the capitalistic economy provides more trickle down
than re-distribution in a stagnant socialist economy.

 

Wrong, humans started out, with sharing resources with other memebers of the tribe.

Why should extrea resources go to Shaquille O'Niell, when the basics have yet been distributed to the poor?

What about the freedom of the poor?

Wrong, the poor are worse off, even though the economy has grown.

 

Sharing is natural within a kinship/ family group. At the scale of an entire nation, there are too many slackers, the system breaks down.
Sharing works within the kinship group ( Village ) because slackers can be stigmatized, not so in Mega groups, entitlement trumps stigma.


Is the wealth of Shaq or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet resented?

do you know any one personally who does not have a microwave oven, shoes, cooking oil, meat three times a week ????

The Poor have the most freedom of all. They have the luxury of not making compromises. Sometimes the proudest people are the poor. The big question is not: Are you rich ?, but: Are you happy ?

The poorest people on planet earth are those stuck with socialist economies. These are the nations with no economic rights, everything is subject to confiscation. Only nations with property rights can support the costs of a limited safty net.

People will vote with thier feet and leave a kleptocracy.
When John Lennon moved to New York, he was escaping The Tax Man
All kinds of entrepural people will move out if threatened with confiscation.
They will more to a more business friendly place.

The key is to find an appropriate balance between economic fredom and a limited safty net.

 

oh really? it wouldn't be africa would it? sierra leone for example is the poorest country in the world (according to the cia fact files anyway) and it's a market economy, albeit on an impoverished scale. it's also been ravaged by a dirty war that has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism as far as i know. the people have no economic rights there largely due to a history of being treated shabbily by the 'global economy'. are their any socialist economies left on earth?

 

Also living conditions are much better in cuba than in most of the rest of latin america. Also things are getting much better for people in venezuela. And as james q points out africa is where the worlds poorest countries are situated, i don't see any 'socialsit' countries there. Also listening to most of you lot you'd think capitalism ahd always been here, it's been here for 200yrs approximatley, it's had it's purpose, now it's just a draw back and impoverishing milllions of people. Capitalism is a necessery step between feudalism and socialism, not the climax.