Why capitalism?

Evil excuse for the illuminati and freemasons to take over the world.

 

Thank you.

The reason Somalia, Afganistan and Iraq are in the situation they are in is because they lack 2 basic things, security and infrastructure, neither of which can be provided by a pure free market society without some sort of government. Watch as soon as Iraq has a functional government, starts collecting taxes and regulating business, thier economy will impove as thier security and infrastructure improve.

 

Because you want them, in turn, to do something that is helpful and useful to you. That is, you want them to pay you. And even if you were just being helpful and useful out of the goodness of your heart with no alterior motive, your helpfulness and usefulness might be unwanted by that person.

You are entitled to the right to PURSUE a job through any legal means, but you have no inherent right to any job. To claim that you have the right to a job is basically equivalent to saying that you or the government has the right to force someone to provide you with a job.

Money is quite possibly the single greatest invention of mankind...and you want to stop using it? What exactly would that accomplish, aside from making it much more inconvenient for people to trade with one another? Goods and services would still have a certain value attached to them.

 

You're correct that pure free-market capitalism is, in many ways, less efficient than a mostly-capitalist government that provides some infrastructure and a few basic services to its people. However, the problems in Somalia/Afghanistan/Iraq are much deeper than a lack of infrastructure or industrial regulation. As you mentioned, all three of those countries are close to anarchy. The biggest economic problems in these countries have nothing to do with government regulation (or lack thereof) of industry...it's the fact that anyone is free to kill you and steal everything you own with no consequences. You asked why Wal-Mart isn't in Somalia: Because Wal-Mart has better things to spend money on than military protection for its own stores in a region of the world where no one has much money to spend anyway.

While the government is able to provide a few services more efficiently than the private sector - such as roads, water, and power - you make a HUGE logical leap by saying that that also means the government is able to efficiently regulate the wages or working conditions of its workers. This is not at all true.

You aren't going to suddenly end poverty by artificially setting the Somali minimum wage to $10 per hour (or any other value). Labor has a value just like any other commodity, and if businesses are forced to overpay for it, they will simply hire fewer workers and operate less productively.

 

I agree with you about the security and infrastructure. But I don't think anarchies really qualify as "pure free market societies" because there is always SOMEONE demanding your money. If not the government, than the local mafia thug. I don't think a "pure free market" is even possible, because it is unsustainable without tax dollars to pay for security.

The best example of an efficient free-market society is not Somalia - it is Hong Kong. Hong Kong operates with very little government regulation of business, very low taxes, and just enough infrastructure and services to provide for its people. In addition, Hong Kong has the benefit of an extremely large protector nation that demands very little of it in return. After WWII, Hong Kong had roughly the same standard of living as China. But by remaining committed to economic freedom (under the protection of Britain and later China), Hong Kong's GDP per capita now rivals that of many Western nations.

 

Why not ? Aren't the people of Somalia free from government interference in thier lives ? Aren't potential businesses completely free of government regulation ? Isn't everyone in Somolia free to aquire as much material wealth as possible at any cost ? Isn't this capitalism in its purest form ?

 

I guess it depends on what you define as "government." Somalia may not have a government that wears suits and ties and has diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, but there are definitely some people calling the shots more than others. If the thug who "protects" all of the people on your block demands money, he is the government.

Therefore, businesses are not completely free of government regulation, as the owners have to pay bribes to local thugs to not be killed, much less remain in business. No, everyone in Somalia is not free to acquire as much material wealth as possible at any cost. You can't acquire much wealth if someone steals all your money, and you can't acquire much wealth if you're dead because you stood up to the warlord.

 

The thug who "protects" everyone is not the government, he is a business man providing a service. If this thug is the only one in the area providing this service, oh well, monopolies are a time honored tradition among capitalists.

This sounds to me like the free market setting wages, here in the US minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, in Somalia minimum wage is you get to live another day.

My point here is no economic system is perfect, even capitalism. If you look at all the successful economies around the world they all have the same basic things in common, security, infrastructure, a balance between the needs of business and the needs of individual people and a strong middle class. These things can only be provided for by a strong functioning government. The libertarian utopia is a myth.

 

Well how would you define government, if not an entity that protects people in exchange for money/power? There's really no fundamental difference between the thug protecting/bullying Somalis on his block, and a dictator protecting/bullying his citizens. In the absence of anyone higher up to answer to, I think that both qualify as governments.

The difference is that no one has to do anything to let you live another day, other than just leave you alone. A minimum wage, on the other hand, forces an employer to do something against his will.

I agree that no economic system is perfect, and I agree with you about the necessity of security and infrastructure. However, I don't believe that heavy regulation of business is necessary, nor does the government need to do anything special to help create a middle class. You don't need a socialist leviathan to provide necessities for its people; a small government with low tax rates should be able to provide infrastructure necessities for its people.

 

I had to respond to this one real quick.

No, we don't.
That's almost right, but it is skewed to the current times' thinking of "what do I get back?"
This is the selfishness created by money culture.
You are not a selfless person.
What I would want in return, is for that person who I have provided a service for, to keep living, keep doin what he's doin, and I'll do the same, and we'll all get along nicely. And if I need something in his region, I can give him a call or e-mail or whatever and we'll get together.

Money was one of the greatest inventions. And all things made can be used, manipulated, and corrupted, such as money; you get your money makers, the Federal Reserve, crime...the system has grown rotten, more though, humans have expanded and evolved since using it, we are better than it, so now it is more of a hinderance to our ways of life.
Maybe that wasn't so quick.
6 I'm getting back to you too.
Peace.

 

You're right, I'm not. But neither are you.

The last sentence of this paragraph shows that you DO expect something in return for your service.

If you truly just want to do work to help others, I'm sure you can find SOMEONE who is willing to hire you for free. My original point is that you don't have the right to any job, because that would mean forcing someone to hire you when they might not want to.

Money is a hindrance to our way of life? Do you realize that without money, you'd be forced to barter with people in your community for everything you wanted? And since you'd only be able to conveniently trade with people in your area, you'd end up overpaying for goods and services. This would reduce standards of living across the board, reduce productivity to almost nonexistent levels, and send the economy into a nose dive. Eliminating money wouldn't eliminate the inherent value of goods and services; it would just make it harder to get them.

 

HAHAHA, nice cartoon.

 

I think what is not understood in the world today is that there is a value to giving goods and services as well as in receiving them.

All we need is food and accomodation, and how much does that really cost? It costs a very little bit of work on a farm (with modern farming techniques) and a bit of construction (bearing in mind that once a house is built it will last for generations).
Food prices are artificially inflated by farmer subsidies. Including the extra taxes charged to pay farmers not to work, we end up paying three times the true value of the food. What this works out to mean is that we could pay the same amount of taxes and get the same amount of food, but for free.
House prices are inflated by certain people who own many more houses than they need charging more rent than the mortgage costs them each month (assuming they even have one), for someone to live in their house.
Wouldn't you be willing to physically do this (construction and farmwork) work, rather than pay the bloated prices you're expected to? It's a tiny amount of work to do, compared to what it actually costs you day to day on your rent/mortgage and grocery bills.

Beyond that tiny amount of work - absolute freedom (within limits of course).

 

Where?

 

What's wrong in Somalia is not so much the lack of government as the lack of rule of law. You don't need regulations but you do need a rule of law and enforcement of property rights even in a libertarian society.

 

So you are saying individuals should be regulated but not Corporations ?

 

How did you interpret it that way? I didn't say anything like that.

 

Ahh okay, this is what I wanted to respond to.
I think the need for security and infrastructure come from being one nation among many. If countries became more like cities, and the planet as one nation, which is going to happen eventually, I don't think a big government or monetary system would be necessary.
But of course for now yes, unfortuanately I think Iraq will be in a degree of chaos for sometime.
Sorry this is way off topic now. Oh and sorry for this too, Bagdaddy, "You are not a selfless person" i kinda come off as a prick there.

 

Sorry about that, I really should know better than to post before the first cup of coffee in the morning.