Yeah that's all well and good, but what if I want a yacht for bitches
Capitalism, yay or nay?
- Thread starter Sky1981
- Start date
Yeah that's all well and good, but what if I want a yacht for bitches
There is only one model of bitches and you have to share them.
The reality of it is just that, yes. Obviously the theory is quite different.
People are too idealistic with their theories. They need to take into account a few things:
1. A large percentage of the human race is selfish and greedy.
2. Life isn't fair and there will never be a scenario where everybody gets treated equally.
3. On an individual basis some people are bigger, fitter, smarter or faster than others and they'll generally get into a better position in life.
4. Wealth doesn't equate to happiness. There's plenty of poor people who live a much happier life than many rich people.
Over the years history and civilization has its own method to adapt to overpopulation, im just glad we're not resorting to war this time around. Hypothetically if the resources is finite and growth is infinite we will have real problem in the far future.
That's the medical pharmacist lobby for whatever protection due to high r n d. If it's pure capitalism then anyone able to produce the same there wont be protection and the cost will go down. So it's actually the tampering that creates unfair advantage
I think you need an international forum to regulate it, at the moment it seems like a bit of a monster consuming far too much and serving too few.
Think were a ways off that level of cooperation though
Think were a ways off that level of cooperation though
What, like redcafe? I think we'd give it a decent shot.
Welcome to Scandinavia, basically. We still have lots of issues to iron out though.
Economic growth is powered by energy. It's the growth in consumed energy which is the problem. Thermodynamics puts a limit on how much energy you can consume on Earth.
The current estimate for commercial fusion energy is ~2050. But I'd throw another 5-10 years on top of that due to stuff like politics etc.
There's no bad system, there's only evil people. Communism, capitalism and any other ideology are noble at the start, but considering all aspect capitalism works best because it's in tandem with greed, something you can't take away from man.
It's about efficiency at the end of the day, let someone who's good at it makes the best of it. One thing good about capitalism is that it promotes new idea and invention due to the financial reward aspect of being creative. We'd be stuck with telegram if not for some greedy people wants to make money by inventing telephone
It's about efficiency at the end of the day, let someone who's good at it makes the best of it. One thing good about capitalism is that it promotes new idea and invention due to the financial reward aspect of being creative. We'd be stuck with telegram if not for some greedy people wants to make money by inventing telephone
We already have. The wto and its free trade mechanism are slowly changing the world. Although some will lose and some will gain, it's capitalism on global level
We already have. The wto and its free trade mechanism are slowly changing the world. Although some will lose and some will gain, it's capitalism on global level
To be fair, we can't really pass judgement on communism because we have no tangible examples to draw on. All of the so called communist states were nothing more than dictatorships of the proletariat and they were never able to grow beyond that stage, likely due to human greed.
That said, I prefer capitalism and think it offers the best opportunities for people but it should be tempered with a dash of socialism.
That said, I prefer capitalism and think it offers the best opportunities for people but it should be tempered with a dash of socialism.
It's great in theory but it's never really been practiced.
But can't we judge them based on ther failures including their failure to grow into what they supposedly aimed for?
Anyone can create a (semi)communist/socialist community in a capitalist society. You just need to convince enough people to share those values and you are good to do. Those exist, but they are usually pretty small, because only few people actually appreciate all the consequences. It doesn’t work the other way around.
In our current society capitalism isn´t the problem. Crony capitalism is, which is more a problem of the political system and less of the economical one. Furthermore communism isn´t great in theory. It is a shit theory that is flawed from bottom to top.
In our current society capitalism isn´t the problem. Crony capitalism is, which is more a problem of the political system and less of the economical one. Furthermore communism isn´t great in theory. It is a shit theory that is flawed from bottom to top.
It's capitalism at its finest. Profit before people
You know I'm not so sure we actually could, because then everything would become EboueAgree. Also, pretty much all implementations of socialism have been 'leninism' which in my opinion has nothing to do with pure 'Marxism'. Would love to see some state implement something which is near the theoretical Marxism.
Slightly more than I thought, but sill, it is something that is coming sooner than later and which will make as much energy as we want available for the next few centuries (if not millenia).
I don't buy into the argument that it needs perpetual growth. Certainly sub developed countries still need to enrich further so that a theoretical equal distribution of income wouldn't still mean everyone's poor (e.g. Brazil'd GDP per capita is USD 16,000 , so solving inequality in itself like some people argue would not leave you with a rich country).
But beyond those, countries at the forefront of economic development don't seem to me like they "need" any growth beyond whatever population growth is (if any) and growth delivered by productivity against (innovation/reallocation). I also somehow believe that our GDP growth statistics underestimate the impact technology has already had on quality of life in the last 20 years (I have never read any serious papers or articles on the issue, this is just my own likely-BS theory)
The elevation of millions (billions?) of people out of extreme poverty (China, India, etc.) over the last 20-30 years and into some form of the urban/consumer habits we know has certainly caused a huge rise in energy demand. But beyond that, are developed countries such as the US consuming significantly more energy today than in 1990? There's certainly been a lot of advances in technology around energy use. Just look at our cars, and if it was achieved there I can only imagine the same happened in industry as well.
Just finalizing on some of the merits of capitalism, and not requiring growth: some markets in the US hardly grow as a whole these years, food and beverage an example. But the large companies in those sectors are still going, still pushing and shoving, competing with each other. And the competition is largely healthy, because its all about trying to figure out what the consumer wants. Nowadays with foods its less additives and less sugar, and socialists believe it or not, that's what the companies are focused on delivering, that's what they're spending time and their research dollars on.
But beyond those, countries at the forefront of economic development don't seem to me like they "need" any growth beyond whatever population growth is (if any) and growth delivered by productivity against (innovation/reallocation). I also somehow believe that our GDP growth statistics underestimate the impact technology has already had on quality of life in the last 20 years (I have never read any serious papers or articles on the issue, this is just my own likely-BS theory)
The elevation of millions (billions?) of people out of extreme poverty (China, India, etc.) over the last 20-30 years and into some form of the urban/consumer habits we know has certainly caused a huge rise in energy demand. But beyond that, are developed countries such as the US consuming significantly more energy today than in 1990? There's certainly been a lot of advances in technology around energy use. Just look at our cars, and if it was achieved there I can only imagine the same happened in industry as well.
Just finalizing on some of the merits of capitalism, and not requiring growth: some markets in the US hardly grow as a whole these years, food and beverage an example. But the large companies in those sectors are still going, still pushing and shoving, competing with each other. And the competition is largely healthy, because its all about trying to figure out what the consumer wants. Nowadays with foods its less additives and less sugar, and socialists believe it or not, that's what the companies are focused on delivering, that's what they're spending time and their research dollars on.
Absolutely, but that particular failure is a process flaw and not necessarily communism's. I'd blame Marx for it before blaming the ideology itself. It may well be that his process is incorrect and there is a better way to achieve a communist society.
Capitalism is the only viable option. The reward of wealth and monetary gains promotes and demands innovation, creation and improvements which in turn create's new businesses and jobs.
A totally free market would be incredibly dangerous but at the same time if it is too heavily regulated it's stifling, it's needs a very well balanced medium.
A totally free market would be incredibly dangerous but at the same time if it is too heavily regulated it's stifling, it's needs a very well balanced medium.
Last edited:
Well then the same could be said for Capitalism, perhaps the issue is not the ideology but the process. I think Douglas Adams got it right when he said "people are the problem"
It's capitalism at its finest. Profit before people
Because what they're doing is actually against the spirit of capitalism, they're playing a dirty trick to get ahead of their competition (protection from the government). Capitalist actually are very much against interference, principally capitalist benefits everyone.
In a capitalist world, there won't be slavery because there's always someone with better management of wealth can offer better wage for a finite pool of workers. At least in theory
I wouldn't go that far. Capitalism has its issues but at least there is some distribution of wealth.
That's the year I was told back when studying plasma physics a couple of years ago anyway. At least people are working on it but get this: The plans for ITER (the big research reactor in France) were allegedly ready in 1995, then it wasn't until 2005 that the powers that be decided to go ahead with it. Almost another 10 years later in 2014 the project was actually started. Or something like that.
Patents means supernormal profit and protectionism, it protects on one side and created monopoly on the other side.
No patents should be applicable on livr saving medication, at least if its up to me. In 25 years they're forced to opem the formula, so it's better than nothing
Or just call it laughable and/or embarrassing.
But that is not capitalism, or the free market. At least the kind you are talking about. New drugs cost literally billions of dollars to produce (though I would guess in a free market there would be no FDA so no need for extensive trials?).
So, what is the incentive for a drugmaker to produce a new drug? Why should he not get to keep his patent indefinitely? Why are life-saving drugs different from other drugs? All that these "expiring" patents and creating categories of drugs will do is distort the free market, since demand for lifesaving drugs is inelastic to everything, they would naturally be priced high.
Why I should be ashamed though? Never mentioned him.
I think it was already clarified that a pure capitalist system does not exist so your points are not exactly meaningful.
Honestly I haven't seen the rest of the thread, so apologies for that. But having lanced through it, it's curious that he opposes redistribution but wants life-saving drugs as a different category. Where should the laws of supply and demand not be applied?
It's a difficult question and the answer requires the proper balance between free commerce and protection of your citizens, so naturally some regulation is required otherwise the philosophy gets too much prominence.
All ideologies are wrong 'cause an absolute reference point is theoretical. Relativism is the only absolute.
Name your confidence interval.
The biggest problem is distribution of resources and no system has solved that puzzle yet.
Oreo Cookies FTW!
Natural resources are all too often located in ropey countries, which is unfortunate.