Where do you stand on Capitalism?
 

I know this is probably quite a broad subject, but it's something I've on been wondering about, probably for a long time too... I was reading this article, and I must say, I found it to be quite interesting read. Because what I've highlighted in the quote below, to my way of thinking, can and often from what I've seen, this inevitably and essentially tends to "devalue" a human being as nothing more than a "machine", that's only as good as their "economic output".

This has far reaching implications in wider society and politics as we know it. If we look at politics today, and the dog eat, dog eat world we seem to be living in, essentially, if one does not have money, particularly if you're poor, or "working class", you seem to be less than a human, and are treated as such by a system that only cares about profit.

In other words; morality means almost nothing (if anything) to that same system, but if you have a big bank account, you automatically seem to be worth a lot more, even if you have little to no morals - we only need to look at certain politicians to see what I'm talking about (at least one of them is the most powerful so-called "leader" in the "free world").

Just so I'm clear on what I'm referring to;

It's what I've highlighted in bold that's essentially my question. Being, is "operation for profit" a good thing? Or should "Capitalism" be replaced and/or modified?

(While again, this is probably a very broad subject I know, this isn't just about one person, and there are many points that could be made; please keep this thread concerning "Capitalism" and other economic systems, rather than focusing on individual people. Thanks.)

Capitalism is totally immoral but it works. You can have a society based on capitalism which is reasonably pleasant to live in for most people and not just for the rich. I believe on the whole (and over my lifetime), the UK has been such a society. On the other hand, socialism is a lovely idea, but it doesn't work. Societies that try to base themselves on socialism usually end up with general impoverishment.

The basic idea of socialism, it seems to me, is that society should be run like a family in which everybody has a seat at the table and gets fed because they are family. In no family do the children have to compete with their parents for food and go hungry if they lose out. But it seems like we have a built-in evolutionary readiness to feed our kin but none to feed anybody else for free. When that is imposed (for example through heavy taxation), all you get is massive tax evasion by the well off and free riding by the poor.

The exception seems to be when sharing is enforced by a religion that all members of the society share and take seriously. One thinks of Old Testament Judaism with its compulsory tithing and gleaning, or early Christianity with its common purse. Even then, there were always problems with people who were not serious enough in their religion to make the necessary economic sacrifices.

Where do you (I) stand on Capitalism, you ask?

for five bucks I'll tell you. :) ;)

If one was to follow God then everything would be free, and that's that. But like God man has to work with and put up with the Godless that want something for something.

a piece of paper with a number on it to get something ones needs or wants.
etc..

They have written books on that.

It is the engine that has driven the high standard of living and the freedoms that the western world has enjoyed. It has made the west the red cross to the rest of the world. Remember when the Soviet union collapsed? It was the capitalist pigs that flew food over to them. Remember the Berlin airlift? All of the schools and hospitals that capitalism built in Africa over the years?

Some people are born with less advantage, no fault of their own. If they work, strive, compete, they can raise their standard of living. Is that fair, they have to work so hard when some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths and never have to do anything? Nope.

Some people are lazy and worthless. Is it fair that the other taxpayers should have to work hard to support their laziness, drug usage, having children with no plan on how to provide for them? And done so for generations? Nope.

Capitalism - Each according to his ability to get it. Fair? Nope.
Some people are born to wealthier families, some are prettier, some are smarter, others are neither smart or pretty...so they get to be working class. Fair? Nope. Neither is children being born crippled. Life is not fair.

Socialism - Each according to his need. Bring everything down to the lowest common denominator so that everyone is dirt poor and hungry, but at least it's fair. Venezuela?

If one isn't allowed to benefit from the fruit of ones own labor, if you are going to get the same regardless of how hard you work, if a stupid person should get payed the same as a genius, then people won't work hard, and the economy will collapse. Socialism does not work. As someone once said. The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of others peoples money.

Capitalism is the engine that builds. And it is inherently not fair. It drives innovation, invention, wealth creation, and technology. Why, because I can benefit from my own work.

Governments are way more dangerous to freedom, justice and safety than capitalism ever was. The bigger the government, the less freedom, safety and justice that you have.

Systems created by humans only possess anything even remotely moral or immoral relative to the humans that create and deploy it/them. It is a historical fact that dictators, for example, have run the gamut from benevolent to psychotic. Hammers are tools with which one can build a house or cave another's head in. It is the wielders that lend morality to inanimate objects, not the objects themselves.

In the case of Capitalism, or any economic system, I think it is important to recognize that not only do the people that practice it define whether or not it is manifested as morally benign or corrupt, but that people, especially over generations, change so the system changes... evolves. Because economic systems are at the root of, the engine of, how societies operate and evolve, governments have a vested interest in economic systems. All economic systems other than Capitalism imply, in fact require, extended and enforced governmental control over all of it's citizens, since someone has to decide who needs what since it is not left to Supply and Demand, the natural forces of The Marketplace. That is almost always doomed to evolve into mediocrity and hard line divide between The Deciders and The Masses, the Rich and the Poor.

Capitalism IMHO is the best possible and most morally reflective system there is or even can be. In effect it is Democracy applied to The Marketplace, which substitutes dollars for votes. Ideally, only those who perform to create Public Good will stay "voted in office". However it, too, is not safe from Evolution. The purest form of Capitalism is Laissez Faire, the "Hands Off" Adam Smith approach where government has zero rights, privileges or power to affect Economy. This never lasts and in fact has never actually even existed as a starting point other than in the abstract. It is impossible to begin with a level playing field and even if it was, those most able and/or lucky, would soon gather more wealth and power than others and in time they would (as would we all in that position) use that power to influence government to protect our investments and the avalanche has begun to gather. This has been called "Late Stage Capitalism" but that is just another name for Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Fascism... all the names that refer to Governmental-Socio-Economic systems in which there is a sharply divided elite ruling class vs/ workers where government and economy are combined into an indistinguishable, powerful and oppressive whole.

TLDR - It is fruitless and impossible to discuss economic systems as if they were static and unchanging, well-defined things. They are in fact "moving targets" and apparently each and every one can only exist for a time until they must adjust or stagnate and evaporate... usually catastrophically, and out of the ashes, rise again. That said, China may be an example of a despotic system that with the aid of extreme technology can put down any force for change so early that elite ruling families can maintain such rigid control for many generations longer than was possible in the past. I struggle with the current state of Capitalism, but I fear Socialism. I prefer to struggle.

India's belief system, states the status you are born in you stay in, there is no getting out of it. Born in poverty die in poverty. there is no opportunity for "status" advancement to rise ones quality of life in that country.

Capitalism is the oppressor of equality.
It says nothing about not discriminating against one due to ones financial status.

I work at a place that is the opposite of capitalism. Tends to have a lot of lazy, ignorant people that think the world owes them free everything. Most of them avoid taxes. Think it's OK for others to pay them. Can't fire them. Some don't show up.

What is there to like about that?

I'm sure widows and orphans ought to be taken care of but the rest should work for their keep.

In the few times it has actually been practiced, Capitalism has been fantastic for quickly uplifting economic standards and maintaining/sustaining them. A few important points (would provide more but its late) the USA only practiced Capitalism for a short time early in its history, around the year 1911 it switched to Marxism/Capitalism hybrid (as evident in the tax code). China frequently called Communist is really a hybrid of Capitalism and Socialism, tax code is more Capitalistic then USA interestingly enough. The so called Nordic countries are more Capitalistic then Socialistic and try to navigate a hybrid combination of the two.

Governments love tyranny, people want freedom unless they are conditioned to "like" tyranny. Any economic or political system can create tyranny, Communism and Socialism can only provide tyranny.

I would rather live in a Capitalistic country even with its faults then another system that produces no success and robs mankind of its potential.

Churchill had a few good quotes:
and

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.e...ton-churchill/

Nordics to American Progressives: Stop Calling Us Socialists!
https://hubpages.com/politics/Nordic...-Us-Socialists

My stance on capitalism?
As many lashes with a heavy whip for each percent of interest charged by someone who hands out a loan, applied to the loangiver, of course.

P.S.:
Might seem cruel or perhaps even inhuman, but a whipping does much less damage than a debt and interest based economy to entire populations.

Only five bucks BW? You're a cheap Capitalist now? I'll send you five bitcoins, sound good? :p

I doubt ET has any use or can spend our $$$ either ;)

You guys have basically talked about one of the very points I was thinking of, in that; just because a country has a "market economy", it doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't elements of Socialism embedded in government policy. As you two point out, China is a perfect example of where you have what is very much a Communist country, but does allow at least some Capitalism in it's economy. So the question is that; can you have a sustainable "hybrid" economic system, where by, you can get the benefits of working hard, while maintaining ideals that would otherwise be considered as "Communist" or "Socialist" policy's?

Because even with Capitalism, there are many that work very hard, and take a school teacher for example, they may work in reality for say 14 hours a day, but yet have to fight for a lousy 2% extra pay, not to mention being slugged with many taxes. But yet, someone who has money can pay cleaver accountants to avoid a lot of taxes. Is that really the best Capitalism can do? It hardly seems like a reward for "working hard" to me.

Also, the US committed itself to put a man on the moon, which took at least 10 years to do, and once done, it was arguably one of the greatest ever achievements of mankind. And this was something done by the US government, and not by private business. This obviously took a lot of money and resources to achieve. Could one say that if it wasn't for Capitalism, that it would not have happened? Well, I believe the Soviets also went to space themselves didn't they?

Why do you work there in that case jefro? You must like your job...

Hoo Boy.

The average word count for posts in this thread seem much larger than for most other threads.

Called as "caste system". It is basically racist with supposed justification from scriptures.

In a recent incident, a law maker from the oppressed caste visited a temple for a public ceremony. After he left the authorities had a purification ritual.

Do you think you would tear down and redo a house that a black man occupied for about 8 to 10 years?

OK

When I was a little girl, my parents owned a number of gramophone records with children's stories on them, illustrated with songs. One of these was called The Little Red Hen. It told of a hen who found some wheat. She planted it, weeded it, harvested it, took it to the mill to be ground and baked the flour into bread. At each stage, she asked for help from a cat, a dog and a pig. Of course they always refused to lift a finger to help her. But when she asked who wanted to help her eat the bread, they all said, "I will!". She then told them that, as they hadn't helped her before, they wouldn't get any of the bread now. Then she and her ten chicks ate it all.

This was supposed to point the moral that those who don't work don't deserve to eat. But I noticed right away that the ten chicks hadn't done any work either, so I concluded that the little red hen was a hypocrite. She pretended to be punishing the cat, the dog and the pig for their laziness when actually she was punishing them for not belonging to her family. I concluded that what mattered in this world was being related to the right people, those who control access to resources. If you aren't, you have to work for every crumb you eat. And I still believe that. Capitalism has no morals, it just pretends to have them to overawe the working classes.

I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but the above is so true...

For you folks who complain that "Capitalism has no morals", I'd like you to consider that in it's pure form, or more realistically in it's early stages, what that really means it that it has no power beyond Supply and Demand to enforce anyone's morals on anyone else. It doesn't prevent anyone from exercising their morals either. There are only two basic ways for people in any community to deal with each other - negotiate or coerce. Coercion is inherently immoral since it accepts the principle that stealing another's life or livelihood is acceptable, even proper, as long as it only happens to "the other guy". It seems to me morals by definition require equitability - What's good for the goose is also good for the .... hen. As long as a system has laws that provide justice for all and are applied evenly, individual morality can thrive and an environment of negotiation by extension thrives and coercion is diminished. What could be more moral than that? As for caring for the disadvantaged, that is an individual choice as to how far one extends the concept of "family". A wise and moral person understands that he/she helps create the environment in which he/she lives. That should not be mandated by Law and forced on citizens. Education, starting at home, should make it clear what attributes work best in creating "the best of all possible worlds".

Under it. Looking up. Supply and demand huh?

I guess that why renters are gouged in my horse town.
Groceries keep going up.
Taxes too.
Living in the open desert.

Barter would suffice. For services or parts.
With tech and AI . The human condition could evolve past what has been standard since cr-magnon built his 1st 7 eleven.

Cuz capitalism has had a long run as a system.