4/5
No system is perfect, but Capitalism is [b][u]the most[/u][/b] near-perfect system humanity has achieved.
English
-
[url=http://www.globalissues.org/issue/235/consumption-and-consumerism]Rampant inequality is not something I would classify as "the most near perfect system."[/url]
-
>Study from nine years ago >Private consumption Consumption of what? Wealth? You do realize wealth is not finite and can be generated right? Obviously someone with more money is going to buy more, what are they supposed to do with that money? Hoard it? Maybe they would be more inclined to spend it if people weren't constantly demonizing them for having it and trying to put them on the same field as everyone else. There's nothing wrong with living luxuriously, but there's a lot wrong with being spiteful.
-
Edited by Madman Mordo: 6/11/2014 7:37:16 PM[quote]>Study from nine years ago[/quote] >pulling the time card I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. Smithian Capitalism has been around for 200 years. A 5 year study isn't going to be anymore drastically different than a study conducted today. In fact, the only change that would probably occur is an increase in inequality. [quote]Consumption of what? Wealth? You do realize wealth is not finite and can be generated right?[/quote] ... Where do you think wealth comes from? The sky? Wealth is measured upon labour and natural resources. We have a "finite" Earth, thus we have finite resources/wealth. Capitalism is presupposed on our planet having infinite resources, but unfortunately that's just simply not reality. Capitalism is not concerned with efficient distribution of resources, hence why we're in such a shitty position both environmentally and economically today. [quote]Obviously someone with more money is going to buy more, what are they supposed to do with that money? Hoard it? Maybe they would be more inclined to spend it if people weren't constantly demonizing them for having it and trying to put them on the same field as everyone else.[/quote] My problem is not people making money. My problem is how horribly inefficient capitalism is at distributing money. At this point if you're not a CEO or don't own a company, you're not even stretching upper middle class. That's bullshit. [quote]There's nothing wrong with living luxuriously, but there's a lot wrong with being spiteful.[/quote] Once again, no one is out to "spite" the rich, so you can just drop the strawman. There's a difference between being spiteful and criticizing a system that clearly isn't working to benefit all of us and not just a select few.
-
Edited by Gaara444: 6/11/2014 8:08:05 PM[quote]Where do you think wealth comes from? The sky? Wealth is measured upon labor and natural resources. We have a "finite" Earth, thus we have finite resources/wealth. Capitalism is presupposed on our planet having infinite resources, but unfortunately that's just simply not reality. Capitalism is not concerned with efficient distribution of resources, hence why we're in such a shitty position both environmentally and economically today. [/quote] The furthest we've ever dug into the Earth is a few miles, we're finding resources we don't even know how to use yet. As resources become more scarce their price will rise accordingly. But I don't see milk going for $1,000 a gallon so I don't know why you're even bringing this up. Our economy is not going to collapse due to lack of resources, especially since we have an abundance and we keep discovering more. [quote]My problem is not people making money. My problem is how horribly inefficient capitalism is at distributing money. At this point if you're not a CEO or don't own a company, you're not even stretching upper middle class. That's bullshit. [/quote] You said in your previous paragraph that wealth in weighed in labor and resources. Would you also agree that wealth in also weighed in with investment? If I invested my money into a 3D printer and made a small toy business, I will make money accordingly with the production and resources I used. None of these massive mega-corps you see just came out of nowhere, they all started small. Are you going to tell me it's wrong to get bigger because that means more money? Also you're forgetting about Trade and other skilled labor. Doctors aren't middle class, but they sure as Hell ain't millionaires. Where do they fall in your view of the Wealth Chart? Because from what I can gather from your posts, you seem to think that anyone who makes more than 75K a year but less than a million dollars doesn't exist. It also assumes that everyone who is wealthy didn't get there through merit. Being a CEO isn't a fantasy land like people assume. You;re running an entire company, why do people seem to think that this is somehow an easy job? You want to know what's also bullshit? The idea that Bob Iger should make the same amount of money I do just because we both work for Disney. I couldn't possibly hope to run Disney (except into the ground), but it doesn't take much skill to operate the register. [quote]Once again, no one is out to "spite" the rich, so you can just drop the strawman. There's a difference between being spiteful and criticizing a system that clearly isn't working to benefit all of us and not just a select few. [/quote] And socialism doesn't benefit a select few? The idea of socialism runs off the notion that you can trust other people with your money, and that greed doesn't exist. Humanity isn't like that and that's a solid fact. I realize you strongly support Socialism, and you seem to view it as a more "Fair" system so let me take us back to the 3D printer example. If I used my profits from my small toy business using a 3D printer and bought a factory to produce more toys, at a higher quality and rate and made more money off it, how is it "Fair" for other people to use that factory when I was the sole person who worked for it? You could avoid that question and say that when I die it wouldn't be fair for my heirs to get my money since they didn't work for it either, but that also brings up another question: What right do other people have to tell me what to do with my money? I'm sorry I don't trust an organization that has proven for thousands of years since the dawn of it's creation in human history to be completely incompetent with other people's money, but this idea that it's fair to put everyone on the same level regardless of how who got to the top is completely ludicrous.
-
Edited by Meta Cognition: 6/11/2014 7:43:45 PM[quote]Capitalism is presupposed on our planet having infinite resources[/quote] I don't want to get into this, to be honest, because I'm trying to read. But I'm just going to throw out the fact that most of the intellectuals who founded the idea of free trade and private property - David Hume, Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, John Locke et cetera - did so because they believed in efficient distribution of scarce resources. Not to mention that if this weren't the case, there really wouldn't be a need for the supply and demand model. Almost all examples I can think of that involvement environmental woes aren't actually caused by capitalism.
-
Edited by Madman Mordo: 6/11/2014 7:55:10 PM[quote]But I'm just going to throw out the fact that most of the intellectuals who founded the idea of free trade and private property - David Hume, Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, John Locke et cetera - did so because they believed in efficient distribution of scarce resources. Not to mention that if this weren't the case, there really wouldn't be a need for the supply and demand model. [/quote] Yeah, I'm sure the theory they had in mind was idealistic, but unfortunately it just didn't pan out that way. [quote]Almost all examples I can think of that involvement environmental woes aren't actually caused by capitalism.[/quote] Wait what? Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this, but are you implying that the system we currently live under doesn't encourage profit making at the expense of environmental damage? Really? That's what you're going for?
-
[quote]Yeah, I'm sure the theory they had in mind was idealistic, but unfortunately it just didn't pan out that way.[/quote] Supply and demand is literally there for the sake of allocating resources which aren't infinite. [quote]Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this, but are you implying that the system we currently live under doesn't encourage profit making at the expense of environmental damage?[/quote] To an extent. It's quite clear that the profit motive is driving some pretty fantastic initiatives in the favour of environmentalism, especially since the recent decline of coal in America. And while the profit motive certainly has the potential to wreak havoc, it can't do it alone. Think of Halliburton and the other special interests who spearheaded foreign missions of destruction. They couldn't have done that without the State deep in their pockets. The financial system is based on ridiculous regulations which have been formed as a reaction to crises. European paper companies have begun applying more efficient methods of production. As mentioned above, investment in carbon-heavy industries is dropping. In cases where resource depletion has been a problem, like copper, the market finds alternatives. The biggest problem I can see when it comes to capitalism and the environment is fishing and the dead-zones. This is one area where I fully support governmental intervention in the creation in an international roster of fishing vessels, so we can crack down on this unfortunate tragedy of the commons. Even this, however, is facing innovation. Aquaculture and fish-farming is a steadily growing industry, as well as space exploration which will allow us access to resources further afield.
-
Why do you say that?
-
Name a better system. I win.
-
Edited by DukeOfStuffing: 6/11/2014 7:19:27 PMbefore you want me to suggest a "better" system, I'll need an idea of what you think "better" means.
-
No, you tell me what [i]you[/i] think is a better system...
-
FIIIIIIIIIINLAND
-
... Oh.