In defense of capitalism

[Sacul15]

In light of the coming election, and in response to what seems to be becoming the general opinion that capitalism has failed, I give you this. What's your take on it? I think that all defenses and criticisms of the system are valid, including economic, practical, moral, philosophical, historical, etc.

[Athlete{UK}]

My friend is a pure capitalist. He believes everything should be controlled by a free market. He makes very good arguments just like this guy. The problem is everyone can make very good arguments for every system of government. I've heard solid arguments for communism, capitalism, socialism fuck even facism. On paper they're all perfect systems.

In practice they are not. the free market relies on the idea of human decency. The idea that everyone will recieve the best service because of competition is bollocks in practice. The theory goes that if company X makes a better product then company Y, company Y will create a better product then company X and so on. All the while the product just keeps getting better and better. A perfect system.

However in practise it works like this. Company X has a better product then company Y. Company Y will find ways of cutting costs. These can included and are not limited to: Cutting corners, delivering an infirior product for less, employing cheaper labour, the extreme of this being sweatshops, bullying smaller companies, buying up outlets, it can even streatch as far as espionage.

But then the argument goes an educated public would see this and begin to buy elsewhere. Well an educated public is a nice idea. if we had an educated public, socialism, communism, anarchy the lot would work. The fact is we don't.

This is a shame as the very nature of democracy requires an educated public but that's a completely different topic.

Without an educated public the disease that is consumerism creeps in. Consumerism is the problem with capitalism really, in the same way that capitalism is the real problem wih communism.

My personal belief is that capitalism is good and we should have it in our society. I however do not believe in pure capitalism and I myself lean towards socialism. The two not nessicerrily being exclusive. The problem with pure capitalism for me is it does not allow for things such as unions. Pure capitalism puts all the power of the society with the large corporations.

A pinch of socialism counterbalances the capitalist in order to balance society. In a capitalist society only the rich wield power and the hierachy of society is top heavy. No one demographic should rule the other. The prospect of a ruling caste to me is a terrible thing in any society.

Without power a population is helpless and at the mercy of it's rulers in the same way that they are victim to a facist ruler.

In America capitalism is failing, to a lesser extent it is over here as well. The reason being not because capitalism is fundamentally flawed but rather then American has allowed itself to become a consumerist nation.

[Sacul15]

However in practise it works like this. Company X has a better product then company Y. Company Y will find ways of cutting costs. These can included and are not limited to: Cutting corners, delivering an inferior product for less, employing cheaper labour, the extreme of this being sweatshops, bullying smaller companies, buying up outlets, it can even streatch as far as espionage.

My personal belief is that capitalism is good and we should have it in our society. I however do not believe in pure capitalism and I myself lean towards socialism. The two not nessicerrily being exclusive. The problem with pure capitalism for me is it does not allow for things such as unions. Pure capitalism puts all the power of the society with the large corporations.

The way I see it, a company has the right to offer an inferior product. Take computers for example. One can buy the best personal computer out there for about 20,000, but if all computer manufacturers only sold the best, very few people would be able to afford it. Now, I assume that when you say "cutting corners" you mean lowering the quality of a product, which leads to safety issues. No sane business person would allow this. If you are an airline company owner, would you allow your planes to be unsafe, increasing the possibility of disaster and thus destroying your credibility and profits? Of course not.

Now with the issue of hiring cheaper labor. If your main goal as a company is to make money, why would you hire somebody to do a job for $10.00 an hour when you can hire one for $2.00. Nobody is forcing that person to work for that much, why should a businessman be forced to hire someone for more than that? As for sweatshops, in third-world countries sweatshops are often better alternatives to what the people there had to start with, so those businesses are actually helping those people. Like I said, nobody is forcing people to work there. They aren't slave camps.

And of course capitalism allows for unions, just not government help for them. If workers think they aren't being paid enough or that they have bad conditions, they should go on strike. If the business has the option of hiring employees who don't have problems with those conditions, fine. If not, they will be forced to submit to the union's will or go out of business.

A pinch of socialism counterbalances the capitalist in order to balance society. In a capitalist society only the rich wield power and the hierachy of society is top heavy. No one demographic should rule the other. The prospect of a ruling caste to me is a terrible thing in any society.

Without power a population is helpless and at the mercy of it's rulers in the same way that they are victim to a fascist ruler.

There is no "power" or "rule" under capitalism. Fascist rulers keep this power by force, and we have the justice system, the police, and the military to protect us from force. Without force, all trade is done consensually. A business has it's rights to set wages and prices, and employees and consumers have the right to accept them or not.

[Mr. Happy]

I don't think anyone thinks capitalism has failed. That's like turning against beer. Capitalism is like a good beer, delicious, refreshing, makes you feel good, overall a great thing. But if your not careful too much and you'll wake up with an empty wallet, a bad headache, a strange lump on your ding-dong and a tattoo that says "I love maria" even though you have no idea who she is.

Which is kinda what happened a few months ago.

There's a good saying, "Moderation in all things." Like a forum, like your drinking, the market has too be moderated, regulated, othewise it will destroy itself to the gain of one or two entities, people, or corporations. Free market capitalism does well for individuals, but it eventuallly destroys the system that sustains it.

And a secondary main point is that a free market isn't free. Free implies exactly what you said, that it gives consumers and employers choices. Just like I have the choice to listen to a radio station owned by Clear Channel or to listen to a radio station owned by....umm....


Ya, that's a FREE market.

[theNotSoNinja]

sacul15 and Mr. Happy will be the first with thier backs up against the wall come the revolution. Communism is what i want but ill settle for socalism. Sure an altruistic society is unachivable but it'd be nice if we could try. keep the red flag flying and say no to private enterprise.

[AndyMacK]

You're right, they do all sound good in theory.

I say we all upgrade to Laissez-faire(Lezzy-Fair) capitalism

[Mr. Happy]

lololol nononono im leading the revolution

you ready? many talk, none do. get your gun, call your friends, were gearing up.

[whiffen]

Lol I was just looking at more stuff like this and found this which I thought was pretty funny

Source:http://www.paklinks.com/gs/jokes-rated-g/204481-you-communist-socialist-capitalist-dont-know-find-out-here.html

DEMOCRATIC

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbra Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?

SOCIALIST

You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST

You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION

You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION

You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send audio tapes of their mooing.

POLISH CORPORATION

You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

BELGIAN CORPORATION

You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION

You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegal.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.

[Sacul15]

Well in an ideal world any of these would work, but capitalism works in a practical world. Of course, that depends on your idea of perfection. Communism, socialism, and fascism all promise that eventually humans will be completely equal and that everyone will be happy and have everything they need. Capitalism doesn't make these promises, but they are far more achievable under a free economic system than in a collective one. These collectivist systems make the assumption that the amount of wealth in the world is static: that if one person is rich, then there is less wealth (and happiness) for everyone else. Because of this assumption, and in the effort to make everyone equal, they take from the rich and give to the needy. Now it doesn't take a genius to realize that punishing successful people will make them to not want to work as hard. And because people are no longer producing wealth, it's total amount cannot grow.

On the other hand, with capitalism, since a person's wealth is defined as how successful he is, he wants to be as successful as possible, and some of this created wealth trickles down (sorry for the terminology, I know that made some of you twinge) to those who aren't as successful, in the form of more and cheaper goods and services which make life better. An historical example: the car. What started out as a luxury only for the richest of rich was quickly turned into an accessible good for the middle class and then a necessity (and a relatively cheap one at that) for everyone. Now imagine if the government (even if it was completely democratic, as in socialism) had taken away some of those early car manufacturers' wealth to give to those who weren't as wealthy. Would Henry Ford ever have taken the time to make the automobile cheap and easy to produce, and thus easily accessible to consumers? The answer is obviously no, and the same rule applies to any good or service, including airlines, health care, etc.

It's my belief that nearly anyone (no matter how untalented or uncreative) can provide himself with the means to survive under capitalism, and most can make it so that they live comfortably, while those who are incredibly bright or talented create ways (in a selfish attempt to make money) for those people to have better lives. In the case of people who aren't able to make a life for themselves (not won't, there is a huge difference. Let the lazy ones starve), that is, those born with a health condition, or those who have encountered a streak of bad luck, that's where charity comes in. If a majority of people believe in some sort of support for those through government programs, then it seems that there would be more than enough people to help out those in need purely out of good will.

Long story short, yes there will always be a gap between the rich and poor in a pure capitalistic world, but the poor will be much better off than the middle class would be under a socialistic society.

[Athlete{UK}]

However in practise it works like this. Company X has a better product then company Y. Company Y will find ways of cutting costs. These can included and are not limited to: Cutting corners, delivering an inferior product for less, employing cheaper labour, the extreme of this being sweatshops, bullying smaller companies, buying up outlets, it can even streatch as far as espionage.

My personal belief is that capitalism is good and we should have it in our society. I however do not believe in pure capitalism and I myself lean towards socialism. The two not nessicerrily being exclusive. The problem with pure capitalism for me is it does not allow for things such as unions. Pure capitalism puts all the power of the society with the large corporations.

The way I see it, a company has the right to offer an inferior product. Take computers for example. One can buy the best personal computer out there for about 20,000, but if all computer manufacturers only sold the best, very few people would be able to afford it. Now, I assume that when you say "cutting corners" you mean lowering the quality of a product, which leads to safety issues. No sane business person would allow this. If you are an airline company owner, would you allow your planes to be unsafe, increasing the possibility of disaster and thus destroying your credibility and profits? Of course not.

Well I beg to differ here. Ok a travel company wont make their planes unsafe this is true but you're telling me every leading product out there is the number one in its field? The Ipod is far from perfect yet it sells millions. You buy nike trainers and the stitching is of an infiror quality. I'm not saying all products are infirior but campanies will and do cut corners in order to save money at the expense of the final product. They are able to get away with this because of a consumerist society which will still buy things based on brand or advertisment.

Now with the issue of hiring cheaper labor. If your main goal as a company is to make money, why would you hire somebody to do a job for $10.00 an hour when you can hire one for $2.00. Nobody is forcing that person to work for that much, why should a businessman be forced to hire someone for more than that? As for sweatshops, in third-world countries sweatshops are often better alternatives to what the people there had to start with, so those businesses are actually helping those people. Like I said, nobody is forcing people to work there. They aren't slave camps.

Nobody is forcing that person to work...right. If someone is willing to accept an 80% reduction in pay compared to someone taking $10 an hour to work do you really think they have a choice? This is exactly my point. Most pure capitalist agree that for pure capitalism to exist charity and fairness must preside. In my opinion this is true for any level of capitalism. When you are paying less you are exploiting the unfortunate circumstances.

For instance

You are saying a sweatshop is an improvement for most third world countries? Yes it is but you're still talking like they have a choice. It's like stopping the torture of someone having their eyes torn out. "break his legs and cut off a testicle instead." That's an improvement so it's all fair and dandy. If you genuinly believe this you've got to be looking at the wrong countries. If you live in an poverty ridden society and there is only one place to work to get enough money to feed your family otherwise they die of course you're going to work there. Which is more you will work for whatever the hell they tell you to work for. You get paid sure but for less then can sustain you . As a result more members of the family have to work, The children will end up at the sweatshop. A trap set baited and got. Of course companies have by far the means to supply their workers with fair pay and conditions. Sure things have improved since the scandles in the 80s and 90s but they aren't fixed. For capitalism to work there must be a true humanitarian concern for the work force. It's not slave labour? Why because they get paid fuck all? Because they can quit their jobs whenever they want only to be unable to find work and starve? You're just arguing semantics now.

And of course capitalism allows for unions, just not government help for them. If workers think they aren't being paid enough or that they have bad conditions, they should go on strike. If the business has the option of hiring employees who don't have problems with those conditions, fine. If not, they will be forced to submit to the union's will or go out of business.

Ok let's pick this apart. Pure capitalism allows for unions in the same way that a bunch of workers can get together and moan. Without the power of the government they have nothing to attack their employers with. If they are treat harshly, over worked, underpaid or denied basic rights what happens? They can go on strike and immedietly be fired from their position. You're saying "well they need to be invaluable to the job" yes and the employer wont be able to hire a desperate immigrant worker, or exploit any given group of people for cheaper labour. You're stance of "like it or lump it" falls apart in the precense of society.

Take for instance an area which relies on on particular industry. A mining town. The workers aren't paid enough an are sent down to work with faulty equipment. The go on strike and are fired. The company hires a new set of immigrant workers who having fled from a country in ruin and who are starving and unpaid will work for any price. The locals now have no jobs. There isn't another industry to sustain them. They fall into poverty and are willing to go back to work for reduced pay. Companies can even exploit this in a monopoly to screw over their workforce. It's happened before. How exactly is a union supposed to work when it has no power?

The point of the government is that it supplies power to the people and is run by the people. That's what it's there for. Ok so you can say that if the imigrant workers will work for less then fair enough but that's capitalising on human misery, the Government needs to exist to counter balance this it's not suposed to have power over the people and it's not suposed to have anything to do with big corporations. (Another reason most pure capitalist agree is a downfall for American capitalism.) You can't argue that American law isn't heavily stacked in favour of the larger corporations.

Without the Government supplying power to a union the union is powerless all the power resides in the employers who will exploit it. If absolout power is held by anybody it will be exploited.

A pinch of socialism counterbalances the capitalist in order to balance society. In a capitalist society only the rich wield power and the hierachy of society is top heavy. No one demographic should rule the other. The prospect of a ruling caste to me is a terrible thing in any society.

Without power a population is helpless and at the mercy of it's rulers in the same way that they are victim to a fascist ruler.

There is no "power" or "rule" under capitalism. Fascist rulers keep this power by force, and we have the justice system, the police, and the military to protect us from force. Without force, all trade is done consensually. A business has it's rights to set wages and prices, and employees and consumers have the right to accept them or not.

The whole point of a purely capitalist society is that everything is ruled by money. As such the person with the most money is the one who is in charge or perhaps mostly in charge but that just fuels a desire to control all the money. In pure capitalism everything is on the open market. If you're the most powerful dog on the block you are the one who has the power and Is ruling.

All trade is not consensual without physical force. A company can bully a smaller busness into a corner and use economic force to force them into selling their company. It's not given through consent when a person is left no other option but to sell.

You have the military and police to protect you. Yes but that's an argument to back my point of view though not yours. It's another example of the Government existing as it should. By the people for the people. The governments role in society is to protect it's own people. They can protect us from physical force but in a purely capitalist society when a corporation can buy their own police or their own military forces the power changes hands. the police are no longer there to protect the citizens of a country but they are there to protect the corporations and by proxy enforce their will.

In a purely capitalist society a powerful busniess is always a thin line away from dictating rule.

A business has every right to set their wages. This is true but going back to the sweatshops this is a dangerous thing. A corporationg pretty much owns an entire town for instance. they are now in position that they can dictate any prices and any wages they want. So they enforce high prices low wages, just as an example. What are the towns folk left with? They can either move to a new town, but with what money? They can set up a new business under the ideals of free trade? Sure but without the government supplying power to the people and denying a fair market the big corporation can easily buy them up straight away and bully them into the ground.

The result? A corporation has imposed it's will or indeed its rule onto a population.

Now going back to my points on America a lot of the problems there aren't because of capitalism. They are because of consumerism and because of a Government which is being bought by corporations. The USA endure the most rediculous tax breaks for big busness. Corporations remain in close cahoots with the ruling body. Capitalism in American has not failed but has rather been corrupted and distored to supply more and more power to big business.

At its core the American system is good. It is a blend of capitalism and socialism. Each keep each other in check. The problems lie in that American is Too capitalist and further more its capitalism is heavily corrupted by consumerism and simple greed.

I don't think capitalism is failing but that the balance of power in America is too top heavy. The result is a capitalist side of society which exists for the the corporation and a Government side of society which is suposed to exist by the people for the people but instead further backs up the corporations.

[Mephasto]

I am Mephasto, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city, as well.

A man chooses, a slave obeys.

[Dionysos]

Just wanted to say great post Athlete, you put into words exactly what I was thinking.

There are some great books about these topics, unfortunately I dont know whether theyve been translated to english (prolly tho). (this for instance)

The main problem I see with "pure" capitalism is that its mechanics do not necessarily lead to improvement and a good life for as many people as possible, even though it certainly has some great effects to that account. Uncontrolled, it leads to exploitation, because its main incentive is money and the fact that once you have money you can get more by doing absolutely nothing (interest) at an exponential rate. At the same time, those who dont have money or are in debt have to work for the interest of the people with money. There are some great example of how this simply cannot work forever, but I dont think there is much sense in writing them down. (great book: The Money Syndrome)

[Sacul15]

Well I beg to differ here. Ok a travel company wont make their planes unsafe this is true but you're telling me every leading product out there is the number one in its field? The Ipod is far from perfect yet it sells millions. You buy nike trainers and the stitching is of an infiror quality. I'm not saying all products are infirior but campanies will and do cut corners in order to save money at the expense of the final product. They are able to get away with this because of a consumerist society which will still buy things based on brand or advertisment.

But you haven't stated what's wrong with this. I buy Nike's occasionally. Are there better shoes out there? Of course. At a cheaper price? Probably. But my time isn't worth doing the research or the 10 extra dollars. Because Nike spent the time to do advertising, I see their name everywhere, I understand that it's a decent product for what I need, and I make my decision to choose the product that may or may not be inferior. That's what capitalism is all about: making rational choices. And obviously, I would spend more time and effort on a more expensive product. Just because I see more advertisements for Ford than I do for a better car manufacturer (say Honda, for example), doesn't mean I'll go by a Ford on that information alone. My time is worthing spending on a $25,000 investment and it isn't on a $50 one. Again, choices.

You are saying a sweatshop is an improvement for most third world countries? Yes it is but you're still talking like they have a choice. It's like stopping the torture of someone having their eyes torn out. "break his legs and cut off a testicle instead." That's an improvement so it's all fair and dandy. If you genuinly believe this you've got to be looking at the wrong countries. If you live in an poverty ridden society and there is only one place to work to get enough money to feed your family otherwise they die of course you're going to work there. Which is more you will work for whatever the hell they tell you to work for. You get paid sure but for less then can sustain you . As a result more members of the family have to work, The children will end up at the sweatshop. A trap set baited and got. Of course companies have by far the means to supply their workers with fair pay and conditions. Sure things have improved since the scandles in the 80s and 90s but they aren't fixed. For capitalism to work there must be a true humanitarian concern for the work force. It's not slave labour? Why because they get paid fuck all? Because they can quit their jobs whenever they want only to be unable to find work and starve? You're just arguing semantics now.

You assume that businesses should be a form of charity, when that is not the purpose of a business. If a business person wants to help out those people by giving them great wages, then great for him, but it's nobody else's business (so to speak). I would compare it to an extremely wealthy person going up to a homeless person and offering rent for a cheap apartment, and people cursing him for not giving the homeless person a suite. To take the analogy further, under a "nice government," the people vote to force the wealthy person to give the man the suite, at his cost. What exactly is fair about that?

Ok let's pick this apart. Pure capitalism allows for unions in the same way that a bunch of workers can get together and moan. Without the power of the government they have nothing to attack their employers with. If they are treat harshly, over worked, underpaid or denied basic rights what happens? They can go on strike and immedietly be fired from their position. You're saying "well they need to be invaluable to the job" yes and the employer wont be able to hire a desperate immigrant worker, or exploit any given group of people for cheaper labour. You're stance of "like it or lump it" falls apart in the precense of society.

Take for instance an area which relies on on particular industry. A mining town. The workers aren't paid enough an are sent down to work with faulty equipment. The go on strike and are fired. The company hires a new set of immigrant workers who having fled from a country in ruin and who are starving and unpaid will work for any price. The locals now have no jobs. There isn't another industry to sustain them. They fall into poverty and are willing to go back to work for reduced pay. Companies can even exploit this in a monopoly to screw over their workforce. It's happened before. How exactly is a union supposed to work when it has no power?

The point of the government is that it supplies power to the people and is run by the people. That's what it's there for. Ok so you can say that if the imigrant workers will work for less then fair enough but that's capitalising on human misery, the Government needs to exist to counter balance this it's not suposed to have power over the people and it's not suposed to have anything to do with big corporations. (Another reason most pure capitalist agree is a downfall for American capitalism.) You can't argue that American law isn't heavily stacked in favour of the larger corporations.

Without the Government supplying power to a union the union is powerless all the power resides in the employers who will exploit it. If absolout power is held by anybody it will be exploited.

What you are suggesting is a government based on mob rule. If the majority of people say a person must do something, no matter how many rights it violates (in this instance, liberty and property), he must. The government doesn't exist to serve the whims of a majority, it exists to protect the rights of individuals. And it is a right for businesses to set the maximum wage they will pay, and for employees to set the minimum wage for which they will work, and it is the right of both to negotiate these wages through any means they want, so long as it doesn't involve force. If a mob kidnaps a company president and forces him to set a certain wage, that is force. If a company puts chains on people and forces them to work, even if they are paid, that is force. If a government forces a company to have a minimum wage, under the threat of jail time or fines, that is force, and like the other two examples, should be just as illegal.

One of the main problems is that corporations have too much influence on government.

I agree with you, but this isn't because companies aren't regulated, it's because they are. If Company A and Company B are competitors, and Company B lobbies for a regulation that hurts A, of course A is going to respond by trying to influence government policy. An example of this is Microsoft. Before all the antitrust frenzy, they had one lonely lobbyist in Washington. After the government seriously regulated what they could or couldn't do, they created a team of hundreds of lawyers, lobbyists and the like to try to influence government. I think that both sides of this debate would see this as a problem. It can be solved one of two ways. One, limit the lobbyists' power. Destroy the concept of freedom of speech. Two, limit the government's power. Businesses can try to convince, barter, bribe, collude all they want and the government can't do anything. The first choice limits our freedoms, and the second expands them. Which one is better?

[Athlete{UK}]

But you haven't stated what's wrong with this. I buy Nike's occasionally. Are there better shoes out there? Of course. At a cheaper price? Probably. But my time isn't worth doing the research or the 10 extra dollars. Because Nike spent the time to do advertising, I see their name everywhere, I understand that it's a decent product for what I need, and I make my decision to choose the product that may or may not be inferior. That's what capitalism is all about: making rational choices. And obviously, I would spend more time and effort on a more expensive product. Just because I see more advertisements for Ford than I do for a better car manufacturer (say Honda, for example), doesn't mean I'll go by a Ford on that information alone. My time is worthing spending on a $25,000 investment and it isn't on a $50 one. Again, choices.

As my argument has gone throughout, one of the biggest problems with capitalism is consumerism. The points you make are perfectly valid up to a point but not for everyone. Lets take your example of Ford and Honda. Ford has a shitty car which is advertised very well everywhere. Honda has a slightly better car which isn't as well advertised but is still known to people. A third company has a superb car but cannot advertise it due to funds and connections.

Ford denies the third company every chance to advertise its car, buying up advertising space and slots wherever it can, using its wads of money to saturate the market with its infirior product. At this point pure capitalism falls down. Ford set themselves up in a position where they are able to sell the most cars not because they have the best product (as pure capitalism states it should be) but because they have enough power to bully competition. The competition between companies is not one for a better product but one to see who can shift and wangle their way up to the top whilst avoiding as much work as possible. The problem with this is only the big boys can play. Anyone without an entire corporation behind them to back them up is doomed to failure thus destroying the very basis that the companies are founded on.

You assume that businesses should be a form of charity, when that is not the purpose of a business. If a business person wants to help out those people by giving them great wages, then great for him, but it's nobody else's business (so to speak). I would compare it to an extremely wealthy person going up to a homeless person and offering rent for a cheap apartment, and people cursing him for not giving the homeless person a suite. To take the analogy further, under a "nice government," the people vote to force the wealthy person to give the man the suite, at his cost. What exactly is fair about that?

At no point did I say a company should be a charity. In fact throughout my argument i've been saying something else entirely. However first ask any pure capitalist and they will tell you that charity is a requirement for pure capitalism to work but that's a different point entirely to this.

Second of all i'm going to have to point out what a useless and flawed comparison you just made i'm not intended that as a flame it's just that it really is a porr comparison.

Your homeless and wealthy men paint a scenario of abstract kindness offering something for nothing in return. However the scene I painted was a situation where one party (the third world family) is giving services and actually working for what is owed to them rather then expecting abstract charity. The corporation however is denying what is fairly owed to them because they have the power to do so.

In a purely capitalist society there needs to be fair trade between services rendered and goods recieved, this is denied by the very nature of pure capitalist due to the corporation holding all the power being able to dictate it's will where as the workers without a meaningful union (since the government is unable to supply them with any power) are unable to do anything about it. Pure capitalism once again collapses under the weight of humanity and i'm left with another reason as to why capitalism requires socialism to keep it balanced and vise versa. Q.E.D

Now you say the purpose of the business is to make money. Absoloutly! To argue this would be like arguing that the purpose of a dingo isn't to eat babies. That's the exact reason why a socialist aspect must exist to counteract this. Not everyone is a business, not everyone is going to be a business, not everyone wants to be a business. Pure capitalism puts the power into one group of people creating a ruling caste which as i've mentioned before is a terrifying idea.

Also a business is going to be looking out for one thing and one thing only. Itself. Unfortunatly for all the people under the corporation it has a lot of power. The people do not however. As a result without any kind of unionisation of those without a multinational behind them they become nothing but pawns for a corporation to abuse in the quest for money.

Lets take your flawed example of the homeless man and the business man. It's like the wealthy man finding a homeless person on the street and offering them a shed to sleep in. The condition is that he has to give his blood every day and get fed a single piece of bread and a glass of water. during this time he has to work for 12 hours to produce cheap clothing without any pay beyond hs bread and water. The homeless person can leave whenever he wants right? But the other alternative is far worse. He still lives in hell but it is a lesser hell. Unfortunatly for him he is trapped there by his own misery. He has no power of his own to argue with the wealthy man and is denied any oportunity of improving his life or any other choices.

He can either be worked into the ground or die on the streets. Effectively he has lost his basic freedom and is now just an asset for a corporation. The people curse the man for not giving the homeless person his basic human rights and using him to further their own needs. A "Nice Government" votes that the wealthy man should give him what is fair. In a practical system both men walk away with their freedom and basic human rights. What's fair about that?

In a pure capitalist system the corporation has absoloute power and nothing can be done. As a result the homeless man remains trapped. What's fair about that? Q.E.D

What you are suggesting is a government based on mob rule. If the majority of people say a person must do something, no matter how many rights it violates (in this instance, liberty and property), he must. The government doesn't exist to serve the whims of a majority, it exists to protect the rights of individuals. And it is a right for businesses to set the maximum wage they will pay, and for employees to set the minimum wage for which they will work, and it is the right of both to negotiate these wages through any means they want, so long as it doesn't involve force. If a mob kidnaps a company president and forces him to set a certain wage, that is force. If a company puts chains on people and forces them to work, even if they are paid, that is force. If a government forces a company to have a minimum wage, under the threat of jail time or fines, that is force, and like the other two examples, should be just as illegal.

I'm not sure where you got the whole mob rule thing from I really don't but i'll discuss this anyway.

At no point have I suggested mob rule. At no point have I suggest the absoloute rule of anything. Infact staggaringly this entire argument is exactly the opposite of what you've just suggested and you seem to have missed that.

You're now suggesting that I'm saying that absoloute power should be held by the government and by proxy the unions. As i've said over and over again the two must exist to counter balance each other.

Now you say that a company can suggest any maximum wage and a work force can suggest any minumum wage and they must negotiate between these. This can only happen in a society where unionisation is meaningful and for thae reasons I sated before that isn't the case in a purely capitalist society.

The fact that you make this suggestion is odd since the rest of your argument goes entirely against this. Let me explain why. Again.

In a purely capitalist society a the corporation holds all power. Now they set a wage. not maximum not minimum just a wage. The workers disagree with this wage and want to negotiate a higher wage. Unfortunatly if they unionise they have no power with which to do so. They are left with a choice of accept what's on the table or leave.

Now the capitalist ideal states that another company can capitalise on this by offering improved wages thus gaining a workforce and denying a competitor of theirs. Perfect. BUT. As i've already said this is not the rule. The miners town had no alternative and as such was unable to choose and in a purely capitalist system are only able to accept what is given to them. This is the exact reason why socialism must exist along side capitalism to equal out the balance of power and supply the means to support the ideals of those who don't own a corporation.

I really have no idea what you're ranting on about kidnapping for when I have never suggested or advocated the use of force. Infact your entire statement seems to be refering to something else entirely and exists purely to back up my own statements.

I agree with you, but this isn't because companies aren't regulated, it's because they are. If Company A and Company B are competitors, and Company B lobbies for a regulation that hurts A, of course A is going to respond by trying to influence government policy. An example of this is Microsoft. Before all the antitrust frenzy, they had one lonely lobbyist in Washington. After the government seriously regulated what they could or couldn't do, they created a team of hundreds of lawyers, lobbyists and the like to try to influence government. I think that both sides of this debate would see this as a problem. It can be solved one of two ways. One, limit the lobbyists' power. Destroy the concept of freedom of speech. Two, limit the government's power. Businesses can try to convince, barter, bribe, collude all they want and the government can't do anything. The first choice limits our freedoms, and the second expands them. Which one is better?

Again you're looking at one side entirely. You're right the regulation of companies is a problem but it isn't the only way in which corporations influence government. The influence of government can and does exist purely for the mutual benefit of both parties.

What you're saying though is undeniably right but this still feeds into my argument. Throughout my argument the entire role of the government is that it exists by the people for the people. In a capacity as a unionisation to protect the rights of those who don't poses great wealth in a capitalist society.

The first option of limit lobiests power is a bad one, correct. The second one however has a flaw in it too.

You say that you can limit the governments power so that a business can bribe barter all it wants to no real purepose. The problem is that they don't need to. The more power you remove from the government the more power the corporations have meaning that they can do what they want due to the numerous reasons i've made in this post and the others i've made.

On the flipside you give more power to the government and they can effectively bully an enterprise they have nothing to do with and ultimately destroy the idea of a free market.

This informs and concludes the entire reason why I believe that both systems need to exist side by side to keep each other in check.

"But that doesn't work just look around us it's failing" "who's to say what power should be where?" "Who is to decide the balance?"

The fact is us. It's a difficult conundrum but who the fuck ever thought managing a society was going to be easy?

I'm weary of anyone who states any one system as being a defacto instant garaunteed fix for all problems.

Be it capitalist, communist or socialist. The fact of the matter is this. It's never that simple. All of these systems existing in a pure form are flawed in some way. Many of these flaws come from each other. As a result the only way to safe guard these flaws is to have them stand together and equal out.

The old saying says that power corrupts and absoloute power corrupts absoloutly. Then why would it be a smart thing to supply absolout power to one demographic if it's not a good idea to supply absoloute power to one person?

[Major Banter]

i stick with the cow argument and let people who have absolute no control over governments or system tell it how they think it is.

i also enjoy laughing at the pathetic idea of pigeonholding systems, societies, humans, races, money, you name it.

its quite laughable.

on top of that

capitalism has a stupid name, socialism sounds happy, fascism = hitler and communism, well, we all know where that goes. by the process of elimination, i deduce that this argument is both silly and american lawyer-thriller in length.

carry on.