In defense of Capitalism...

Throw me your arguments against capitalism. Keep it on topic as well.

>>1
mailto:noko

It assumes to heavily that the consumer is not a moron.

>>3
*too

>>1
What we have today isn't actually capitalism, or at least not the type of capitalism that is optimal for a free society. Too much of the wealth is held in a few corporations, and there's many duopolies and triopolies and mostly crony competition going on. I'm against the "capitalism" that exists now, but not it in its purest form.

>>3
No, it takes into account the fact consumers are morons by protecting their property rights thus protecting against fraud and giving them many choices if they are unhappy with a product or service.
>>5
There is corruption in every system, the fact these oligopolies and cartels are not in complete control over the government is the result of capitalism, though as you say, capitalism would be better if this corruption was dealt with. The inequality of capitalism is meaningless if you consider the fact the poorest are richer, just not as "richer" as the rich, a rising tide floats all boats.

>>6
There is corruption in every system
Very true, no arguing that.
the fact these oligopolies and cartels are not in complete control over the government is the result of capitalism
No, but they do use the government, especially its printing press and central bank as leverage, which most definitely is a corrupting mechanism. But I would say they use the state as a tool, rather than having complete control over it.
The inequality of capitalism is meaningless if you consider the fact the poorest are richer, just not as "richer" as the rich, a rising tide floats all boats.
While true, this is unsustainable.

There is nothing "communistic" about the government of a nation giving hundreds of billions to corporations and big business so that they can continue their same greedy, risky, and self-destructive practices under the guise of "free-markets." What a communist society would do, and certainly any socialist one, would not be to hand a blank check of trillions from the public to save corporate institutions...instead we would nationalize them, so that the public could have a minimal a say in how they are run... Giving billions to capitalists is the last thing anything or anyone "communistic" would do.

It depends on what you mean by "capitalism".
If "capitalism" means that I can grow tomatoes in my garden and sell them to you, or vice versa, i'm for it!
But if "capitalism" means you can force me off my land, raze my house to the ground, plant a bajillion tomatoes with pig genes in them and sell them to me for an arm and a leg (meanwhile controlling the prices of all other tomatoes), no go.
I think I like capitalism with ethics and morals. If we need government involvement to make sure everyone plays fair, then so be it.

It depends on what you mean by "capitalism".
If "capitalism" means that I can grow tomatoes in my garden and sell them to you, or vice versa, i'm for it!
But if "capitalism" means you can force me off my land, raze my house to the ground, plant a bajillion tomatoes with pig genes in them and sell them to me for an arm and a leg (meanwhile controlling the prices of all other tomatoes), no go.
I think I like capitalism with ethics and morals. If we need government involvement to make sure everyone plays fair, then so be it.

I find it odd that the so caleld "laissez-faire" capitalists do not mind the government interfering if it somehow benefits their own profits.

"I find it odd that the so caleld "laissez-faire" capitalists do not mind the government interfering if it somehow benefits their own profits."

They are obviously hypocritical.

---

"There is nothing "communistic" about the government of a nation giving hundreds of billions to corporations and big business so that they can continue their same greedy, risky, and self-destructive practices under the guise of "free-markets." What a communist society would do, and certainly any socialist one, would not be to hand a blank check of trillions from the public to save corporate institutions...instead we would nationalize them, so that the public could have a minimal a say in how they are run... Giving billions to capitalists is the last thing anything or anyone "communistic" would do. "

Actually, those bailouts ended up giving the government massive (Negative) influence on the companies that recived the bailouts. Not to mention the fact that the government over-regulated these companies in the first place with shit like fuel standards and whatnot.

-----

But if "capitalism" means you can force me off my land, raze my house to the ground, plant a bajillion tomatoes with pig genes in them and sell them to me for an arm and a leg (meanwhile controlling the prices of all other tomatoes), no go.
I think I like capitalism with ethics and morals. If we need government involvement to make sure everyone plays fair, then so be it.

Actually, private companies can buy your land, but they can't force you off. The government unconstitutionally does that. GM foods should be banned, they are toxic. Compnies also can't exert controll over the prices of competitors, unless they are lowering their price, in which case the competitor does the same thing.

companies SHOULDN'T exert control over the prices of competitors, but corrupt government officials with stock in the company sure can.
plus they can control access to competitors products.

People seem to think that capitalism means that absolutely anything goes, as long as it makes money.
If that's what it means, then I'm against it.

Okay "capitalist". Would you have anything against uneducated people calling themselves "doctors" and opening a "clinic" where they perform unqualified surgery on people? Or do you support licenses? That's not very libertarian of you.

The problem with capitalism and Americans is that they don't actually boycott faulty products. They continue buying and buying.

Many religions have criticized or opposed specific elements of capitalism; traditional Judaism, Christianity, and Islam forbid lending money at interest. Christianity has been a source of both praise and criticism for capitalism, particularly its materialist aspects. The first socialists drew many of their principles from Christian values, against "bourgeois" values of profiteering, greed, selfishness, and hoarding.

Some Christian critics of capitalism may not oppose capitalism entirely, but support a mixed economy in order to ensure adequate labor standards and relations, as well as economic justice. Pope Benedict XVI issued an encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) in 2009; he stated: "The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require, particularly today, that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner." and "Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution."

Islamic law recognizes the right to private property but regulates economic activities. A 2.5% alms tax (Zakat) is levied on all gold, crops, and cattle. Shia Twelver Muslims pay an additional 20% on all savings (defined as income minus expenses on necessities like food and shelter.) Usury or riba is forbidden, and religious law encourages the use of capital to spur economic activity while placing the burden of risk along with the benefit of profit with the owner of the capital. Methods of Islamic banking have been developed. The Islamic constitution of Iran, which was drafted mostly by Islamic clerics, criticizes "materialist schools of thought" that encourage "concentration and accumulation of wealth and maximization of profit." Sayyid Qutb, an Islamist writer, criticized capitalism in his 1951 book The Battle Between Islam and Capitalism.

Indian philosopher P.R. Sarkar, founder of the Ananda Marga movement, developed the Law of Social Cycle to identify the problems of capitalism and proposed the Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUT) as a solution to its ills.

Historically America has practiced protectionism and mercantilism. So much for "free trade" making up the backbone of American history.

Not OP, but just want to throw in my 2 cents.

Pure laissez faire capitalism is in the strictest sense the true capitalism. Other version such as corporate capitalism and what not is basically the result of free market mixed with socialist economic policies..etc. in simple words they are just corrupted semi free markets and cannot be considered capitalism in the strictest sense.

>>17
>Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.

Pursuing justice through redistribution? Wealth is created by individuals though work, not some cosmic gold rain down from the sky to be equally distributed. When a man earns his wealth through honest work, he is the one who brought that wealth into existence from nothingness. Whether it's a lone farmer or a thousand employee corporation, this sample fact of reality holds true. Political justice is achieved when the society recognizes that each of it's individual member takes full responsibility for the fruit of his actions; if a person succeeds in his work, he has the right to all he has earned, if he fails, he is the only one who bears the loss of his failure. That is justice. When you forcefully redistribute the achievement created by one person who earned it and give it to another who did not, that's precisely injustice.

On the subject of interest rate, in a free market (without some socialistic central bank manipulating it artificially) interest rate is a fact of reality, not some arbitrary convention. If I have a sack of seed I can plant and grow into 50 apples by the same time next year, the difference in value between those 50 apples and that sack of seed would be the interest rate I'd charge on someone who want to borrow that sack of seed. Same goes with money. But the bottom line is, I'm free to charge whatever rate I want on the cash I earned, and you are free to not borrow from me and check out other lenders.

>>15
You are free to practice without a license. And patients are free to not visit unlicensed practitioners.

>>16
That's a problem with Americans, not a problem with capitalism.

>>20 it IS an inherent problem with capitalism, because humans are subject to peer pressure and brainwashing.
"the market" isn't fail-proof, unless you are in a vacuum.

>>21
If we're going to judge any system based on its merits than we have to rot out examples of human deviance from that system's implementation.  Capitalism has both merits covered and subverted in turn: the cheaper product can succeed, the better made product can succeed, but never the twain shall meet.  In fact, it should never artificially be made to meet - that's the start of a system where choice gets removed as far up and down the line as it can.  The problem with a market is that it naturally comes into existence; until you move into that post-scarcity system where the only currencies are motivation and responsibility, a market will always exist lurking under the surface, even if you don't try to count it.

So, I'd like to correct >>21: it's not a problem with Americans, it's a problem with PEOPLE.  There's no one single definition of "what is best" and no system that can cover all forms of manipulation or exploitation we are capable of imagining.  I commented once that if we're saying capitalism has failed because of this country, why are people permitted to believe socialism works despite its misguided and outright disastrous attempts in other countries?

>>21
HUMAN isn't fail-proof.

That's what you are not getting. Human begins have free will and is fallible. This is a fact of reality that cannot be changed. A human is fallible whether he is a citizen or an official of a government. Having a sit on the government does not give a person the omniscience to know better how to spent the money of another for his best interest than that other himself. The attempt to substitute the mind of the majority with the mind of a few minority self proclaimed elites in order to achieve this fake omniscience is precisely the essence of Utopian stories and catastrophic failures.

Capitalism and free market is good not because they somehow magically wills people to make the right choices. Capitalism and free market recognizes the fundamental fact that humans are fallible and what the system does is delivery justice. It promises that IF you do make the right choice, you will reap the full of your reward. If you fail, the only ones pay are you and those who willingly followed you (no government bailouts..etc.).

To put things into perspective. 100 hardworking men under a socialist system will still yield higher net wealth than 100 lazy bum in a capitalistic system. But 100 hardworking men under capitalistic system will always yield higher net wealth for themselves than the same 100 hardworking men under a socialist system.

>>8
instead we would nationalize them, so that the public could have a minimal a say in how they are run
Why would the communists act any more benevolently than the corporatists? Because they are communists? Both the current corporatist system and your theoretical planned economy are democratic, we the people can pile as many laws and regulations as we want onto corporations, yet obviously this accomplishes nothing, even though the state is democratic it is still hopeless corrupt such that corporations can embezzle trillions of tax dollars from it every year. It is self-justification to assume it would be better if we centralized more economic power under the state just because the people doing it are communist, you might revenge the plutocrats in this system that we all have a special hating for, but all you would be doing is replacing them with another group of plutocrats with more power.

We need to stop relying on the state now, it's been decades and it has accomplished nothing. We must instead rely more on direct democratic local governments (the same as your communes except without the semantics and silly marxist abstractions), cooperatives (the same as worker's councils except without the semantics and silly marxist abstractions) and individual freedom (the same as anarchism except without the semantics and silly marxist abstractions).
>>9
Distinguish between capitalism and corporatocracy. Corporations may be privately owned, yet corporations are granted special tax codes, legal statuses and various other privileges by the state that are not confered onto the majority of the population, it's not capitalism if it's not equal, essentially the corporatocrats are part of the state, like feudal lords from the middle ages.

Monsanto is one such corporatocrat, what with their fuckton of agricultural subsidies and bizarre patent laws, and not really capitalist.
>>11
People who support keynesian economics also support dubious subsidies, licenses, regulations, tariffs and taxes. There will always be hypocrites in every system, the point is to leave them with less options, capitalism accomplishes this by allowing people to vote with their wallets and making it more difficult for the state to interfere in the economy arbitrarily.
>>13
What would they do if they had complete control over "competitors"? Capitalism limits corruption considerably, getting rid of capitalism because it does not get rid of all corruption is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
>>14
That's the definition of "rule by the strongest" which capitalism is not, capitalism protects the property rights of others, so you cannot do absolutely everything. As for the actual systems, organizations and policies needed to prevent fraud and theft, capitalism makes preserving justice much easier by assigning property to people and allowing transactions to be monitored.
>>15
Fraud harms people's property rights, their body is their property. What you are describing is not capitalism but Karl Marx's dream of a stateless classless communist dystopia where people don't even own their own bodies, such a world would be a horrible place to live in.
>>16
Maybe they just don't boycott the products you want them to boycott. One negative news story and sales can plummet, toys "made in China" suffered a huge hit a few years ago, China even started dishing out death penalties by the dozen to anyone even remotely associated with corruption and fraud because the shock to their exports was so dangerous to their political stability.
>>17
I am of the belief that is religious prophets were around today they would not act like their followers, they would care more about ending poverty than trying to ban gay marriage and so forth. Now while I'm not a saint and I don't claim to know exactly how they would act, I am capable of logic and reasoning to a certain extent and I am fairly certain they would recognize the merits of the capitalist system, especially it's role in seperating powers.
>>18
Protectionism and mercantilism are justified as a response to protectionism and mercantilism by other countries, essentially taxing foreign merchants the amount which has been taxed from our merchants by the respective country of origin of the particular product. Protectionism against a country that wishes to conduct free trade with us is counter-productive in the long term, in the few instance it is productive for the state it is not productive for the individual. America has prospered due to it's policy of seeking free trade agreements and thus getting rid of pointless economic arrangements that favor the prosperity of states over the individual and prevent comparitive advantage.

With capitalism it's all about "who is rich first".

How is economic nationalism or as someone else said protectionism in any-way-shape-or-form "communistic"? Communists want a one-world economy with one currency.

>>25
Because apparently making more money and creating more wealth is evil right?

For only a but few exceptions. This thread stinks of Republicunt misinfomation! lies and talking points made to confuse more than to address truth. The rich through out the world need to be put into forced labor camps everything taken from them and any assosites of theirs that have profited from crimes

 Your a obombnation of god. rich mens blood will gush through the streets like crimson rivrs. We'll swim backstrokes in rich mens blood! class vengeance will be taken. I for one plan to be an unholy harbinger of the rich mans apocolypse.

>>28

3/10 for effort, would troll again

Try to loose the exclamation marks for starters so it's not bluntly obvious.

Greed has never motivated any inventions. It's a sin. The only thing greed has advanced is how to trick sheep with commercials into buying your product.

>>29
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

>>30

Wrong in all accounts.

All inventions that's not created under the threat of a gun is motivated by greed and ambition. If every single inventor great or small in the past did not apply patent for his/her invention, then your statement might have merit.

Greed is neither a virtue nor a sin, it just is, a natural part of man. If you value something as good, you will want more of it. The method chosen by the individual to satisfy his greed and ambition is the only place where moral judgment can and need to be passed. He can either create wealth, or steal wealth created by others. And if that individual thought things through, he'll know only the first choice will work out in the end.

If some arbitrary convention is your standard (bible, public opinion..etc.), then anything can be a sin, greed, ambition, sex, use of condom.

If a person's moral standard is reason, is what will work out in the end, then there is no sin except stupidity.

(misclick)

>>32
GREED HAS NO HEART

More republicunt Theory it doesnt have to be true just keep repeating it until everyone agrees

Why not go back to glenn becks the blazed fags they will shake thier head an agree with you. You fat ass sausage sucking Nazi-whipped fages Tell them we wouldn't fall for it, It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these thruths we know to be self evident

Greed is EVIL

>>33 well... at least there should be some balance. Evil only exists as an agreed upon value...
And greed can be tempered with conscience.
But unchecked greed horrifies me, to be sure.

Like: is it possible to be too rich? I believe so. Some don't...

I think it depends perhaps on the care for other humans. If I'm getting rich by oppressing others and treating them like shit, or if I contribute to my community and give back.
Some would base wealth on what is given, rather than on what is owned/kept.

Interesting. If you look at all the richest people in the world not a single one actually invented anything. They became wealthy through entrepreneurship and marketing aka exploiting people.

GOP = Party of God. GOP says greed is good? Every major denomination of Christianity considers greed a sin...

I base wealth on happiness. Fuck money. Give me friends, music, good food and health any day over fucking numbers.

>>35

>Entrepreneurship, marketing = exploiting people
>Entrepreneurship has nothing to do with invention.

Are you trolling? I have a hard time believing people are actually this ignorant.

>>36

Because those who champions capitalism has to be GOP right?

Both Republicans and Democrats have half their policies right and half of them wrong. None of them follows any s principles and flapflops depends on mood. Then you have the libertarians who is better, but they want anarchy.

Oh, and fuck religion.

>>33

Take your pills pal before you choke yourself from your own foams.

I'm not republican, nor affiliated with any parties for that matter, they are all junks.

Instead of repeating some incoherent nonsenses they taught you at bible school or what not and raging like a 14 year old, how about you start stating your reasons WHY greed by itself is evil? A man who wants a bigger house opens a new business and succeeds in earning the money needed; he's greedy, is that evil? A man who wants a bigger house decides to rob a bank, is the wanting part, the greed part, what's evil? what will cause his downfall? Or is it something else.

If the only reason why something is evil you can call out is because IT JUST IS, then I got nothing else to say to you. Go back to your Sunday school.


>>34

>Evil only exists as an agreed upon value...

That depends on your definition is Evil. If its definition is something is evil because God says so, or because the public opinion says so, then yeah, it's just some meaningless arbitrary convention. If your definition of Evil is something objective like something that is destructive to human life, then no it's not just some agreed upon value.

>If I'm getting rich by oppressing others and treating them like shit,

You can't get rich like that, not on a free market.

>>39
 You can't get rich like that on a free market??? what?
Obviously you've never seen a free market.
A true free market means you have the freedom to:
 a) treat people (and employees) well,
or
b) treat them like shit,

or cdefg...whatever you want, and the market decides if they like it.
C'mon, please can we talk about REAL free markets here, and not some theoretical utopia?