Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That’s not true. Purchasing land or stocks and waiting for their value to increase is not the same thing as producing wealth.
Spending money doesn’t equate to creation of wealth.
Seems to work fine here. You may not like it but based on the reactions to your proposals, I would venture a guess and say nobody cares what you think.
Having a society where people are not slaves to wealth equates to a freer society.
If you believe your way is obviously the superior one, why not start your own co-operative and live like that? No body is stopping you. If what you say is obviously superior, why do you have to coerce others into following your economic model? If your way is better, you can lead by example and show everyone the light!
No, the wealth is when you talk someone into buying it for more than what it was purchased for...
Take away investments and you stop technology/advancement
Tax everyone like it was 19xx and you have to force everyone to live like it too. Take away all the life saving medicine and care, take away your iPhone and air conditioning
Technology didn't advance in the middle ages because no one was funding it... Not investors or the oligarchy
Technological advancements have been happening for thousands of years before capitalism. In fact many of the fundamental advancements have happened thanks to the public sector.
The question is whether wealth and power should be concentrated into the hands of a few who decide where and how investments are distributed. That formulates a society where freedom is only accessible to those with money.
Community investment may not formulate economic growth, but economic growth is a state objective, not something for the betterment of society.
Sharing information has helped advance technology, now the question is whether it should be implemented. A market economy believes more is better, but that is not always the case.
Technological advancements have been happening for thousands of years before capitalism. In fact many of the fundamental advancements have happened thanks to the public sector.
Yes, at a ridiculously slow pace. It literally took hundreds of years and multiple generations for Europeans to rediscover Roman cement...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
A market economy believes more is better, but that is not always the case.
Ok sure. Again, nobody is stopping you to donate all your money to charity and sit under a tree reading poetry.
If you believe your way is obviously the superior one, why not start your own co-operative and live like that? No body is stopping you. If what you say is obviously superior, why do you have to coerce others into following your economic model? If your way is better, you can lead by example and show everyone the light!
I support cooperative development, by co-op businesses are not the answer, as even they exist in a capitalist framework.
I don’t want to force anyone to do anything, but private power cannot have the power to decide how Markets behave, and what communities prosper and which fail.
The answer is to eliminate private power and let people operate via personal property like they use to.
Increasing CGT to 90% weaken government revenue and help reorganize investment away from private power. That is a step in the right direction for society, but again none of these are answers by themselves.
Yes, at a ridiculously slow pace. It literally took hundreds of years and multiple generations for Europeans to rediscover Roman cement...
Ok sure. Again, nobody is stopping you to donate all your money to charity and sit under a tree reading poetry.
Trading, communication, and shared development have helped grow the speed of advancements and exists separate from capitalism.
Like I said the public sector is responsible for many of the computation, rocket, and medical advancements in recent decades without the profit motive.
Furthermore, why is it bad if technology advanced slower and implementation was not always forced?
Like I said the public sector is responsible for many of the computation, rocket, and medical advancements in recent decades without the profit motive.
The motive for most of those was war... That isn't a better alternative, you want to advance by killing your opponents?
Money became the score keeper after kill numbers, investments are the weapons of the capital system. Remove it and you go back to scoring with kill counts
Any country without a strong investment system tend to be ruled by warlords and fear
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
