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.
LOL! Throughout our history, it has been proven again and again and again that without exception, socialism, not capitalism, has resulted in, not just poverty for many, but poverty for ALL and everybody dying on the street, except for the socialist elites, of course.
Even you are so arrogant to ignore the history entirely, you only need to look at NK and Venezuela.
Also, please point out what poverty that capitalism has caused? Name one famine during peacetime that was caused by capitalism.
Sure, the famine of 1866-1868 in Finland (under control of Tsarist Russia at the time). Tens of thousands died (around 20% of the population) because the authorities refused to help the starving landless labourers, offering at best work houses that were overcrowded and full of disease. Obviously the famine itself was caused by crop failure but the extent of death was down to the lack of social protection for the poor.
Or how about the Irish potato famine, where the British government at one point decided to trust the market (i.e. trust capitalism) to provide the food needed despite the food being exported to Britain (so the market was not doing what was needed) and things got worse. During a previous famine the exports were stopped so that there would be enough food for the Irish, against the wishes of the capitalists, so that people wouldn't die, but this time capitalism was allowed to carry on unabated and many many people died. Actually the potato famine is the best example of how untamed capitalism can lead to death - there was plenty of food in Ireland but its price was out of reach of the poor.
Capitalism leads to inequality, its the natural result, and inequality when it gets too great is not good for society - just look at 3rd world countries with a small rich elite and vast amounts of poverty.
Sure, the famine of 1866-1868 in Finland (under control of Tsarist Russia at the time). Tens of thousands died (around 20% of the population) because the authorities refused to help the starving landless labourers, offering at best work houses that were overcrowded and full of disease. Obviously the famine itself was caused by crop failure but the extent of death was down to the lack of social protection for the poor.
Or how about the Irish potato famine, where the British government at one point decided to trust the market (i.e. trust capitalism) to provide the food needed despite the food being exported to Britain (so the market was not doing what was needed) and things got worse. During a previous famine the exports were stopped so that there would be enough food for the Irish, against the wishes of the capitalists, so that people wouldn't die, but this time capitalism was allowed to carry on unabated and many many people died. Actually the potato famine is the best example of how untamed capitalism can lead to death - there was plenty of food in Ireland but its price was out of reach of the poor.
Capitalism leads to inequality, its the natural result, and inequality when it gets too great is not good for society - just look at 3rd world countries with a small rich elite and vast amounts of poverty.
So because of a few examples, we should chuck the entire system? How much better would Communism be?
Sure, the famine of 1866-1868 in Finland (under control of Tsarist Russia at the time). Tens of thousands died (around 20% of the population) because the authorities refused to help the starving landless labourers, offering at best work houses that were overcrowded and full of disease. Obviously the famine itself was caused by crop failure but the extent of death was down to the lack of social protection for the poor.
Or how about the Irish potato famine, where the British government at one point decided to trust the market (i.e. trust capitalism) to provide the food needed despite the food being exported to Britain (so the market was not doing what was needed) and things got worse. During a previous famine the exports were stopped so that there would be enough food for the Irish, against the wishes of the capitalists, so that people wouldn't die, but this time capitalism was allowed to carry on unabated and many many people died. Actually the potato famine is the best example of how untamed capitalism can lead to death - there was plenty of food in Ireland but its price was out of reach of the poor.
Capitalism leads to inequality, its the natural result, and inequality when it gets too great is not good for society - just look at 3rd world countries with a small rich elite and vast amounts of poverty.
LOL. You would think I didn't now about the Potato famine.
Adam Smith said that "bad seasons" cause "dearth," but "the violence of well-intentioned governments" can convert "dearth into famine."
The Potato famine had everything to do with English policy favored Englishmen after they conquered the land. The Irish were prohibited by laws from purchasing or leasing land or from doing anything that could help them advance.
That's not capitalism at all!
To ignore that huge impact is completely disingenuous!
So because of a few examples, we should chuck the entire system? How much better would Communism be?
Did I say communism would be better? I'm for a mixed system - capitalism with regulation and socialist protections for the poor, like pretty much every developed country has to varying degrees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
LOL. You would think I didn't now about the Potato famine.
Adam Smith said that "bad seasons" cause "dearth," but "the violence of well-intentioned governments" can convert "dearth into famine."
The Potato famine had everything to do with English policy favored Englishmen after they conquered the land. The Irish were prohibited by laws from purchasing or leasing land or from doing anything that could help them advance.
That's not capitalism at all!
To ignore that huge impact is completely disingenuous!
Did you miss the bit about the government specifically relying on 'the market' to fix things? That's proof that a free market cannot and will not provide to all, and regulation is needed.
Did I say communism would be better? I'm for a mixed system - capitalism with regulation and socialist protections for the poor, like pretty much every developed country has to varying degrees.
Did you miss the bit about the government specifically relying on 'the market' to fix things? That's proof that a free market cannot and will not provide to all, and regulation is needed.
After they passed laws prohibiting Irish people from participating virtually all productive activities?
So because of a few examples, we should chuck the entire system? How much better would Communism be?
I don't think that anyone would suggest chucking the entire system. It is not an either-or proposition.
The fact is there are serious problems with pure capitalism which must not be ignored. Sometimes socialist ideas make a good patch. Blended systems work best.
After they passed laws prohibiting Irish people from participating virtually all productive activities?
Irish Catholics, and by the time of the famine most of those restrictions had been lifted, but it did contribute because of course it led to so much of the poverty. Don't see how that's an argument against the need for socialist protections though.
Socialism - You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.
Capitalism - You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
Communism - You have two cows. The government takes both and provides you with milk.
Fascism - You have two cows. The government takes both and sells you the milk.
Nazism - You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.
Democratic Socialism -
You and some neighbors have cows. Your cowless neighbors vote to take one cow from you as "tax". You refuse, and the "community" sends in SWAT team and take all the cow from you and send you to prison.
After they finish eating the cows, the cowless neighbors vote to take the another cow from you until nobody has any cow.
The equality has been achieved.
Capitalism -
You and some neighbors have cows. You trade with your cow and cowless neighbors. Cows get exchanged for other products and services, and more cows are produced. Pretty soon your society has too many cows and price for cow drop significantly.
Socialism/Communism -
The cowless neighbors shoot everybody with more than two cows and confiscate all the cows. The ex-cow neighbors are sent to labor camp to pound rocks for re-education.
The cows are now owned and raised by the "community", but none of the neighbor knows how to raise cows or even care to learn since they are owned by the "community."
The cows die.
Now nobody has cows and the equality has been achieved.
The countries that work are capitalist. All capitalist countries have some social programs. A socialist country has the government owning business and industry. Western European countries do not have the government owning 80% of what should be private business. They simply have a bigger safety net. So your 20-50-80% numbers are nonsense.
And corruption. Corruption is a problem when government controls too much. Like Medicare. Fraud waste and abuse. The solution is not more government.
Socialist countries fail. Primarily because of corruption and a lack of motivation by its people since they are guaranteed poverty by nature of the socialist system. It always fails and only continues because of a dictator who kills or jails those who dissent.
You look at Venezuela. A capitalist country at one point had the best economy in Latin America up until the oil price collapse in the 1980's. Instead of diversifying the economy and encouraging trade they decided to blame capitalism and the rich American oil companies. They turned to socialism and increased government control. We see now the end results of socialism. Its scary because those on the left here want the same thing. Blame successful people and industries and increase government control. We don't to need to become the next Venezuela.
Who determines what SHOULD be private business?! Any human system is faulty, even nature is faulty. There is no right and no wrong way.
I think only those things should be private that are not really important and vital. I don't care who makes gadgets like cell phones and stereos, but I want healthcare and such important things to remain public.
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.
