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.
As the above link reiterates, unregulated capitalism certainly does exploit and in addition it sucks for the environment which is giant ---- --- to the masses.
Please provide one specific real life example to support your claim if you can.
As the above link reiterates, unregulated capitalism certainly does exploit and in addition it sucks for the environment which is giant ---- --- to the masses.
Capitalism is the best economic system we have yet known. It is by far, the best way to expand freedom and opportunity as well as the best means to reduce poverty.
That said, unbridled capitalism without regulatory agencies to set the rules, it indeed becomes problematic.
We need common sense regulation to keep the markets open, prevent monopolies and help to foster a climate of opportunity. These regulations should be created with the intent not to punish people or fill such positions with anti-business zealots, but to foster a healthy free market.
Capitalism is the best economic system we have yet known. It is by far, the best way to expand freedom and opportunity as well as the best means to reduce poverty.
That said, unbridled capitalism without regulatory agencies to set the rules, it indeed becomes problematic.
We need common sense regulation to keep the markets open, prevent monopolies and help to foster a climate of opportunity. These regulations should be created with the intent not to punish people or fill such positions with anti-business zealots, but to foster a healthy free market.
Please provide one specific real life example so that we can discuss.
Exploitation is inevitable in any economic system with division of labor. Some economic niches are riskier or have more people competing in them than others. This means some jobs produce more suffering than other jobs.
The Maoists were actually correct, using the Marxian class framework, to try to abolish division of labor and force everyone to live in identical self-sufficient collectives. They were obviously incorrect in thinking that total productivity would not decline after trying to abolish the division of labor. The Chinese famine during the Great Leap Forward and the Cambodian killing fields show the flipside of radical equality: without division of labor and the power inequalities inherent in that, many people will die do to a lack of resources.
So those who are unlucky enough to land at the bottom of the division of labor pyramid have two choices: exploitation and survival, or equality and death. There are already too many people on the planet to abandon division of labor without a massive population decline.
Exploitation is inevitable in any economic system with division of labor. Some economic niches are riskier or have more people competing in them than others. This means some jobs produce more suffering than other jobs.
The Maoists were actually correct, using the Marxian class framework, to try to abolish division of labor and force everyone to live in identical self-sufficient collectives. They were obviously incorrect in thinking that total productivity would not decline after trying to abolish the division of labor. The Chinese famine during the Great Leap Forward and the Cambodian killing fields show the flipside of radical equality: without division of labor and the power inequalities inherent in that, many people will die do to a lack of resources.
So those who are unlucky enough to land at the bottom of the division of labor pyramid have two choices: exploitation and survival, or equality and death. There are already too many people on the planet to abandon division of labor without a massive population decline.
Well according to the Dims everyone of us is a victim of Capitalism in one way or another. There are "owners" of business's, companies, sports teams, and the employees are placed beneath the owners which is tantamount to the oppresions of slavery.
Today we have an entire class of people that refuse to be "owned" by any corporation or business but that is ok since the Government is more than happy to step in and hand them everything they need to live.
Capitalism is what has made and kept America Great and that is why it is a dirty word for the Democrats. They choose to look at the glass of capitalism as half empty whereas smart people see it as half full.
Please provide one specific real life example to support your claim if you can.
100 years ago factories in the US and elsewhere were hell-holes. People worked 12 hour days for a pittance. Unions forced the companies to treat their workers better.
Your clothes you wear are mostly made in sweat shops in Asia where people work pretty much like they used to work in the US 100 years ago.
Farm workers were abused heavily in the US up until about 30-40 years ago. This has been well documented in books by Steinbeck and others.
Google and Facebook are exploiting all of us with their usage of our personal info. Yes we have a choice and can decline their privacy policy and not use their services, but it is almost impossible to get by without having an email account or social media account. They are close to being monopolies.
The common thread here is Capitalism, if left alone, will use the power a big company has over its workforce or over its customers (if it a monopoly) in order to maximize profits. That is exploitation. It doesn't mean capitalism is bad, it means it needs to be regulated.
Exploitation is inevitable in any economic system with division of labor. Some economic niches are riskier or have more people competing in them than others. This means some jobs produce more suffering than other jobs.
The Maoists were actually correct, using the Marxian class framework, to try to abolish division of labor and force everyone to live in identical self-sufficient collectives. They were obviously incorrect in thinking that total productivity would not decline after trying to abolish the division of labor. The Chinese famine during the Great Leap Forward and the Cambodian killing fields show the flipside of radical equality: without division of labor and the power inequalities inherent in that, many people will die do to a lack of resources.
So those who are unlucky enough to land at the bottom of the division of labor pyramid have two choices: exploitation and survival, or equality and death. There are already too many people on the planet to abandon division of labor without a massive population decline.
There is no exploitation under natural law. Nature is the decider and resource scarcity isn't a reward or punishment. It simply exists without pride or prejudice.
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.
