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.
We have known for decades that capitalism is not a stable system. It leads to panics, depressions, and social conditions that lead to political instability.
Quote:
A remarkable historical parallel to this latest stage of capitalism suggests where it is leading us. After the 16th century, the contradictions of European feudalism led it to transform a centuries-old localized, decentralized manor system. Force served as midwife in amalgamating many feudal manors and gave birth to a few nation-states organized around highly centralized, absolute feudal monarchies (such as Britain, France, Spain and Prussia). That centralization process gave feudalism more decades of life. But it also generated those extremes of wealth and poverty exemplified by the palace at Versailles versus the abject slums of pre-revolutionary Paris.
Everywhere, those extremes provoked revolutions against feudalism that eventually yielded that system’s demise. Today’s extremes produced by a globalizing capitalism — Detroit versus San Francisco, Manhattan versus the Bronx, Germany versus Greece, China’s new billionaires versus many millions of poor workers and peasants — where might they be leading us?
We have known for decades that capitalism is not a stable system. It leads to panics, depressions, and social conditions that lead to political instability.
I'd suggest all 'isms' have their weaknesses. We've certainly seen some of them with capitalism in the past few years. Thing is there's kind of a hybridization going on with its practice in different countries and cultures. Each place where it occurs shows a little how it can get into bad situations or in very good ones.
We have known for decades that capitalism is not a stable system. It leads to panics, depressions, and social conditions that lead to political instability.
Capitalism is fine if it is free of government regulation and interference. The laws and regulations change it from capitalism to not really capitalism. In true capitalism, there is no such thing as "too big to fail". People wouldn't make outrageous bets and risks because they could lose their shirts in so doing and then they'd be destitute. The only reason why, for example, we had the housing crisis was because banks felt like they could make risky loans because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to give them back their money once they loaned it out. If they knew that they had to bear full responsibility for that loan, they'd be a heck of a lot more picky about whom they loaned to!
Of course, socialism is the best economic system... but for the fact that it has one major Achilles heel. It falls apart the moment one person stops supporting it. As long as everyone is always willing to give according to his ability and take only according to his true need, it'll be fine. For proof, look to the Amish. That's as close to a socialist society as we have in America and they flourish. Do you have the occasional outlier? Yeah, probably, but then again it's not a TRUE socialist society because it's still beholden to American economic laws for the most part. But the moment someone who CAN give stops WANTING to give, and the moment someone who DOESN'T NEED TO take starts taking, socialism fails.
The problem is not capitalism. The problem is a corrupt central banking system and media that's been playing the public for decades.
The answer is not socialism.. we've learned this time and time again.. and what we learn from history is that we learn nothing from it.
A socialistic dictatorship IS on it's way. not need to debate this.. all that support socialism will once again be schooled as to why it is a bad idea.
Capitalism is fine if it is free of government regulation and interference. The laws and regulations change it from capitalism to not really capitalism. In true capitalism, there is no such thing as "too big to fail". People wouldn't make outrageous bets and risks because they could lose their shirts in so doing and then they'd be destitute. The only reason why, for example, we had the housing crisis was because banks felt like they could make risky loans because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to give them back their money once they loaned it out. If they knew that they had to bear full responsibility for that loan, they'd be a heck of a lot more picky about whom they loaned to!
Of course, socialism is the best economic system... but for the fact that it has one major Achilles heel. It falls apart the moment one person stops supporting it. As long as everyone is always willing to give according to his ability and take only according to his true need, it'll be fine. For proof, look to the Amish. That's as close to a socialist society as we have in America and they flourish. Do you have the occasional outlier? Yeah, probably, but then again it's not a TRUE socialist society because it's still beholden to American economic laws for the most part. But the moment someone who CAN give stops WANTING to give, and the moment someone who DOESN'T NEED TO take starts taking, socialism fails.
Capitalism is not "fine" without government regulation and interference. You only have to look back on the Gilded Age robber barons. In that era, the federal government was small and without most of the regulatory functions we have today. There was no Federal Reserve to prop up the banking industry and yet no one would call what emerged a fair system. Large corporations hired mercenaries and PIs to violently put down labor strikes in company towns that were run like prisons. Once a business monopolizes a key industry and it has no regulatory opposition from the government or viable business competition, it destroys entrepreneurialism, creates stagnant or declining wages, and prices that no longer reflect the true market.
I don't really like the bailouts either but I can see how a much more serious crises would have emerged without intervention. The most damming thing about the bailouts is that no one was punished, no one went to jail, and the banks were not broken up as they should have been. It's been 5 years so I doubt anything will happen now.
Just like how democracy cannot function if there is a single party in power, capitalism cannot work if there are large monopolies dominating key industries, or if the regulatory agencies begin colluding with business. Any economic system will be affected by the corruption, short sidedness, and greed of people.
Capitalism is fine if it is free of government regulation and interference. The laws and regulations change it from capitalism to not really capitalism. In true capitalism, there is no such thing as "too big to fail". People wouldn't make outrageous bets and risks because they could lose their shirts in so doing and then they'd be destitute. The only reason why, for example, we had the housing crisis was because banks felt like they could make risky loans because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to give them back their money once they loaned it out. If they knew that they had to bear full responsibility for that loan, they'd be a heck of a lot more picky about whom they loaned to!
No, quite the contrary. With no government regulation, capitalism always fails. We have thousands of years of history to prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy
Of course, socialism is the best economic system... but for the fact that it has one major Achilles heel. It falls apart the moment one person stops supporting it. As long as everyone is always willing to give according to his ability and take only according to his true need, it'll be fine. For proof, look to the Amish. That's as close to a socialist society as we have in America and they flourish. Do you have the occasional outlier? Yeah, probably, but then again it's not a TRUE socialist society because it's still beholden to American economic laws for the most part. But the moment someone who CAN give stops WANTING to give, and the moment someone who DOESN'T NEED TO take starts taking, socialism fails.
This thread is not about socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81
The problem is not capitalism. The problem is a corrupt central banking system and media that's been playing the public for decades.
Banking is irrelevant. Whether we trade in securities, dollars, gold, pigs, chickens, or tooth fairies, the fundamentals of capitalism remain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81
The answer is not socialism.. we've learned this time and time again.. and what we learn from history is that we learn nothing from it.
This thread is not about socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81
A socialistic dictatorship IS on it's way. not need to debate this.. all that support socialism will once again be schooled as to why it is a bad idea.
We have known for decades that capitalism is not a stable system. It leads to panics, depressions, and social conditions that lead to political instability.
No, quite the contrary. With no government regulation, capitalism always fails. We have thousands of years of history to prove it.
This thread is not about socialism.
Banking is irrelevant. Whether we trade in securities, dollars, gold, pigs, chickens, or tooth fairies, the fundamentals of capitalism remain.
This thread is not about socialism.
My goodness! This thread is NOT ABOUT SOCIALISM!
To be fair, Wolff is a Marxian economist who advocates for certain kinds of Socialism. Moreover, this article is largely a mirroring of the historical materialism angle and the notion of a determinstic failure of capitalism.
Of course, socialism is the best economic system... but for the fact that it has one major Achilles heel. It falls apart the moment one person stops supporting it. As long as everyone is always willing to give according to his ability and take only according to his true need, it'll be fine. For proof, look to the Amish. That's as close to a socialist society as we have in America and they flourish. Do you have the occasional outlier? Yeah, probably, but then again it's not a TRUE socialist society because it's still beholden to American economic laws for the most part. But the moment someone who CAN give stops WANTING to give, and the moment someone who DOESN'T NEED TO take starts taking, socialism fails.
Where did you get the idea that the Amish are socialists? They don't share their wealth beyond supporting the school and the bishop. If anything they're a great example of free-market capitalism working as it should.
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.
