Is Capitalism a force for social change
The idea of "too many wants but limited resources" is just an idea to make people think eradicating poverty is impossible when in fact it could be closer to being achieved if wealth was distributed fairly and the rich actually shared their wealth. Some do, some don't. There is enough food and resources for everyone but sadly it is hoarded by a minority I.e. top 1 percent
Has it ever occurred to you that stasis is not a preferred condition for the human psyche? The ability to work for and achieve a better life is a key to my happiness. My view of a world in which everything is distributed evenly is a horrible place. It would be like living in a zoo. We all have a place to live and we all have something to eat, but we would be pathetic creatures that only represent a fraction of what we once were. It is worth going hungry sometimes if you get to know the joy of the hunt. If we do well we can expand our habitat, and our chances of survival improve. That is what it means to be alive.
Your premise would put us all in cages and call it justice, just because no body has to get eaten.
Your premise would put us all in cages and call it justice, just because no body has to get eaten.
Eradicating poverty through capitalism is possible.
If Somalian business can sell goods to the rest of the world then it gets money in exchange, these businesses employ Somalians who can afford to buy food, these business can pay tax to the government who can now afford to build a desalinisation plant and a nuclear plant to provide water and energy. The business owner can afford to build himself a home, perhaps the government may use the tax money to build homes for people.
I do agree that there is a poor distribution of resources but this is largely because African nations can make more money selling their bananas to us than they can selling them to their own people. Until the people are sufficiently wealthy that they can afford the price, that's the way it will be. Remember that China has taken hundreds of millions out poverty.
I'd be more concerned in the long term about the Arab World, it's not capable of self governance and so will probably destroy any gains it makes in wars or revolutions.
If Somalian business can sell goods to the rest of the world then it gets money in exchange, these businesses employ Somalians who can afford to buy food, these business can pay tax to the government who can now afford to build a desalinisation plant and a nuclear plant to provide water and energy. The business owner can afford to build himself a home, perhaps the government may use the tax money to build homes for people.
I do agree that there is a poor distribution of resources but this is largely because African nations can make more money selling their bananas to us than they can selling them to their own people. Until the people are sufficiently wealthy that they can afford the price, that's the way it will be. Remember that China has taken hundreds of millions out poverty.
I'd be more concerned in the long term about the Arab World, it's not capable of self governance and so will probably destroy any gains it makes in wars or revolutions.
Original post by Rakas21
Eradicating poverty through capitalism is possible.
If Somalian business can sell goods to the rest of the world then it gets money in exchange, these businesses employ Somalians who can afford to buy food, these business can pay tax to the government who can now afford to build a desalinisation plant and a nuclear plant to provide water and energy. The business owner can afford to build himself a home, perhaps the government may use the tax money to build homes for people.
I do agree that there is a poor distribution of resources but this is largely because African nations can make more money selling their bananas to us than they can selling them to their own people. Until the people are sufficiently wealthy that they can afford the price, that's the way it will be. Remember that China has taken hundreds of millions out poverty.
I'd be more concerned in the long term about the Arab World, it's not capable of self governance and so will probably destroy any gains it makes in wars or revolutions.
If Somalian business can sell goods to the rest of the world then it gets money in exchange, these businesses employ Somalians who can afford to buy food, these business can pay tax to the government who can now afford to build a desalinisation plant and a nuclear plant to provide water and energy. The business owner can afford to build himself a home, perhaps the government may use the tax money to build homes for people.
I do agree that there is a poor distribution of resources but this is largely because African nations can make more money selling their bananas to us than they can selling them to their own people. Until the people are sufficiently wealthy that they can afford the price, that's the way it will be. Remember that China has taken hundreds of millions out poverty.
I'd be more concerned in the long term about the Arab World, it's not capable of self governance and so will probably destroy any gains it makes in wars or revolutions.
That won't eradicate poverty because lets face it not everyone can find a job at a given period. E.g. UK there are at most 600k jobs advertised atm and around 2m unemployed do the math it is not possible. Plus the Arab world may be bad but they can't compare to the West and USA. Going into countries trying to say you want to help when in reality they overthrow people who don't have their best interests Gadaffi, Morsi etc... The millions of people that have suffered due to so called capitalism and making a profit over lives are a joke. We hear the West saying Saudi is a poor country for human rights. Here's an idea maybe stop trading with them
Original post by ckingalt
Has it ever occurred to you that stasis is not a preferred condition for the human psyche? The ability to work for and achieve a better life is a key to my happiness. My view of a world in which everything is distributed evenly is a horrible place. It would be like living in a zoo. We all have a place to live and we all have something to eat, but we would be pathetic creatures that only represent a fraction of what we once were. It is worth going hungry sometimes if you get to know the joy of the hunt. If we do well we can expand our habitat, and our chances of survival improve. That is what it means to be alive.
Your premise would put us all in cages and call it justice, just because no body has to get eaten.
Your premise would put us all in cages and call it justice, just because no body has to get eaten.
run out of likes for today, top post.
Original post by Rakas21
Eradicating poverty through capitalism is possible.
If Somalian business can sell goods to the rest of the world then it gets money in exchange, these businesses employ Somalians who can afford to buy food, these business can pay tax to the government who can now afford to build a desalinisation plant and a nuclear plant to provide water and energy. The business owner can afford to build himself a home, perhaps the government may use the tax money to build homes for people.
If Somalian business can sell goods to the rest of the world then it gets money in exchange, these businesses employ Somalians who can afford to buy food, these business can pay tax to the government who can now afford to build a desalinisation plant and a nuclear plant to provide water and energy. The business owner can afford to build himself a home, perhaps the government may use the tax money to build homes for people.
You have such a naive, idealistic, head in the clouds view of capitalism.
Original post by Bornblue
You have such a naive, idealistic, head in the clouds view of capitalism.
Why? Many countries essentially have done that. If governments don't spend tax revenues wisely then that's their fault, not the fault of capitalism.
Original post by Rakas21
Why? Many countries essentially have done that. If governments don't spend tax revenues wisely then that's their fault, not the fault of capitalism.
Because you're idealistic scenario is exactly that and relies on people making money to be honest and trustworthy which is never the case. It's head in the clouds apple pie capitalism.
More likely the business owner will shift his money offshore and not pay any tax and get immensely wealthy, force people to work for him for virtually no money in awful conditions. Meanwhile you'll bang the drum and go 'look how great capitalism is!'
Capitalism is based on money at all costs. Money before workers rights. Money before human well-being.
How about the capitalism in America in which big firms are allowed to 'contribute' to the campaigns of congressmen who then vote in favourable legislation for those companies.
Look at how much Private health firms have paid congressmen and then see how those congressmen have voted on healthcare...
Capitalism necessarily brings corruption.
But wait, capitalism makes us free... or some crap like that
go and look up about Cadbury, Lever , Salt, Rowntree and others in C19th Britain and tell me if you can justify a position of capitalism with a dash of altruism being anything other than a very positive mechanism for positive social change
(edited 8 years ago)
Capitalism on its own is not a force for social change.
On its own, capitalism leads to a concentration of wealth at the top, massive inequality and more poverty.
However, as you note, a mix of socialism and capitalism can reduce poverty, in that governments can redistribute wealth and resources more fairly. Poverty can be reduced through economic growth, but a lot of the growth comes because governments have built the roads, schools and hospitals necessary to allow this growth to occur. Moreover, if the economic growth is shared more equally, then we'll have an even larger rate of poverty reduction.
Inequality is actually bad for economic growth, as both the IMF and the OECD are now admitting, in line with what economists such as Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty have been saying for a while. Massive inequality isn't necessary to get economies growing. So, whilst China should be applauded for its reduction of poverty, it could have done a lot better if inequality hadn't skyrocketed as well. To address this, we need to have a more progressive taxation system, close tax avoidance loopholes, more investment in education to allow for a higher rate of graduation from secondary education, and strong trade unions.
Also, some of the rich nations shouldn't be subsidising their farmers which allows them to sell goods at lower prices in countries in Africa, for example, than farmers in Africa themselves. There are a lot of unfair trade rules which rig the system in favour of the richest nations.
On its own, capitalism leads to a concentration of wealth at the top, massive inequality and more poverty.
However, as you note, a mix of socialism and capitalism can reduce poverty, in that governments can redistribute wealth and resources more fairly. Poverty can be reduced through economic growth, but a lot of the growth comes because governments have built the roads, schools and hospitals necessary to allow this growth to occur. Moreover, if the economic growth is shared more equally, then we'll have an even larger rate of poverty reduction.
Inequality is actually bad for economic growth, as both the IMF and the OECD are now admitting, in line with what economists such as Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty have been saying for a while. Massive inequality isn't necessary to get economies growing. So, whilst China should be applauded for its reduction of poverty, it could have done a lot better if inequality hadn't skyrocketed as well. To address this, we need to have a more progressive taxation system, close tax avoidance loopholes, more investment in education to allow for a higher rate of graduation from secondary education, and strong trade unions.
Also, some of the rich nations shouldn't be subsidising their farmers which allows them to sell goods at lower prices in countries in Africa, for example, than farmers in Africa themselves. There are a lot of unfair trade rules which rig the system in favour of the richest nations.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Rakas21
Why? Many countries essentially have done that. If governments don't spend tax revenues wisely then that's their fault, not the fault of capitalism.
Of course it's the fault of capitalism.
A system based on greed and wealth necessarily brings with it corruption and has done extensively in every capitalist system that has ever existed.
But of course like all capitalists you turn a blind eye to corruption of capitalism but when there's a minor issue with socialism you're all over it.
Capitalism concentrates wealth at the top, it doesn't create social change and it doesn't create a better society.
Original post by Bornblue
Because you're idealistic scenario is exactly that and relies on people making money to be honest and trustworthy which is never the case. It's head in the clouds apple pie capitalism.
More likely the business owner will shift his money offshore and not pay any tax and get immensely wealthy, force people to work for him for virtually no money in awful conditions. Meanwhile you'll bang the drum and go 'look how great capitalism is!'
Capitalism is based on money at all costs. Money before workers rights. Money before human well-being.
How about the capitalism in America in which big firms are allowed to 'contribute' to the campaigns of congressmen who then vote in favourable legislation for those companies.
Look at how much Private health firms have paid congressmen and then see how those congressmen have voted on healthcare...
Capitalism necessarily brings corruption.
But wait, capitalism makes us free... or some crap like that
More likely the business owner will shift his money offshore and not pay any tax and get immensely wealthy, force people to work for him for virtually no money in awful conditions. Meanwhile you'll bang the drum and go 'look how great capitalism is!'
Capitalism is based on money at all costs. Money before workers rights. Money before human well-being.
How about the capitalism in America in which big firms are allowed to 'contribute' to the campaigns of congressmen who then vote in favourable legislation for those companies.
Look at how much Private health firms have paid congressmen and then see how those congressmen have voted on healthcare...
Capitalism necessarily brings corruption.
But wait, capitalism makes us free... or some crap like that
Such a cynical view on capitalism. Yes it is abused by some but there plenty of people who legitimately made good money whilst being honest and playing within the rules.
Capitalism simply enforces social Darwinism which will make the human race better
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Wade-
Such a cynical view on capitalism. Yes it is abused by some but there plenty of people who legitimately made good money whilst being honest and playing within the rules.
Capitalism simply enforces social Darwinism which will make the human race better
Posted from TSR Mobile
Capitalism simply enforces social Darwinism which will make the human race better
Posted from TSR Mobile
It's a cynical view on a concept rife with corruption. It's impossible for a cpaitalist system not to be corrupt as a system which is based on greed and personal gain will always lead to corruption and always has.
A system which has created unbelievable inequality and a system which is physically destroying our planet, the only planet we have to live on. A system where if you have enough money you can bypass democracy and buy influence.
Yet i'm expected to ignore all that and go 'yay capitalism!'.
Or when I point out the flaws and corruption i'm accused of 'arguing from emotion..' or some crap like that.
And a social darwanist? Human race better?
We're not living in 1940s germany ffs stop talking crap about 'making the human race better'. Those views belong in a different era.
Original post by Bornblue
It's a cynical view on a concept rife with corruption. It's impossible for a cpaitalist system not to be corrupt as a system which is based on greed and personal gain will always lead to corruption and always has.
A system which has created unbelievable inequality and a system which is physically destroying our planet, the only planet we have to live on. A system where if you have enough money you can bypass democracy and buy influence.
Yet i'm expected to ignore all that and go 'yay capitalism!'.
Or when I point out the flaws and corruption i'm accused of 'arguing from emotion..' or some crap like that.
And a social darwanist? Human race better?
We're not living in 1940s germany ffs stop talking crap about 'making the human race better'. Those views belong in a different era.
A system which has created unbelievable inequality and a system which is physically destroying our planet, the only planet we have to live on. A system where if you have enough money you can bypass democracy and buy influence.
Yet i'm expected to ignore all that and go 'yay capitalism!'.
Or when I point out the flaws and corruption i'm accused of 'arguing from emotion..' or some crap like that.
And a social darwanist? Human race better?
We're not living in 1940s germany ffs stop talking crap about 'making the human race better'. Those views belong in a different era.
Well maybe we should go 180 and go to 'communism' because of course that was way less corrupt. I don't think any right thinking person would deny that capitalism has flaws but it's simply the best system there is; it rewards greed but face reality, humans are greedy.
Sorry I shouldn't be in favour of supporting the development of humans, we've peaked and cannot possibly become better in anyway
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
