Im loosing faith in Capitalism

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Wraith
Oh well. I'm just sick of people confusing capitalism with corporatism.

And Wraith nails it. WTG, Wraith.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Wraith
Oh well. I'm just sick of people confusing capitalism with corporatism.

Democrats, Republicans, Greens - roughly 95 % of the US political spectrum ?

[Dr. Nick]

If the education and health was decent, and there was enough food, and people had work, they were not poor.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Capitalism=greed
Socialism=equality

The difference is more in who is allowed to possess production means.
Capitalism=anybody.
Socialism=anybody, but have regulations to avoid abuses.
Communism=the state only.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dry


The difference is more in who is allowed to possess production means.
Capitalism=anybody.
Socialism=anybody, but have regulations to avoid abuses.
Communism=the state only.

I prefer


Capitalism = Wealth, Inequality, Freedom
Socialism = Inefficiency, Equality, Freedom
Communism = Inefficiency, Some are more equal than others (the Communists), Totalitarianism

[Dry]

Originally posted by Ned
I prefer


Capitalism = Wealth, Inequality, Freedom
Socialism = Inefficiency, Equality, Freedom
Communism = Inefficiency, Some are more equal than others (the Communists), Totalitarianism

Maybe, but these are only consequences, not the basic philosophy.
All 'isms' may be tuned to reduce their flaws... but for the commies it will be real, real hard.

[jdjdjd]

Your mistake is assuming there is capitalism. Its really a high-bred. Oligopolies really are in place in most US industries, and with the amount of companies that have hands in multiple industries, you don't have anything that Adam Smith forsaw. So without the forces of supply and demand working to control the market, you don't have capitalism. To anyone who talks of government regulation, then you are also talking about something that is not allowed in capitalism.

Now, without thinking of the US as capitalism, then relook at it and you can then see why such things happen. This is not a capitalistic economy, so you either need to break up the huge congolmerates and prevent the merger mentality or you need to regulate them or bring back unions so someone can act as a watch dog. We don't regulate them because when we do, its either flawed by govt or berated by corporations as an infringement on supply & demand and capitalism, despite the fact that their actions have already infringed upon supply & demand and capitalism. We allow big business but are afraid of big govt or big unions, so then who can act as a watch dog on big business?

Therefore, these things happen until someone takes serious actions in govt. Given that Bush is considered a conservative, if he chooses to be bold, he can accomplish this, after all who would dare call him a liberal and pro-big gov't.

[Ned]

Eli, what conglomerates are you talking about?

[Strates]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
Your mistake is assuming there is capitalism. Its really a high-bred. Oligopolies really are in place in most US industries, and with the amount of companies that have hands in multiple industries, you don't have anything that Adam Smith forsaw. So without the forces of supply and demand working to control the market, you don't have capitalism. To anyone who talks of government regulation, then you are also talking about something that is not allowed in capitalism.

The first person to coint the word "Capitalism" was Karl Marx. He would call what he have now capitalism. Under this economic system there is still over-production, business cycles, huge income disperity, classes, etc... Now, Smith's "invisble hand" it simply dosen't exists. You would need very informed buyers and supplyiers for the laws of supply and demand to actually take effect the way Smith predicted.

Another thing is that we will never live in pure economic system. There is always going to be small traits of other econmic systems in the predominant system.

The basic Marxist thesis is that capitalism is progressive and necessary to further the development of the productive forces, when capitalism can no longer further increase the productive forces and capitalism must therefore be replaced by socialism which can further the productive forces. Can capitalism further increase the productive forces? No, what capitalism is only doing now is making profits in very inefficient ways and only at the expense of others.

"The competition between millions of small-scale producers which is characteristic of the early days of capitalism, leads to the concentration of capital in the hands of just a few as a more efficient means of production. At a certain point (the beginning of the 20th-century), the entire globe has been divided up between a few great powers. Thus begins the final stage in the development of capitalism, imperialism, characterized by the domination of the banks, the formation of large multi-national corporations, and by war."

When Smith wrote The wealth of nations capitalism was still too young to show the inherent weakneses that today pleague society.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
Oligopolies really are in place in most US industries, and with the amount of companies that have hands in multiple industries, you don't have anything that Adam Smith forsaw.

Actually, Smith does foresee suh things and says that industrialists will always seek to conspire together against the public good. He thought it would be controlled, however, by appealing to their better natures and showing them that competition is better.

[Az]

see ,capitalism is a great idea , in theory , but it won't work because people are too greedy .

[Strates]

But, he never forsaw monopolies, nor the business cycle.

[chequita guevara]

Monopolies and trusts are the same thing as far as the market is concerned.

[Strates]

Not really. Oligopolies are similar to monopolies but they are not the same.

[chequita guevara]

You are correct, they are not the same. I suffixed it with "as far as the Markets are concerned." They create the same distorting effects, draw the same super surplus value, etc, as monopolies. The difference is one of degree. A monopoly is more efficient than an oligopoly, because redundencies are disposed of.