|
|
Post by maxwellheller on Jan 14, 2016 8:27:50 GMT
Andrew-
While I agree that the goal of a structured society governed by laws is to overcome the basic, Darwinistic forces that would ordinarily determine our treatment of our "competitors", I do not believe that our society has reached this goal. If we were able to overcome these Darwinistic forces then there would be no innovation, because we would have no need to improve our society. We try to cure deadly diseases to save lives, which is evidence of our inability to overcome Darwinistic forces. Nature is competing with the human race, and as humans evolve, so too do diseases. We have a natural urge to compete with the disease, just as we have a natural urge to compete with each other in the economic system of capitalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by natashaauer on Jan 14, 2016 8:49:06 GMT
Capitalism is not a feasible way of reducing poverty. As most of you guys mentioned, people do not start off at the same level when they are born into American society; some are born into an affluent family - like Donald Trump and Oprah- while others are born into poorer families that work tirelessly to make ends meet. Although these impoverished kids could theoretically make it to the top through capitalism, it isn't likely. There have been some cases in which individuals- like Andrew Carnegie- have gone from "rags to riches", but with America's flawed education system and unequal distribution of wealth kids from poorer backgrounds have a much much harder time improving their lives than children from richer backgrounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by katedenend on Jan 14, 2016 17:22:26 GMT
It is true that completely free capitalism does not on its own do an effective job at reducing poverty, clearly even a regulated capitalist society like we have now does not do an effective job at reducing the gap between the wealthy and the poor, but capitalism is the only system throughout history that has proven to work in the slightest. Since everyone starts at different places in the "race" to wealth, more regulations and help provided to the poorer is one of the only effective way to deal with poverty in our country.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashgordan on Jan 14, 2016 19:37:16 GMT
One of the issues with the competition encouraged by capitalism is that it often encourages corruption, especially in business. For example, Goldman Sachs betrayed the trust of its customers by selling them packaged mortgages that they were betting would fail, and credit card companies regularly conduct data mining on their clients in order to predict their financial future. Though incentive and competition is an integral part of any economy, it needs to be regulated so that the people stop getting screwed over by big businesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by jconfito on Jan 14, 2016 20:57:38 GMT
The only viable economic system is the bartering of consumable goods, like bleu cheese and duck meat
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Lange on Jan 14, 2016 21:05:21 GMT
Seeing as bartering is basically proto-capitalism that seems perfectly viable Jackson. However, given that Bartering inevitably evolves such that real goods are replaced by representations, you'll basically just be setting up a capitalist society
|
|
|
|
Post by erikroise on Jan 14, 2016 21:08:08 GMT
Although pure capitalism as an absolute social strategy may not be sustainable or fair, neither is a complete lack of free market. Throwing out capitalism completely, as the title of this thread suggests, has already been proven implausible by historical events. The failure of the Soviet Union highlights the damage that an absolute lack of free market, and therefore incentives, can have on the economy and productivity of a nation. Though I personally support the influence of social services, and believe that they do not detract from personal incentives, it is impossible not to acknowledge the damage that can be caused by a complete lack of free market.
|
|
|
|
Post by griffink on Jan 15, 2016 1:07:06 GMT
I agree with Erik, I think that while yes, unfettered capitalism can lead to abuse by people with more resources, it has its benefits too. Completely eliminating the free market, leaving the economy entirely up to government control, also creates issues. Some people say that capitalism allows for corruption, but I think its actually the other way around; the more power over the economy you invest into the government, the more potential there is for abuse. And while eliminating capitalism might allow the government to improve the condition of many, it also eliminates personal agency over an individual's economic condition. Under the most radical forms of socialism people are given little incentive to innovate, as any benefits they might reap from hard work are distributed among the entire population. Thus, I think the actual solution should be somewhere in between the two extremes of free market capitalism, and government controlled socialism; there should still be a mostly free market, but the government should also exercise some control, in situations where the free market is harmful, such as when monopolies form, and additionally should provide opportunities for poor people to escape poverty, rather than simply redistributing wealth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Strehlow on Jan 15, 2016 1:34:02 GMT
I agree that capitalism, and particularly what we have in the United States, is not working in favor of reducing and ultimately solving the issue of poverty in the United States. With this system, the only way the poor get fair and equal advantages would be for those in the upper social classes to be selfless and donate money to charities or to politicians who are in favor of higher taxes on the upper percent incomes. However, for families living in areas as ridiculous in pricing as the Bay Area or New York City, the taxation rates would be unfair to families making 200,000 yet still not truly in the upper class. For capitalism to be effective in solving poverty, the government and the wealthy who have such a big say in the 'ideologies' of politicians need to accept the reality that they should be taxed higher so we can reallocate that money to those who need it. But as I said, the different taxation rates need to be adjusted in relation to the median housing prices in the metro area
|
|
|
|
Post by ascoffone on Jan 15, 2016 2:04:40 GMT
Ben, it kind of sounds like you're saying, in a roundabout way, that a capitalist system cannot deal with poverty. You point out that for it to do so, the wealthy must agree to be taxed more. Does this not amount to handing over the reins in the fight against poverty to government agencies funded by tax dollars as opposed to the free market?
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolecsn on Jan 15, 2016 2:30:37 GMT
I agree with Manuela's point. Capitalism isn't the best way to lift poverty out of its ashes. Growing up in two different situations ends with two very different lives. Someone who grew up with wealthy parents has an advantage to go to a better university and eventually get a good job that will give them even more money. On the other hand, the kid who grows up poor could make it to a good college but has an extremely lower chance of going to one. Living in poverty can cut off the road to success through education. How, then, will they rise to success on their own in a capitalist country?
|
|
|
|
Post by harperw on Jan 15, 2016 2:45:11 GMT
Though capitalism is meant to allow more opportunity, the system doesn't reset after every generation. If every time the Olympics happened, the prior first place time got a head start, they'd remain the champions in nearly every case. It's not fair to say that people all start equally when people whose parents are Harvard educated and earn six figures and becoming extremely wealthy at exponentially higher rates than those whose parents don't have educations or incomes at that level. America may have been the Land of Opportunity, but it sure isn't anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Lange on Jan 15, 2016 2:51:52 GMT
Sure, capitalism doesn't provide fair opportunities for everyone. This is a legitimate issue and it needs to be solved, but just because there are inherent issues in the system doesn't mean that we should do away with it all together. Although it is flawed, history has proven capitalism to be the least broken economic system. Surely it would be more sensible to pass reform than it would be to do away with the system altogether
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Strehlow on Jan 15, 2016 2:57:04 GMT
Andrew, you're right, I don't think capitalism is an ideal system to fight poverty. As long as there are wealthy people intoxicated with greed and politicians who want spots in office channeling those wealthy business tycoons ideologies rather than their own, prospects of solving poverty under a capitalist government, particularly one such as the one in the United States, seem grim. I agree with Ian that we shouldn't do away with it all together, however, because as it's been seen in the case of Soviet Russia and even North Korea, hardcore communism isn't an optimal system either, and capitalism is an obvious superior in contrast to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by harperw on Jan 15, 2016 3:02:50 GMT
Ian, I agree. Hands down. Passing reforming limiting the wealthy, however, limits the pure free market economy. While I don't mean to argue that this means socialism benefits the poor more, I do thinks it's worthwhile to acknowledge that modified capitalism isn't the same as what I believe was the topic of this thread, Adam Smith's absolutely hands-off free market.
|
|
