Is capitalism good or bad?

Comments

26 responses to “Is capitalism good or bad?”

1. woffie

   The problem with capitalism is there is an upper limit to the available resources that are distributed among the people. Further, there is a limited money supply creating stratification in a free society. Greed becomes rampet and the common worker then suffers. This go around shows a government running amuck and being corrupted by big business and money interests. Becos of the exstention of credit , and a lack of base salaries increasing, the common people were lulled into a false belief that there standard of living was improving or at least remaining constant. By using credit instead of saving and building on there money, they became a slave to the credit industry, created inflation, and ultimately caused the current depression. This “effect” is similar to the 1930’s crash that was exasperated by buying stock on margin. All product are fluctuating in value according to supply and demand, we just think bread or a house remands somewhat constant. But this go around should have shown the people that this just isn’t true. In the end the system is a barter system with hi-tech thrown in.

   However it is not necessarily these special interest groups fault. They are merely ceasing an opportunity.
   It is necessary for a governing body to control corporate and power to prevent destruction and slavery. At this point we are on the verge of slavery. You know this because of the sudden reduction of your income.
   After the 1930’s crash safety measures were placed to regulate and prevent such greed takers so this sort of thing would not happen agene. In the lat 70’s Reagan removed these safety measures and once agene the marked went out of control. The problem here is that greed is fundamental and destructive instinct of man and therefore has to be controlled or we will spent the rest of this country’s existents cycling over and over.

   Religion involves social reform and the idea of moral behavior among individuals and groups within a society. Is not a company a group with political influence and interests toward the bottom line. so yes religion is a factor. If you will look at your bible, you will see that there are instructions on how to govern and maintain social order. As I see it, the bibles government is somewhat socialist but at least you wont have some people eating stake and driving porches wall others go homeless and starve. The constitution states (possibly a worming) that “as long as there are honest men”, But I haven’t seen many lately, so maybe its time for the big reset and the end of a great nation.

   We are on the verge of revolution, this isn’t a good thing. If this nation were to go to war with itself, no one will win. The new government will be radical and will do according to there radical ideas. The foundation of the united states was tolerance to new peoples and religions. Nowadays no one is tolerant of anyone else. And its nothing to backstab your friend so you can get ahead. We aren’t the first to go down this road and we wont be the last. Already, we are invading other country in some obscure name or ideal, or in the most recent case fear, but underneath its all about the money, oil, or some other rescores’ we need to control to maintain our way of life. Some ware along the way, we ceased to be Americans and are becoming that witch many went to war to stop.

   So what you gona do, we go through the cycles of governmental control, the rising of nations and eventually there fall,. In the end the only thing you can do is to make sure that you are forgiving, honest , and fare. in your dealings of life.

   Reply
   1. Mark Biernat

      I understand what you are saying. In the USA there are such extreme views and people are entrenched in this trench warfare of political battles that really does not change much in Washington.

      I think the only think you can do is live a peaceful, loving life like you said. But what is wrong with applying your talents to a free market? I am not greedy, but I like to create and hopefully sell things in the market that will be of value for other people.
      What is wrong with making money to provide for your family. This is best done in a capitalist economy where there is the freedom to choose your economic life based on your own desires and given talents.

      Reply
2. dan s

   Well stated. i think capitalism is getting a “bum-rap” these days and i believe it is in part due to the way the message (“bad capitalists”) has been touted by the main stream media. Wealth (I humbly submit) is created by Capitalists. The message that they “steal” wealth is generally accepted. I have a degree in economics from a very liberal NY University. I was not taught about Ayn Rand,Hayek and The Road To Serfdom and was told FDR saved us from depression. Years of my own research has corrected my youthful fancies.
   Thank you for a well put-together piece.

   Reply
   1. Mark Biernat

      Capitalism is nothing more than the freedom to be yourself in society. I live in a post communist country and trust me you do not want the alternative.

      Objectivity is the essence of intelligence and being able to see in a clear way the world works is a very good start to understanding markets. This is better than what any Ivory tower professor says.

      For example:
      I use to bring goods (amazing halva made of sesame) into Poland made in Ukraine and sell them in an open market. I made money. If the government put its hand in this operation the buyer and the seller would lose.
      Even in this simple capitalist model everyone wins. I worked in an honest way and even paid taxes, uhh.

      I learned some Polish and Ukrainian (I am American) and got a great experience, and cash so I could spend it in other ways in the local economy. The buyers got non-sweet halva for the holidays not found in Poland.

      What is wrong with that?

      This is the world when you have freedom. Capitalism is good. Life is an adventure.
      Under a government controlled economy, life is gray. Believe me, come to a post communist country and you will see the affects.

      Reply
3. pro capitalist

   I agree with most of what has been said here, I think the best economic system is that of capitalism with very little government interference. What we have these days however is not the ideal capitalist model, in an ideal capitalist model the United States and other Western countries would not have tariffs and other trade barriers attached to foreign goods.also we would not have the government picking winners and losers by bailing certain industries out. I was on a different site earlier and some bone head stated that we needed government regulation of capitalism to avoid recessions like the recent one. Guess he has failed to understand that the true source of the recent recession was due to government interference ( government expenditure keeping the economic bubble going. Sadly these days capitalism does get a bad rap, in reality people have misconceptions about what capitalism truly is, and the mixed socialist capitalist systems are preventing capitalism from working properly.

   Reply
4. 60srad

   If anything leads to serfdom, it is an oppressive system like crapitalism! Socialism is economic democracy in the same way that a republic is political democracy. Crapitalism is a faux democracy of “one dollar, one vote,” and its goal is to overthrow democracy in favor of plutocracy and fascism, as the Obscene Court has demonstrated in their Traitors United decision.

   Reply
5. 60srad

   The fact is that economics is in no way a science, especially conartistive economics. What kind of “science” is it that considers cycles of boom and bust to be “normal,” along with a non-zero “optimal” unemployment level. These postulates are merely the self-serving rationalization of those with a vested interest in propagandizing their bias toward a completely irrational, abusive system.

   Reply
   1. Mark Biernat

      Where do you live? The USA? The land of milk and honey and where capitalism has created such wealth and a large free and mobile middle class? Everytime I fly back home to ‘crisis America’ I see people tanking up big cars and even the poor have TV sets.

      Reply
   2. Adam

      What kind of “science” is it that considers cycles of boom and bust to be “normal,” along with a non-zero “optimal” unemployment level.

      60srad. With all due respect I think you have it in reverse.
      Most big bust and booms are the creation of Central Banks including the great depression as admitted by Bureaucrat in chef Ben Shalom Bernanke. As far as an “optimal a non-zero “optimal” unemployment” its impossible and irrational. Its the classic illusion from socialist and messianic states.

      We can be compassionate toward people losing there jobs with safety net but fudging unemployment figures by creating artificial jobs to show nice statistics is not only delusional and irrational it very expensive and destroys real jobs.

      The present recession “Bust” is different thanks to ridiculous Government and Central Bank intervention, artificial rates and guaranties but over all in the last 50 years any one could find a job in America. Government jobs have destroy real job taking billions away from the productive sector toward the unaccountable and an unproductive sector.

      By the way did you notice that even Fidel Castro is firing one Million State Employees.
      Pretending they worked did not work very well did it ?
      Perhaps he is starting to realize that Employment come from demand not the other way around.

      Reply
      1. Mark Biernat

         Business cycles and their causes
         Austrian economists, like the now famous Hayek, Mises,Menger, took the interest rate theory of prices by Swedish economist Knut Wickell and turned it into a theory of business cycles.

         That is, a disequilibrium in the money markets, between the real rate of interest (marginal productivity of capital) and bank rate causes shocks in the real sector and a boom and bust cycle.

         How to fix the economy
         Free markets are a guaranteed way to bring the economy back to equilibrium and real growth. There is nothing better to alleviate economic pain and spread social justice than a free market.This is almost contrary to what people think today but read Adam Smith. It is true.

         Even small departures from the idea of free movement of labor and capital, flexible prices, private rather than public market operations will cause non price rationing and disequilibrium. Further this will also end usually but not always in a less just and fair distribution of wealth.

         Capitalism and social justice
         For example, I want to buy a house. I am a hard working guy. Why should the government be so obsessed with artificially propping up home prices with my tax dollars. I want home prices to fall so my family can have a roof over their heads. But the government is reinforcing the haves at the expense of the have nots when they tinker with market forces. Is this social justice?

         Central banks anti social justice role
         The central bank plays a big role in this. Men like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke in my opinion are good men, who are honest and soft-spoken academics with conviction and morals. However, the institution which they serve and served, that is the Federal Reserve is the source of so much economic pain.

         I have watch countless interviews with Ben Bernacke and only sense from him a good sincere person who is trying to help but really is nothing more misguided and directed in his ideals.
         
         Where I started to be concerned about social justice and economics
         When I studied Economics in the 80s at Wake Forest University I remember this same conversation with my economics professors back then. That is why try to steer monetary policy with a top down approach as it can only exacerbate the business cycle and give capitalism a bad name. My professor back then Tony Elavia warned against economic engineering by the government. His ideas in the early 80s were not in vogue but they made sense to me. I aso considered some ideas of a liberation theologist Father Lou who was a Jesuit at the University. Both fueled my interest in the idea of economic social good.

         Only when I studied economics at Trinity at a graduate level under Professor Bill Butos, did my passion for economics really take off. Despite much personal mental resistance initially the idea that capitalism created social justice I began to understand what he was conveying. It was an enlightenment argument that when you maximize individual liberties society as a whole becomes better off and more fair and just. It is true, that is why capitalism is good.

         Now I have tempered my argument that capitalism is the highest economics order only a little after rereading one of my personal heroes Hans Kung on social justice and economic justice.

         But for me this brings me back full circle to enlighten self-interest and the wonderful world of Adam Smith. A capitalism tempered by enlightenment and an understanding of public goods and in a wealthy society a responsibility of to give people opportunities. But in the end money does not solve life’s fundamental problems.

         Reply
6. John C

   You have read Hayek,no doubt. Every generation of people try to implement the planners “idea” and “Ideal” of Utopia. Of course Hayek points out in “Road to Serfdom” why this always and will always fail. Still, every generation gets an Obama figure who clings to the great lie and attacks “Capitalism”.

   So every generation must relearn this lesson, sad really. I look at the “Occupy” protesters her in the States and I laugh. They all are crying for an end to Capitalism and more Government. ‘Useful Idiots’ indeed.

   Reply
   1. Mark Biernat

      Every generation has to learn a new. It is like the history of man. Many times young people like authority and structure, that is why they join the military or need their parents to guide them. Then they are enlightened and explore their liberty in their 20s. In their 30s people puruse a domestic polics of a mix of liberty and rules and regulation as they try to raise a family.

      OK manybe that metaphor does not work perfectly but I do think many young people are swept up with idealism of sharing and social ideas but do not see the full implication of government directed sharing vs private free will sharing. The ideas of socialism are nice but they lead to serfdom.

      Reply
7. owen leyshon

   Capitalism is good when mixed with some socialism, why? Because not every one is born equal you do not have my parents do not have your parents some one born to middle class parents has an advantage over some one born to poor uneducated parents and may be destructive to there own children’s education therefor we are not created equal that is why we need social safety nets.

   Reply
   1. Mark Biernat

      A safety net is turning into the foundation which we build the future, which is reliance on the government for our future. Not good. A safety net could ne a negative income tax or something, but I think the best safety net is called ‘the family’. In Eastern Europe, in my wife’s household there are four generations living in the same big old farm-house. What is wrong with that? They had no fancy school and barely had money for anything (they had nothing literally except what they made/grew on the farm), yet my wife has a Master’s degree and went to some medical school. The best socialism is the family unit.

      Reply
8. Bill

   The U.S. constitution implies that the government was created by the people and for the people to aid them in the conducting of their business and has never implied that the government was created by the corporations in order to aid them in the conducting of their business.

   Does congress still believe in a Constitutional Republic form of Government?
   -OR-
   Does congress now believe in a Corporate Republic form of government?

   The decline of America as a constitutional republic of America as a constitutional republic and its rebirth as a corporate republic.

   A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens.

   The United States Constitution has many protections against the “tyranny of the majority.” Specifically, it protects the Unalienable rights of the People from an over-reaching government.

   Corporatocracy or Corpocracy is a form of government where a corporation, a group of corporations, or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country. If this sounds familiar, it should because this is exactly how our current government is being governed. (This form of government is also known as a Corporate Republic form of government)

   Independent Agencies and Government Corporations.

   “Independent establishments are created by Congress to address concerns that go beyond the scope of ordinary legislation. These agencies are responsible for keeping the government and economy running smoothly.” (USA.gov)

   When congress created Independent Agencies and Government Corporations “known as quasi governmental entities” and granted them ‘quasi-legislative’ and/or ‘quasi-judicial’ powers coequal to that of congress in order to allow them to go beyond the scope of ordinary legislation. They, congress, did nothing less than create a harbinger of a new, creative management era where the purported artificial barriers between the government and private sector can be breached as a matter of principle rather than by law.

   NOTE: The Attorney General has stated.

   Agencies have no inherent lawmaking powers. They are not creatures of the Constitution…..This
   means we should abandon the idea that there are such things as ‘quasi-legislative’ or ‘quasi-judicial’
   functions that can be properly delegated to independent agencies or bodies…..[F]ederal agencies
   performing executive functions are themselves properly agents of the executive. They are not ‘quasi’
   this or ‘independent’ that.

   Addressed by Attorney General Edward Meese. III, Federal Bar Association, Detroit, Mich. Sept 13, 1985)

   The following pertains quasi governmental agencies created by congress.

   The scope and consequences of these hybrid organizations have not been extensively studied. Basic definitional issues resist resolution. Even the language to be used in discussing the quasi government is in dispute. Should government management be discussed in the language of law, economic theory, or the business school? The traditional tools for holding executive agencies accountable, such as the budget and general management laws, are inapplicable in most instances, often leaving these hybrids with the freedom to pursue their own institutional interests, which may or may not conform to the public interest as defined by the nation’s elected leadership.

   The belief that management flexibility requires entity-specific laws and regulations, even at the cost of less accountability to representative institutions.”“Time will tell whether the emergence of the quasi government is to be viewed as a symptom of decline in our democratic government, or a harbinger of a new, creative management era where the purported artificial barriers between the governmental and private sectors are breached as a matter of principle.”
   (CRS report for congress Order Code RL30533 April 26, 2005)

   “Quasi governmental entities may be viewed as a form of privatization because they are substitutes for fully governmental agencies…

   Behavior of the Entity
   The difference between having a governmental entity and a private firm perform an activity is significant. Privatization moves components of the provision of goods and services out of the governmental sector and into the private sector. These two sectors are not identical. As the National Academy of Public Administration noted, In point of fact, there are some fundamental differences between the [governmental and private sectors] …. Most basic, perhaps, is the [government’s] distinctive claim to exercise sovereignty, to enact and enforce binding laws, and to act on behalf of the nation or the community in certain constitutionally prescribed ways….

   Accountability
   Government agencies, unlike private firms, usually operate under complex accountability hierarchies that include multiple and even conflicting goals. Federal agencies, for example, are subject to the corpus of federal management laws. These laws serve as means for keeping executive branch agencies accountable to Congress, the President, and the public…

   Finally, the entire question — “What constitutes governmental action and what constitutes private action?” — becomes ambiguous when activities once carried out by officers of the federal government are replaced by private persons. The Constitution requires “all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, [to] be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support [the] Constitution.” (Article IV, Cl. 3) Contractor and sub-contractors, though, need not take such an oath. The legal distinction between officers of the federal government and all other persons is significant as an officer of the federal government has rights, duties, powers, and liabilities different from non-officers…” (CRS report for congress Order Code RL33777 December 28,2006)

   I wonder if congress knows the difference between acting under color of law rather than by law

   Color of law… is the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists.

   The framers of the Constitution prohibited the federal government from delegating legislative power from the duly elected representatives of Congress to any other entity. They warned that if legislative power were combined with executive power, or if legislative power were combined with judicial power, our republic would become an oligarchy and the rights of the people would be sacrificed to achieve the the selfish ends of those who govern.____Madison wrote, “[t]he accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the same hands, whether of one, few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Typically of the federalists who advocated ratification of the constitution, Alexander Hamilton explained that the separation of powers was “itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” It would deny a single department autonomous governance. It would keep abuse of power in check by humbling those in government with the need to to satisfy the dictates of competing power centers.

   BEWARE “Science Fiction” sometimes has a tendency to be come “Fact.”

   A corporate republic is a theoretical form of government occasionally hypothesized in works of science fiction…. While retaining some semblance of republican government, a corporate republic would be run primarily like a business, involving a board of directors and executives. Utilities, including hospitals, schools, the army, and the police force, would be privatized… Although corporate republics do not exist officially in the modern world, they are often used in works of fiction or political commentary as a warning of the perceived dangers of unbridled capitalism. In such works, they usually arise when a single, vastly powerful corporation deposes a weak government, over time or in a coup d’etat.

   It is disingenuous, while not downright immoral, to yell to the government to stay out of one’s business when things are good, only to come begging on one’s knees for government help when things turn sour. Wall Street cannot and should not have it both ways. Unbridled capitalism doesn’t work, and we know it. It’s time to stop paying attention to people who claim otherwise.

   It should be noted that crony capitalism (Unbridled capitalism) should not be confused with true capitalism.

   Crony capitalists make their living by controlling the free market place for their own benefit.

   True capitalists make their living by working with the free market place instead of trying to controlling it.

   Personally, I do not have not problem with true capitalists who make a profit from their investments in the free market place.

   However, I do have a problem with the greed crony capitalists who profit shamelessly on others’ misfortune by controlling the free market place, which allows them to rob the middle class and/or the poor of this nation who are living in poverty.

   Reply
9. LiamF

   Pro capitalist opinion on –

   Slavery – slavery is a part of most, if not every, country’s history. Every culture is guilty of the practice. This is not a call out of any specific nation. more of a interest in feelings towards the relationship between capitalism, good or bad, and slavery. At the very least capitalism hasn’t completely ended slavery in the world. Maybe it has helped to decrease its acceptance in the world? But the origins of these beliefs could also be more related to early democratic movements in England, France, and the U.S. At the very worst you could say there is the possibility that capitalism, or at least the pursuit of continually growing profit margins is reliant on labor ever increasingly close to slavery. You could argue that it is just as profitable for American companies to import goods from 3rd world countries, or use illegal foreign labor in the U.S. as it is to house, clothe, and feed slave labor. What are the pro capitalist views on slavery? Do you think true unregulated capitalism will end slavery? The American Agrarian Industry went from slave labor, to the working poor of the industrial revolution, to the illegal migrant worker. Do you see a time when the American food supply will free itself of dependency on these forms of labor? Could the American Working Class masses afford food not dependent on extremely cheap labor? Would the upper, non working, class have to sacrifice profit margin in order to keep food prices at the same relative price for the working class American? Would the working class American have to dedicate more of their income to food? What would be the effect on the sales of other goods if more income had to be dedicated to food? What do you think would be the best way to end this dependency on a lower class of labor?

   What about non food items? The American working class wage is stagnant and their percentage of the overall wealth is decreasing, yet the amount of goods they own is consistently increasing. You could argue that their lives are at least as comfortable, if not more comfortable, then they’ve ever been. Not always financially comfortable, but comfortable with cheap electronics, clothing, and autos. Do you think this is sustainable? Will we be able to continually provide the American working class with cheap goods by moving manufacturing to developing nations while maintaining their employment in order to be able to purchase these goods?

   Reply
   1. Mark Biernat

      Slavery is the opposite of capitalism because the basic assumption of capitalism as defined by Adam Smith is when people act on their own enlightened self interest and are free to make choices based on that then society as a whole benefits. When you are a slave you have no human rights or can not exercise your free will and God given creativity to help humanity in a optimal way. The founding father who owned Slaves as where the people of the Bible who accepted it were wrong. Slavery is a humanistically wrong and contrary to all ideas of good and justice and fairness in economics.

      Capitalism needs individual liberty to be maximized for society to have increase in wealth.

      The closest thing in most countries we have to slavery is the government taxing and spending the productive wealth of hard working Americans. This stagnates wages of the working class. More than half your productive time at work is given to the feudal master the government and this does not include opportunity cost. I lived in post communistic Eastern Europe and the Slavery of government controlled economics was a heavy price.

      I just left my job. I will use my own brains and creativity to support my family. We go fishing, grow are own food or buy it from the farmer, make our own bread. My wife made a crab trap out of chicken wire. That is not only productive but fun and she makes clothes by sewing. What is wrong with that? I also have a Masters degree and graduated top of my class. I am not some bum. Rather, I use my brain to write software and hope this entrepreneurial venture will succeed. I do not hitch my wagon to anyone else star in hopes they will give me a real raise or pay me what I am worth. I would rather create value. That is capitalism. We all have something to contribute.

      Now about the working class not making money. I do understand this. However, you can not compare the economics to the other 99.9% of the people living in the world. The poor working class here are the nobility and blood bloods if you compare the poverty of the rest of the world. So maybe people should count their blessings and look at what amazing opportunities they have around them in the USA then look for the government to solve their problems.

      Free your mind and money will grow on trees for you and the roads of the USA will be paved with gold, not on the backs of slave but with the spirit of ingenuity. That is economic Justice.

      Reply
10. John

    I agree with many aspects of this post. However, I think it’s interesting that you draw a parallel between Capitalism and democracy. I realize that you understand this, but for those coming to this site looking for opinions and arguments one way or the other I feel that it’s important to point out that a country’s economic system is independent from its political system. There is totalitarian socialism (USSR, North Korea, PRC), democratic socialism (some argue that this can be seen in Scandinavia), democratic capitalism (USA, Western Europe), and totalitarian capitalism (many US-established Latin American regimes during the 20th century, some African nations, etc.). Though you make good points, it seems as though some of your arguments are more about specific combinations of the political and economic realms.

    That’s all, really. Thanks for your time.

    Reply
11. yoyo

    Greed is the major problem, sooner or later capitalism corrupts itself cause everything is about money and eventually the whole system becomes unequal , there would be no more middle class cause the rich people would own everything, they own the house you sleep, the food you eat, the car you drive then you become a slave ( off cause they got you thinking work hard and you would become rich while their children would become rich faster due to inheritance , now it’s just a matter of luck not hard work if you’ll get rich ) even the innovations capitalism claims that would create wealth would be bought by the rich from the individual . Look at the divorce rate, people now marry because of money, there is no love, no good relationship, increased in poverty, increased crime.

    oh look at what capitalism has created it made us into a zombie struggling for survival , living day to day on minimal wages.
    Am I not human why should I go to work sad every day even though my passion does not lie there and my boss son spends all the money we make including my co worker on a lavish lifestyle because he is so lucky and am unlucky to be the son of a poor man, is that the reason I deserve to live this life, I suffer for what I have not done and yet they tell me to be creative and productive when clearly they killed my creativity and productivity just for me to stay alive , they forget that creativity only comes from a peaceful and happy mind (the rich people) not from me who is just worried about his house rent or pay for my medical appointment.

    I think we all should have listened to Karl Marx but instead the greedy people created capitalism and they knew the greed in people would make them agree since it promises them they can also become the wealthiest and since everything would be fair and equal but that’s a lie nothing is really fair and equal unless we would start again and everybody would be given the same amount amount of money, opportunity and wealth and even if my fellow being chooses to be foolish and spend his that doesn’t mean I would make him suffer and his kids,kids too,making them pay to stay alive, am I not human and not animal for I know I should punish him for being foolish why should I punish his children and make them not live good life and afford good education and medical facilities at least not saying they should drive lambohs and Ferrari but at least the basic amenities that would bring out the creativity in them out of love not out of struggling to staying alive or out of love for money, or greed or the fear of poverty who knows what would have happen maybe they would make the world a better place than me if they were given the opportunity but now I have taken all the opportunities due to their fathers foolishness and my greed ,I would decide the way they live and my sons would decide theirs too and they forget in the game of money and other things. THE RICHEST WINS ALL and you my friend have been deceived making you think you could become wealthy that’s just to make you work hard for me so I can be come richer..

    Funny thing is they say,
    Money can not buy happiness.
    probably guilt sets in after making all the money then you start to ask was it worth it, does capitalism actually worth it, sacrifice millions just to make few get richer and make the whole thing about them in fact give them all the power of the society cause that’s what it becomes later.

    And hey the richest and happiest countries in the world don’t practice capitalism. They use democratic socialism. people should really learn more about and not bias talk from tge media oops I forgot the capitalist own the media too.
    Sorry English not my language

    Reply
    1. EJ

       Yo Yo your English is good. You make sense. Not all people have equal opportunity to succeed in a capitalistic society. Those who do have opportunity often succeed, then they want increasingly more and more. We must change our beliefs. Thanks

       Reply
12. mickey

    Obama started to initialize socialism by disguising penalty’s and wanting to raise higher taxes to big companies to start the path to control the big business’s and Hillary and Bernie was to complete the transaction to become a socialist country. There are more bad things about socialism than good. Sure capitalism has a lot of work to do to make the system better but is has far more good points than socialism. It is unknown what the Democrats could destroy for the American people or how far they would go to control all businesses and the Americans. So what is the next step from socialism? Communism.

    Reply
13. Judith Buss

    Really well capitalism has run amok in today’s world, greed has taken over & bureaucrats c/care less about the average hard working citizen, corporate America has taken over & groups like ALEC has taken over legislating. Politicians on both sides saw to it to enrich themselves w/subsidized HC & lifetime pensions denying affordable HC to its citizens, tell me Why are we paying for health care and pensions for millionaires? Look at the corruption we now have in the White House Problem is those at the top are never satisfied, paying the people that actually make their company profitable is no longer their concern, the bottom line is their only concern. Not the America I grew up in.

    Reply
    1. Mark Biernat

       There is no way on earth, a controlled economy can bring peace and prosperity like capitalism. Has the world forgot the Grand Failure (Zbigniew Brzezinski) of 70 years of centrally controlled economies? North Korea compared to South Korea or even Venezuela compared to Florida?
       Crony capitalism is what you are talking about, it is not true freedom. But politics has always been a dirty game and would exist worst under other economic systems. How do I know? We have the last 100 years as evidence.
       Better than jettison the ideal of liberty and freedom and take the Road to Serfdom (F. A. Hayek) would be to put the US back on the Classic gold standard. It would solve most of the problem. Real savings would be connected to real investment and government’s credit card would be cut up. The trade balance would be fixed under Hume’s species flow mechanism.

       However, ultimately you want to not think about Washington. Turn off the news and focus on putting money in your pocket in an honest and entrepreneurial way.

       Reply
       1. EJ

          You continually debate on the premise that all people in a society have equal opportunity, whether you think you are or not. Yes, I read your part about “it’s what they do with what they have”…. Yes, in theory you can do as much with one dollar as I can do with a million, but that’s where it stops, with theory. Given he choice between a free dollar and a free million dollars to start your creative and entrepreneurial life, which would you choose? Exactly! This is reality. Reality trumps theory all day. Capitalism’s downfall is the unequal distribution of wealth. It sows the seeds of greed and the fact that billionaires like Gates and Buffet create lots of attention for themselves by saying “look what good things I’ve done” is not enough to change my mind. If you have a billion dollars, then giving ten million to charity is not a big deal for you. It sure looks good though. No more theoretical arguments please. When I step over people who live on the sidewalks and die of malnutrition each day by the hundreds of thousands in America, Capitalism is not working. That is reality.

          Reply
          1. Mark Biernat

             What is the alternative? To allow technocrats to engineer society?
             Further, it is not just about money. It is about freedom. Freedom to make your own opportunities or live your life without an expert design it for you.
             Further, there are poor people in the US that claim they are poor and they have cell phones and flatscreen TVs and plumbing. These people do not even have a garden to grow food. That is not poor, that is a lost perspective of what this life has always been about. Life is not about comparing yourself to others and feeling a victim because you do not have what they have.

             Reply
14. Toni

    I absolutely agree that the family is the best social unit, even when poor, however, there is heinous abuse in many families, even rich ones, and it is THIS dynamic that can break a spirit and keep a person from reaching potential. It is clear, though, that the family IS the cornerstone of a healthy society & economy because The Powers That Be have been attacking it for almost 70 years…starting with feminism, making women think their role as wife & mother wasn’t ‘enough’ & getting them into the workplace – this helped the elites by increasing their income tax take by double & got children into indoctrination centers and away from their parents a few years earlier than normal. This hurt society in that it led to the break up of the family unit in ways never before seen (ie: rampant divorce, domestic abuse, drug use, promiscuity) and this is why there is so much divisiveness in society today regarding Socialism vs Capitalism. There can be NO DOUBT the early immigrants braved horrible conditions to travel to America with little more than the clothes on their backs to take advantage of a country that rewarded perseverance, hard work & ingenuity because it just wasn’t available to them in their home countries. America was founded on Capitalism & not everyone takes advantage of opportunity (lazy, sick, stupid, et al) but that’s not Capitalism’s fault.

    Reply