Time for world to embrace Pure Capitalism?

Page 2 of 3 [ 48 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

02 Dec 2011, 1:01 pm

Dark_Lord_2008 wrote:

Ever since the dawn of time whether it was cattle, grain, silver, gold and now currency/legal tender there has always been some form of currency exchange market system or economic system. One thing is exchanged for another thing is a barter system or a financial transaction where currency is exchanged for the good or service.

Capitalism is a form of an economic system. It is not a political system. The two main economic systems are Capitalism and Socialism. Extreme Socialism is known as Communism, production and supply is fully controlled by the government. Extreme Capitalism is known as Corporate Fascism, production and supply is fully controlled by private enterprise/corporations.

Political system is mainly either democratic or autocratic in nature The government is elected by the people or an autocrat ascends to the throne through his birth right or seizes power and control by force.

Communism would not have a government that controls everything because that would require a ruling class, which is not allowed in communism.

_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

02 Dec 2011, 1:03 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

Dark_Lord_2008 wrote:

The whole world must embrace Pure Capitalism, smaller governments and lower taxes. Small tax rates to pay for military and police is all that is needed. No regulation, no Unions and definitely no workers rights. Welfare state system and high minimum awards lead to unemployment rates. Scrap welfare state and abolish minimum wages. Wages should be paid by the employer with no pressure from Unions or other independent tribunal. Employees can either accept the wage or just go and find another job. Full casual of the entire work force.

Sounds brutal but it seems to work well in Hong Kong and China. I'm quite sure that, economy wise, it'd be a big improvement. But you do also have to balance that with helping the population. An ideal system would be as you describe, but with the bare minimum of benefits for people who are unemployed as long as they're looking for a job. And a basic minimum wage should still be imposed IMO. And there does still need to be workers' rights to make sure no one's being abused.

Oh yes people who are struggling should only have acess to the bare minimum, that is a good way to take care of the citizens......I don't see how figuratively kicking people while their down is expected to help them find employment.

_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

02 Dec 2011, 1:05 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Dark_Lord_2008 wrote:

Of course it will help them find employment. If the government gives piles of money to people who are sitting on their arses all day, they will keep sitting on their arses all day. If the government give people who are temporarily out of work enough money to just buy food, they'll quickly get any job they can.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

02 Dec 2011, 1:11 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Dark_Lord_2008 wrote:

And when there are not many jobs availible........people need to live on something, and I don't know that unemployment benifits are the same as piles of money its not like its a huge income. Also I doubt most people on unemployment sit on their ass all day, my cousin was building a car that he was working on just about every day, and before that he did have a job for a few years but the place he worked at closed.

Also I would imagine people who lose their job are aware that without income they wont be able to pay bills, buy food and feed their kids if they have kids. To give them only enough for food would mean they could lose their home, car and all kinds of stuff someone does not deserve that for losing their job. Also I am sure many people on unemployment wish it was temporary but can't find work.

so yes that looks to me like kicking someone when they're down.

_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

02 Dec 2011, 1:42 pm

Dox47 wrote:

marshall wrote:

I also have no idea what crony capitalism is rather than a vague term that gets thrown around a lot whose actual meaning is largely a function of ideology.

Competition through lobbying. When you can't or won't make a better product at a better price, you get the state to either subsidize your product or penalize your competitor's. An excellent example would be large chain beauty salons lobbying for more expensive and pernicious certifications and licenses to cut hair or shape nails. While they can afford to jump through such bureaucratic hoops, their neighborhood competitors often can't and are thus forced to either assimilate into the chains or go out of business. It's very common these days.

Are these government certifications? In my view government certifications are only necessary for professions which foster a significant health or safety risk. Otherwise the only government role regarding private certifications is to prevent fraud/dishonesty.

But these days I hear a lot of people labeling any government intervention in the economy as crony capitalism. I don't see bailouts as crony capitalism if their purpose was to prevent the catastrophic downstream effects of bank runs and credit lock ups. If a whole lot of banks fail at once it's not the CEO's who pay the greatest price.

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

02 Dec 2011, 1:46 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

When jobs are not available... Tough. Everyone suffers in a recession. Life isn't fair and the government can't afford to pay everyone free money.

At the moment, the UK has a massive problem with people staying on benefits instead of getting work because the benefits pay more. That isn't right.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

02 Dec 2011, 1:54 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

Sounds brutal but it seems to work well in Hong Kong and China.

No it doesn't. Hong Kong didn't have anywhere near that system, not even in the Cowperthwaitist (the financial secretary of Hong Kong from 1961 to 1971) lassez-faire boom years of the 1970s and 1980s. There have always been social housing projects for Hong Kong's people for instance. And Hong Kong had a police force and all the rest of it. Hong Kong has never ever been a libertarian society, particularly socially.

Last edited by Tequila on 02 Dec 2011, 2:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

02 Dec 2011, 1:58 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Ok well some of us here on the bottom would prefer not to be figuritivly left to die because the systems so screwed is extremly difficult to work your way up or even just gain a bit of stability. Do you know what its like to struggle just to get by? and if so how do you figure people in that position should not get adaquate help?

Just saying Tough and not caring is not going to help anything.....yeah its tough so help is needed sometimes and yes everyone but the wealthy suffer in a recession and the government had no problem bailing out all those banks and corporations with free money now did they?

_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 02 Dec 2011, 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

02 Dec 2011, 2:00 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

At the moment, the UK has a massive problem with people staying on benefits instead of getting work because the benefits pay more. That isn't right.

True, but what you're asking for would be a nightmare. Classical liberalism (i.e. mild libertarianism) might be more practical instead of the brutal nonsense you're proposing.

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

02 Dec 2011, 2:03 pm

Tequila wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Sounds brutal but it seems to work well in Hong Kong and China.

They don't have it to the extreme described in the OP, but it's along the same lines. And remember, I'm not 100% agreeing with the OP.

Sweetleaf wrote:

I'm not suggesting people who are struggling to find work should get nothing, I'm suggesting that they shouldn't get so much that they see it as not worthwhile getting a job.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

02 Dec 2011, 2:09 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

Tequila wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Sounds brutal but it seems to work well in Hong Kong and China.

They don't have it to the extreme described in the OP, but it's along the same lines. And remember, I'm not 100% agreeing with the OP.

Sweetleaf wrote:

I'm not suggesting people who are struggling to find work should get nothing, I'm suggesting that they shouldn't get so much that they see it as not worthwhile getting a job.

Alright well I would agree with that, however I think its reasonable for them to get an amount that will cover more than just food.

_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

02 Dec 2011, 2:09 pm

I'll only embrace that idea on the grounds that dead baby soccer becomes a national sport.

_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 02 Dec 2011, 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

02 Dec 2011, 2:14 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Alright well I would agree with that, however I think its reasonable for them to get an amount that will cover more than just food.

Fair enough.

Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

02 Dec 2011, 2:20 pm

Pure capitalism would be anarchy. M Thatcher tried to do it in britian in the 80's and her own party got rid of her.

Crime would rule under such a system.

Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

02 Dec 2011, 2:26 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

In the UK I think its more down to wages being too low and rents too high.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

02 Dec 2011, 2:44 pm

Robdemanc wrote:

Pure capitalism would be anarchy. M Thatcher tried to do it in britian in the 80's and her own party got rid of her.

No she didn't. She didn't get anywhere close.

Page 2 of 3 [ 48 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Time for world to embrace Pure Capitalism? Post Reply New Topic

Time for world to embrace Pure Capitalism?