Page 4 of 4 [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,452

24 Dec 2006, 3:38 pm

ed wrote:
biostructure wrote:
I don't think capitalism necessarily means "survival of the greediest". It mean those obtain the wealth who provide the services and products that others value. That's what people are paid for anyway. I think we must not confuse a political system with a set of personal choices one makes. There will always be people who work very hard, sometimes at jobs they don't really enjoy , just because it will make them rich. Others will be content making a more modest income and having a less lucrative job that they enjoy more, whether it requires shorter hours, is less stressful, or is more interesting. The difference here depends on whether people get more satisfaction from having a lot more money than they need to live comfortably, or from having the time to do the things they wish to do most. It's not that one is "more capitalist" than the other.

Welcome, new member!

To me, Capitalism means things like asking yourself if this new oil tanker you're about to order should have double hulls, to protect the environment, or just a single hull, because you'll save yourself a lot of money. It means taking jobs away from thousands of American workers, just because you can get the job done cheaper in another country. It means laying off your best workers as they approach retirement, so you won't have to pay their retirement pay.

I also think being wealthy is immoral. Many people can't even afford to put food on the table, or get needed medical attention. To sit back in luxury while that goes on around you is wrong. I can even quote a renown source on this; the famed Jewish philosopher Jesus of Nazareth said "...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." ...Matthew 19:24. - from Wikipedia: "The occasion of the saying, according to the gospel writers, was after a rich young man had asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should first, keep the commandments, sell all his possessions, and give the money to the poor, and then to come, follow Jesus. Because of his great wealth, the young man was unwilling to do this. Jesus then turned to his disciples, and spoke this phrase to their astonishment, leading them to doubt that salvation was possible for anyone."

I think the morality or immorality of wealth is determined by how that wealth is accumulated. If it is accumulated by theft, cheating, fraud, abuse of the legal system, etc. then I agree it is immoral. However, do you think it is immoral if someone who comes up with a better way of doing something (whether it be a method of manufacturing, a new medication, a way of constructing buildings, etc.) profits from it? To me it seems that people being rewarded for their accomplishments is a good thing. The problem with socialism and communism is that everybody knows that they won't benefit personally from doing more work. Therefore, under that system it actually makes sense to be as self-centered as possible, since doing work for yourself gets you something whereas doing it for someone else doesn't. However, under capitalism it becomes highly advantageous to provide to others what may be useful to them. Of course, under both systems, people will do certain things just for the enjoyment and not because it brings them or anyone else a material gain.