Certainly Capitalism is a good system, but unchecked, it can certainly can get very bad, just as bad as Socialism, Feudalism etc.
Face it, any system will need some sort of check or throttle, you simply can't trust people in general to "do the right thing". History has shown us that.
aircooled wrote: Certainly Capitalism is a good system, but unchecked, it can certainly can get very bad, just as bad as Socialism, Feudalism etc. Face it, any system will need some sort of check or throttle, you simply can't trust people in general to "do the right thing". History has shown us that.
+1.
No system is flawless. Eventually it will come to unfairly favor one group or another, whether that is from an inherent imbalance (Feudalism) or from people learning how to game and take advantage of the system (Capitalism).
I view the danger of Capitalism run amok to be when accruing money becomes an end in itself (rather than a means to provide for needs and wants), and the power that money brings is then used to manipulate things to hoard even more money in a self-reinforcing loop.
Too much power concentrated in too few hands is not healthy.
Mitchell wrote: Perhaps one reason for the middle class' erosion is the loss of skilled jobs here at home. Just out of curiosity, I wonder how the tides would turn if all products sold within the US required certain minimum workplace standards (labor laws, safety, etc.)? Would the increased expenditure be enough to bring more industry here to the US without the imposition of tariffs?
There's actually been a movement afoot to do exactly that. It's not gotten a lot of traction though.
That's due in no small part to the bad taste protective tariffs leave. Way back when Harley Davidson was on the ropes, they were losing market share to the import bikes like crazy. Rather than come out with a more appealing product instead they threw that money into lobbying Congress for punitive tariffs on big displacement imported motorcycles. (This is where all those 700cc bikes sold in the 80's came from, to get around that tariff.)
Then there's the 'chicken tax' which affects imported light trucks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
But all this gets us away from the thrust of the OP: paying people the least possible. It's nothing new; Bob Cratchit is but one example of this in literature, Scrooge counted his gold while Cratchit's family shivered.
Beer Baron wrote:aircooled wrote: Certainly Capitalism is a good system, but unchecked, it can certainly can get very bad, just as bad as Socialism, Feudalism etc. Face it, any system will need some sort of check or throttle, you simply can't trust people in general to "do the right thing". History has shown us that.+1. No system is flawless. Eventually it will come to unfairly favor one group or another, whether that is from an inherent imbalance (Feudalism) or from people learning how to game and take advantage of the system (Capitalism). I view the danger of Capitalism run amok to be when accruing money becomes an end in itself (rather than a means to provide for needs and wants), and the power that money brings is then used to manipulate things to hoard even more money in a self-reinforcing loop. Too much power concentrated in too few hands is not healthy.
I agree with you. What needs to be done is not forcibly removing money from the rich, but in making some of them realize that they profit more from making sure their money flows. If it stagnates in one place, it does nobody any good. If it stagnates too long, it becomes worthless as people start to find otherways to accure the goods and services they need
mad_machine wrote: ... What needs to be done is not forcibly removing money from the rich, but in making some of them realize that they profit more from making sure their money flows...
Yes, this seems to be the "solution" that most assume. Something that makes them want to "spread it around" would be ideal. Unfortunately the reward in capitalism (in most any system really) is money, kind of hard to convince someone that reducing their reward for their work is a good thing.
There are of course the rich who spend there later years spreading their wealth (e.g. Gates), but there seem many who clutch onto it, eventually passing it to their family, who did not earn it, and the result of that can be less then impressive.
BTW - I read that Jackie Chan (quite wealthy) has assured his son he will inherit nothing. If he wants money, he will have to earn it himself. Of course they will have some advantage being his children, but that won't be his money.
Jackie Chan's Son Will Get None Of His $130 Million Fortune
"If he is capable, he can make his own money. If he is not, then he will just be wasting my money.
Wal-Mart: hires people that want the jobs and sells us name brand products at an average of 50 cents cheaper per $3 item and is immensely successful because of it.
Government: gets its money by making it a law that we give it to them and is still having a hard time making a budget work.
I'm not convinced that the second should be making decisions for the first.
Honestly, we have to stop working in absolutes here. This is a prime downfall of most all discussions / arguments these days (in my opinion).
At some point the government will have to tell businesses what decisions to make, it has to be that way. It's the matter of what, and to what degree that's the issue.
aircooled wrote: Honestly, we have to stop working in absolutes here. This is a prime downfall of most all discussions / arguments these days (in my opinion). At some point the government will have to tell businesses what decisions to make, it has to be that way. It's the matter of what, and to what degree that's the issue.
But if I don't twist your philosophy to the ultimate extreme, how am I going to tell you how idiotic you are for holding such absurd beliefs?!?
You'll need to log in to post.
