By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 11 December 2013
Edit Thread
Michael-5 said:
sc94597 said:
Michael-5 said:

How is the accumulation of wealth a problem? Ever heard the saying the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer? This is the problem, why is wealth being limited to the families of those who were wealthy 50-300 years ago? When companies use the lowest bidder to make their products, this creates a separation between the rich, middle class, and poor. This is a problem because this mean to be rich, you only need to be born into a rich family, which is an issue because it means that hard working people don't get their due rewards. Wealth without work is after all one of the 7 deadly sins according to Gandi (Greed is another according to the Bible).

Who determines when it's excess? Politicians. Corporate taxes are designed to keep excessive wealth down, putting money earned by big comapnies into roads and education. Problem is, Politicians tend to be well off, Mitt Romney for instance makes millions of dollars off oil companies, and he was running for president. Do you think people are going to pass taxes which cut away at their income?

So many flaws with the Capitalistic system.

Everything else you described can be thanked to technology, not to capitalism. Less people are poor now because the cost of luxuries has reduced. Owning a Mustang in the 70's meant buying a new car every 3 years (due to poor reliability), where as now a similarly priced mustang (with prices mathced with inflation) last 10-15 years, and has considerably more power. A/C prices have dropped to the point everyone can afford an A/C. Computers have dropped in price to the point that everyone can have one too, etc, etc.

Also BTW using that graph, Russia is for more Capitalist then USA....and it's near the bottom. Kinda helps my arguement more then yours....


But the poor aren't getting poorer, they're also getting richer. Just not as quickly as the rich are. How would you have technology without a market that pushes for it? Why did the cost of luxuries reduce? Because of greater production, why was there greater production? Because of free-markets and prices based on supply and demand. There is a reason why socialist countries like China and Russia had to open "special economic zones" in order to sustain production. Russia ranks 139 on the economic index.

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/russia

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

It's not more capitalist than most of the world, let alone the U.S (which is at 10.) But your point was that greater inequality leads to the poor being worst off, which isn't true. That was my point. 

How you you have technology without a market that pushes for it? You don't, but what part about a CEO making 400x the average employers income makes the company as a whole push harder? Wouldn't the company push harder if employees got a cut of the profits? That's how Google works, and I'll be damned....they're pushing technology more then anyone else.

Again, your comment is completely omitant on why Capitalism is bad? Every pro you mentioned for Capitalism, is not cause by capitalism, but you're making a good arguement for why Capitalmism is bad.

As for Russia, it's Capitalism in an extreme sense. Minimum wage is low, high income tax is low.... If you have money in Russia, it's easier to accumulate more because of how extremely right wing they are. USA, and many other developed countries have corporate taxes, and tax the wealthy. This is left wing, not Capitalism. Thus my arguement is that USA and other developed countries are great places to live in because of the socio-economic laws passed in them. Russia lasks these laws, and is very right wing.

What your telling me is that living in USA is nice, and for no informed reason at all, you attribute this to Capitalism. What I'm telling you, is that's false. The only reason you're not working for $1 an hour is because of left wing policies, policies which go against the notion of Capitalism.

When I say capitalism, I mean free-market capitalism, with minimal to no government interference. Russia's economy is filled with government involvement, and consequently their markets are not free. Not having a large welfare-state doesn't change that. 

Also, the a reason I'm not working for a dollar is because of things like Ford's assembly line, in which the worker became the consumer and giving out higher wages made the company more profitable. Or certain non-legal aspects of private unions, who demanded higher wages and received them (albeit I oppose their invovlement in laws, because it reduced the economic freedoms of non-union contractors.) But most of all, the free-markets allowed goods to become cheaper (such as Walmart) and the poor to be able to afford more things. You didn't have this with the abolishment of markets (Soviet Union) and you don't have this in controlled economies (Russia.) 

As for your question regarding the CEO, the corporation decided that they need his management and that is what he's worth. Trust me, they're not going to pay him any more than they think he'd work for or how much value he has. He's under the same conditions that the workers are under, the market.