• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The problem of Capitalism

Do you agree that the main problem of Capitalism is of moral nature?

  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
James972 said:
translation: I can't present evidence that Koch brothers own Republican Party. It was a lie.
Click to expand...

You like the dark, why would I try to bring you into the light.
 
kjwins said:
You like the dark, why would I try to bring you into the light.
Click to expand...

translation: I can't present evidence that Koch brothers own Republican Party. It was a lie.
 
James972 said:
translation: I can't present evidence that Koch brothers own Republican Party. It was a lie.
Click to expand...

Carry on brother. Let me know when your ready for the truth.
 
kjwins said:
Carry on brother. Let me know when your ready for the truth.
Click to expand...

very ready for truth or evidence that Koch brothers own Republican. Its easy to parrot a lie, but hard to back it up is't it??
 
James972 said:
very ready for truth or evidence that Koch brothers own Republican. Its easy to parrot a lie, but hard to back it up is't it??
Click to expand...

No not at all. The problem is when people are not ready for the truth.

You are not ready.
 
kjwins said:
No not at all. The problem is when people are not ready for the truth.

You are not ready.
Click to expand...

how will you learn if you are afraid to try? Ever see a conservative afraid to try??
 
James972 said:
how will you learn if you are afraid to try? Ever see a conservative afraid to try??
Click to expand...

Yea, just about everyone of them. That's why their conservative.
 
James972 said:
Obviously if you bail out failed businesses and individuals you make the problem worse. Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

I do believe that real Capitalism is about the free market and competition. In our current times, Capitalism is kidnapped by the neoliberals turn it from Adam Smith Capitalism into the Capitalism of disaster. The government need to provide help for the small business on the micro level, creating better conditions, so they prosper and succeed. Bailing out big banks and mega size corporations isn't fair, they are pseudo-economy. And this what will make the problem worst.
 
marke said:
The government is already in debt over its head, which is just another reason they have no business trying to make businesses work. They cannot even make their own business work without going into deep debt.
Click to expand...

Governments are a debt-addicted. They need rehab therapy.
 
James972 said:
socialism just killed 180 million and capitalism has problems after it just eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty. See why we are 100% forced to conclude that liberalism is based in pure ignorance.
Click to expand...

Who told you that I am a liberal? And how Capitalism eliminate 40% of planet poverty? do you think to gain 2-3 Dollars/day working in a sweatshop in Bangladesh is eliminating poverty? And how many millions Colonialism killed in order to blunder and lot the sub-prime races in third world country? The connection between Capitalism and Colonialism is established. And all that you need to do is to start counting the victims.
 
Xelor said:
I disagree.

The solution to capitalism's so-called ills is acumen and/or education. To thrive under capitalism, one needs a good bit of one or the other because that's what it takes to (1) recognize opportunity when it comes one's way and (2) to avail oneself of opportunity.

If one lacks the sense or is simply too reticent to economically/financially apply instrumental rationality, one doesn't belong in a capitalist economy. It is what it is if one is thus bereft or disinclined, but if one is so, at least acknowledge it and, in turn, move to an economy that's fundamentally, structurally consistent with that to which one is disposed and able.
Click to expand...

Good comment although I don't agree with you in full. I still do believe that Capitalism required a person with good ethics then instrumental rationality will come after.
 
stan1990 said:
Jawaharlal Nehru India previous prime minister wrote in his book "Glimpse of the World History" about the financial crisis and its dynamics. He mentioned that during 1931-1933, the total amount of coffee destroyed in Brazil was 14 million bags; 132 pound each, the total amount was over 1.848.000.000 pounds which more than enough to provide coffee at a discounted price to the whole of the world population. The plantation owners rather destroy the coffee than sell it at a discounted price regardless of the Great Depression.

The coffee was one commodity among many others that destroyed in large quantities in order to keep the price high. We witness in our current time how retailers like Walmart destroy their excess food products with still valid expiry date instead of donating the items to charities or homeless shelters. The problem of Capitalism neither the distribution as Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in his book nor the production as others may think, but ethics and morals. The principles that Adam Smith established, (laissez-faire) and (The Invisible Hand) were misinterpreted and abused causing damage for the moral principles of a system supposed to secure a balanced world economy.

We can view many examples of how Capitalism was misused to create a world of misery and pain for 99% of the world population. First, the production of Ethanol-85 known as E85 is one striking example of ignorance and selfishness. The process of producing the E85 isn’t cost-effective, and the return is below zero, it will consume too much fossil fuel energy to produce one unit of the Ethanol-85. It occupies acres that needed desperately to feed the increasing world population. Second, Meat industry using large sectors of the agricultural land to grow corn and Soybean to feed the cattle and poultry. Moreover, to free up needed space, they destroy forests and natural habitats for many endangered animal species and plants. Third, the phenomenon of political money, funding election campaign by corporations, financial institutions and wealthy businessmen lead to a less transparent system designed to guarantee the interest of the few on the expense of the many, the wealthy pay less or no taxes while the poor pair most of the tax burden.

CBC(Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published headlines story about Tim’s Hortons franchise owner in the province of Ontario send a letter to employees containing termination of the paid work breaks among many other details. The letter signed by Ron Joyce Jr. and Jeri-Lynn Horton-Joyce, the son and daughter of the chain's co-founders, Ron Joyce and the late Tim Horton. The letter issued in response to the Ontario government decision to raise the minimum wages to $14.00 minimum wage on January 1, 2018, then $15.00 per hour on January 1, 2019. The franchise owner wealth estimated 1.4 billion Dollar only. Macdonald, a fast food franchise is planning to raise their prices in response to the 15 CAD minimum wage plans in Ontario province and even in some American states. What many didn't know is that15-17 cents rise in the price of double Mac, one of the most popular meals, or 30-cent rise in average for fast food restaurant visit will be enough to cover the rise in the minimum wage with increasing the price of the meals.

Many writers and intellectuals talked about the problem of Capitalism and the origin of the financial crisis, hundreds of thousands of articles in the newspapers, websites, interviews or T.V programs. However, none touches even the tip of the iceberg or provides a practical solution to deal with the mega-crises that hit the global economy more frequently with the passing time. The real answer for Capitalism problems could be found in practice more ethics and believe in self-consciousness to do the right thing at the right time.

End
Click to expand...

I do not agree that there is a problem with capitalism. But your poll wants me to say that there is. this tells me that you are just here to bash capitalism etc. That and you just spewed leftist conspiracy theories.
 
Xelor said:
I disagree.

The solution to capitalism's so-called ills is acumen and/or education. To thrive under capitalism, one needs a good bit of one or the other because that's what it takes to (1) recognize opportunity when it comes one's way and (2) to avail oneself of opportunity.

If one lacks the sense or is simply too reticent to economically/financially apply instrumental rationality, one doesn't belong in a capitalist economy. It is what it is if one is thus bereft or disinclined, but if one is so, at least acknowledge it and, in turn, move to an economy that's fundamentally, structurally consistent with that to which one is disposed and able.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In addition markets need proper regulation to keep them fair and honest. This is where there is a role for government, both local and national.

In English markets of the Middle Ages frauds had one of their ears cut off. Imo this is a penalty that might be usefully revived for modern financial tricksters.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I do not agree that there is a problem with capitalism. But your poll wants me to say that there is. this tells me that you are just here to bash capitalism etc. That and you just spewed leftist conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

There is no inherent problem with capitalism aka the free market economy. With an emphasis on FREE. But those engaging in it must be constantly scrutinised to ensure their honesty.

Alternatives to capitalism are bureaucratic nightmares, run by privileged and authoritarian elites.
 
stan1990 said:
Governments are a debt-addicted. They need rehab therapy.
Click to expand...

Official documents from Federal Reserve Board meetings clearly show the 'adjustment' is coming. We just don't yet know when and how bad it is going to be. I suspect it will come before Trump is out of office so liberals cam blame the years in coming disaster on Trump.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I do not agree that there is a problem with capitalism. But your poll wants me to say that there is. this tells me that you are just here to bash capitalism etc. That and you just spewed leftist conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Sweden said:
Agreed. In addition markets need proper regulation to keep them fair and honest. This is where there is a role for government, both local and national.

In English markets of the Middle Ages frauds had one of their ears cut off. Imo this is a penalty that might be usefully revived for modern financial tricksters.
Click to expand...
Red:
  1. The Middle Age approach you've posited resurrecting is retributive, not regulatory.
    • Regulation --> Regulatory statutes/policies say "Thou shalt X," or "Thou shalt not X."
    • Retribution --> Retributive statutes/policies say, "If thou'st X, thou risks suffering Y."
  2. I'm not keen on much market regulation, but I can forbear some.
  3. I think our jurisprudence needs revising so that:
    • Citizens' access to recourse does not depend on things such as how much money one has,
    • Filing frivolous[SUP]1[/SUP] complaints results in one's paying for one's own and one's opponent's legal and court costs, and
    • The bar of what is and isn't equitable is given by the Golden Rule.
  4. Firms are not governments. They shouldn't be treated as such, nor should they be expected or required to comport themselves with the same level of probity or dispassion as are governments. (The current "debate" about social media platforms' onus to "police" their content animates my meaning.)



Note:
  1. "Frivolous" in this context is not given by whether one wins or loses, but rather by consequentialism....And, no, my normative model of jurisprudence doesn't call for a universally consequentialist approach. I find consequentialism useful in evaluating a matter's appearance in court, not in assessing the facts and inferences pertaining to the matter brought and the plaintiff or defendant prevails.
 
We are living in the problems of Capitalism. it's human greed. We now have giant mega companies that own multiple industries under their umbrella, and the bigger they get the more competition they buy out, and they then supply their entire supply chain. And they screw their customers, their employees to make more and more profit at any cost. Our political system allows themn to buy politicians to get their bidding done for them, now republicans have stacked the courts with corporate **** scuking right wing hacks, our last defense against the predatory nature of these companies.

This is evident in the ridiculous wealth disparity in this country, the ridiculous number in poverty, homeless, a sickness away from bankruptcy, the ridiculous amount of people starving in the richest countries while we have people that or over 100 billion in wealth. Nobody needs that much wealth, its disgusting while their workers don't get paid very well. And this show sin our constant war mongering, companies making billions off death and destruction. And our inane rate of imprisonment, where companies are making money either being the prison or supplying the prisons.

Everybody should be outraged about what is going on. Of course, those who aren't and continue to suck corporate **** are the brainwashed Fox news right wingers, who have power because republicans have cheated the system to ensure they get more represetnation with less votes. And now they stole the supreme court. Time to whip out the guillotines
 
Harshaw said:
This is patently false, and the examples you give to support it are absurd.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its not really capitalism that's the problem, its humans. Humans suck. They are greedy, selfish, complete assholes. Like all the predatory corporations that just want more profit at any cost, everybody else be damned.

But that can be the rpoblem with any economic system. That's why we need a bit of socialism and regulation of capitalism, because humans are assholes
 
Xelor said:
Red:
  1. The Middle Age approach you've posited resurrecting is retributive, not regulatory.
    • Regulation --> Regulatory statutes/policies say "Thou shalt X," or "Thou shalt not X."
    • Retribution --> Retributive statutes/policies say, "If thou'st X, thou risks suffering Y."
  2. I'm not keen on much market regulation, but I can forbear some.
  3. I think our jurisprudence needs revising so that:
    • Citizens' access to recourse does not depend on things such as how much money one has,
    • Filing frivolous[SUP]1[/SUP] complaints results in one's paying for one's own and one's opponent's legal and court costs, and
    • The bar of what is and isn't equitable is given by the Golden Rule.
  4. Firms are not governments. They shouldn't be treated as such, nor should they be expected or required to comport themselves with the same level of probity or dispassion as are governments. (The current "debate" about social media platforms' onus to "police" their content animates my meaning.)



Note:
  1. "Frivolous" in this context is not given by whether one wins or loses, but rather by consequentialism....And, no, my normative model of jurisprudence doesn't call for a universally consequentialist approach. I find consequentialism useful in evaluating a matter's appearance in court, not in assessing the facts and inferences pertaining to the matter brought and the plaintiff or defendant prevails.
Click to expand...

Retribution for breaking regulations - like using false weights and measures. A false dichotomy; it is not EITHER regulation OR retribution.
 
Sweden said:
Agreed. In addition markets need proper regulation to keep them fair and honest. This is where there is a role for government, both local and national.

In English markets of the Middle Ages frauds had one of their ears cut off. Imo this is a penalty that might be usefully revived for modern financial tricksters.

Xelor said:
Red:
  1. The Middle Age approach you've posited resurrecting is retributive, not regulatory.
    • Regulation --> Regulatory statutes/policies say "Thou shalt X," or "Thou shalt not X."
    • Retribution --> Retributive statutes/policies say, "If thou'st X, thou risks suffering Y."
  2. I'm not keen on much market regulation, but I can forbear some.
  3. I think our jurisprudence needs revising so that:
    • Citizens' access to recourse does not depend on things such as how much money one has,
    • Filing frivolous[SUP]1[/SUP] complaints results in one's paying for one's own and one's opponent's legal and court costs, and
    • The bar of what is and isn't equitable is given by the Golden Rule.
  4. Firms are not governments. They shouldn't be treated as such, nor should they be expected or required to comport themselves with the same level of probity or dispassion as are governments. (The current "debate" about social media platforms' onus to "police" their content animates my meaning.)


Note:
  1. "Frivolous" in this context is not given by whether one wins or loses, but rather by consequentialism....And, no, my normative model of jurisprudence doesn't call for a universally consequentialist approach. I find consequentialism useful in evaluating a matter's appearance in court, not in assessing the facts and inferences pertaining to the matter brought and the plaintiff or defendant prevails.
Sweden said:
Retribution for breaking regulations - like using false weights and measures. A false dichotomy; it is not EITHER regulation OR retribution.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Red discursive sequence:
  1. Dude, the "dichotomy" upon which I remarked is the one found in your earlier comments. You posited that capitalism needs governmentally enacted regulation, yet the example you provided, auriculectomy, is not regulatory at all; it's retributive.
  2. The nature of your remarks setup a false equivalence -- that of regulation and retribution -- not a dichotomy; however, you didn't present an argument, so I didn't respond with remarks that refute a false equivalence argument.
    • What you presented, after stating your concord with prior comments I'd made, was:
      1. A normative statement --> Markets need regulation.
      2. A declaration of who should manage/perform the regulation --> It's government's role to do so.
      3. A postulate about the nature of retribution that, presumably governments, you think may be an effective penalty. for modern fraudulent behavior --> Auriculectomy might be usefully revived to penalize modern frauds.
In short, my "red" remarks above inform you that you attested to need for one thing, regulation of capitalism/markets, and illustrated a completely different thing, punitive action. Your "blue" comment somewhat clarified your remarks; however, it shares nothing about the nature and extent of regulation you would see implemented.

As go penalties, well, your proposing auriculectomy as the penalty for fraud suggests strongly that you hew to corporal punishment for non-violent, intellectual, offenses. That is what it is, but it's what you think. I'm not interested in discussing with you why you cleave to such draconian measures. I know you do, and that's that, and it's enough for me.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
We are living in the problems of Capitalism. it's human greed. We now have giant mega companies that own multiple industries under their umbrella, and the bigger they get the more competition they buy out, and they then supply their entire supply chain. And they screw their customers, their employees to make more and more profit at any cost.
Click to expand...

What you're identifying here is the need to regulate monopoly power in order to maintain the conditions in which capitalism functions well. Do this poorly and, well, capitalism cannot function well. But if government cannot even do this adequately, how could the same government possibly manage a socialist-type of society well? You can't declare complete loss of faith in government to do something important and then say therefore our only hope is to place even more faith in government (under some sort of non-capitalist system).

Our political system allows themn to buy politicians to get their bidding done for them, now republicans have stacked the courts with corporate **** scuking right wing hacks, our last defense against the predatory nature of these companies.
Click to expand...

And what you're identifying here is the ability of people to petition and lobby their government, including collectively, getting out of hand. You only acknowledge as "them" the corporate lobbyists/interest groups, but numerous other interest groups which are not corporate in nature do this as well. And in some cases the power becomes too dominant, and it leads to bad and destructive policy. This happens in "right wing" states and "left wing" states.

But there is no non-capitalist system in which government officials are somehow immune from influence and persuasion by people in society, including those who form groups to try to influence or persuade government officials. So this isn't some special feature of capitalism.

Everybody should be outraged about what is going on. Of course, those who aren't and continue to suck corporate **** are the brainwashed Fox news right wingers, who have power because republicans have cheated the system to ensure they get more represetnation with less votes. And now they stole the supreme court. Time to whip out the guillotines
Click to expand...

And this is just imbecilic, reckless extremist ideology. This line of thinking is how large groups of uneducated morons can become radicalized and violent. They can't stay grounded in the specifics of society's problems, they dial them way up, globalize and overgeneralize them and ascribe them to some vast oppressive imaginary singular enemy and say the whole system if ****ed and so we need to stage a violent coup.
 
Last edited:
Sampson Simpson said:
Yeah, its not really capitalism that's the problem, its humans. Humans suck. They are greedy, selfish, complete assholes.
Click to expand...

capitalism is love. If you don't love your customers and workers they go to someone who does and you go bankrupt. Capitalism forces humans to be caring and loving while socialism does the exact opposite. Sorry to rock your world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom