• 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 .
I have done better. You fail to understand.

You are addicted to being a failure because you are used to posting only polls and twitter links. You are not qualified to discuss thread expressing solid views.
 
Monsanto is a company owned by Bayer which owns at least a dozen other similar companies, so I am not sure how one can maintain that they have a monopoly when the parent company itself competes with them, as well as all the sister companies.

Every sub-company is sub-monopoly in a certain area and Bayer, conglomerate corporation is the Mother Monopoly of all the other ones including Monsanto.
 
Every sub-company is sub-monopoly in a certain area and Bayer, conglomerate corporation is the Mother Monopoly of all the other ones including Monsanto.

But they really aren't. As long as they can compete with each other then a prong of the monopoly criteria fails at least in the US because it is horizontal and lateral investment as opposed to squelching competition. If Bayer consolidated them, they could have problems, but just owning them creates no problem.
 
Yes, they are. You can't run Windows and Mac PC's and laptop's and the opposite is true. Expect Windows and MAC OS for PC's and laptop's, Chrome OS for phones, name me other OS with wide commercial use.

You really don't have a clue what you are saying.

Do you?
 
Every sub-company is sub-monopoly in a certain area and Bayer, conglomerate corporation is the Mother Monopoly of all the other ones including Monsanto.

You're abusing the concept of a monopoly beyond all recognition.

Market power is constrained by potential competitors. It sometimes sounds crazy, but it is nonetheless real. Think about the share of sales held by General Motors in the 1960s. Many people on the left today would have complained about General Motors having too much market power in the 1960s, in part because they are prone to turn ex post results (high market shares) into ex ante conditions (market control of those shares). Apparently, Honda and Toyota disagreed and rightly so. And competition can even come in surprising ways. Eastman Kodak is a case in point: they invented the numerical cameras that would later spell their undoing. Sometimes, competition comes from your flank and you don't see it coming. That's what happens in the real world: times change, heads roll and businesses come and go.

Another point to be made here is that your capacity to favorably manipulate pricing away from the competitive outcome depends on substitutability: are there close substitutes to the products you offer? Here, "close" is defined by consumers and their knowledge. Except for rare cases, professional sports teams in hockey, football, baseball, and basketball are each alone in their city. In Chicago, you have one football team, two baseball teams, and one hockey team. Are these monopolies? Clearly, for professional sports, there is a lot of choices in Chicago because seasons partly overlap. If people aren't wed to just one sport or indeed just one type of entertainment, they cannot do exactly whatever they want. There's a price at which a lot of people will do something else. If you picked Montreal, you do end up with fewer options for professional sports, but maybe you're flexible on the quality of the teams (you can pick another league than the NHL), or on the type of entertainment, there is something else for you out there.


If you're going to talk about monopolies, bother with the nuances and the details. Just saying "monopoly" make it seem like you're trying to excuse the government intervening in markets.
 
Don't give the number of small businesses, companies or grocery stores. provide me with the number of corporations bankrupt every year. A corporations like Microsoft or Apple.

apple and Microsoft are brand new companies that bankrupted many other companies before them. All the big tech companies are new and displaced 1000's of older companies. Microsoft displaced IBM etc etc. Now you see the nature of capitalism and why govt planing Nazis could nver orchestrate the transition from IBM to Microsoft. Got it now? Thhis is the first day of the rest of your life
 
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

The Soviet Union was not the first nor was it the last communist nation that proved communism could take a healthy national economy and create widespread starvation and death through government efforts to manage farms and businesses.
 
You can buy online from Walmart website.

you have to ask yourself if you are smart enough to be here. Amazon has P/E of 75 while Walmart has only 25. Do you understand??
 
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

A BIT of it, exactly. Pure capitalism AND pure socialism both suffer from one common issue: PURITY, and addiction to the notion OF purity.
Nature cannot tolerate too much purity.
In genetics, obsession with purity yields profound birth defects.
In the arts, cultural stagnation, in foreign policy, hyper-nationalism.
Purity leads to purity oaths, and ethnic and cultural cleansing.
In economics, purity leads to darwinism or totalitarianism.

Purity is not a good thing.

Capitalism IS a good thing, in that it is able to lift untold millions out of poverty, if it is properly harnessed as a tool to serve working families first and foremost.
I like the professional sports analogy, by the way.
 
Capitalism IS a good thing, in that it is able to lift untold millions out of poverty, if it is properly harnessed as a tool to serve working families first and foremost.

you lack the IQ to learn the lessons you have been taught. Capitalism allows 8 billion of us to live, before capitalism there were few people. Without capitalism most of us would die off. THe danger throughout human history was from egomaniac libcommies trying to harness it and thus cripple it. When our Founders set capitalism free earth's population soared. Free capitalism is Gods greatest gift to us. 1+1=2
 
The Soviet Union was not the first nor was it the last communist nation that proved communism could take a healthy national economy and create widespread starvation and death through government efforts to manage farms and businesses.

Communism hasn’t been tried b/c it can’t work in the real world. The Soviet Union was actually more socialist. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I agree that capitalism is the best system.
 
The Soviet Union was actually more socialist. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

This is silly gibberish. Socialism is a prelude to communism. Lenin and Marx said "the goal of socialism is communism." The state may be socialist at a point in time but the goal is communism so the folks there can legitimately be termed socialists and communists.
 
This is silly gibberish. Socialism is a prelude to communism. Lenin and Marx said "the goal of socialism is communism." The state may be socialist at a point in time but the goal is communism so the folks there can legitimately be termed socialists and communists.

Now that’s very true.
 
Communism hasn’t been tried b/c it can’t work in the real world. The Soviet Union was actually more socialist. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I agree that capitalism is the best system.

Nope sorry, again just as in Germany, the tag "SOCIALIST" was used because socialism was well known and fairly popular in 1917, plus while there may have originally been plans by folks like Trotsky to take the USSR socialist, the Communists won, and Leon Trotsky wisely JOINED the Bolsheviks just prior to the 1917 revolution.
Still, when Stalin began to campaign, Trotsky opposed him and was rewarded by being stripped of all politburo posts and eventual exile from the USSR, getting an assassin's bullet in Mexico City as a final kiss-off from Uncle Joe.

The USSR was "socialist" in name only, just as the National Socialist Worker's Party was, also in name only, just as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is "democratic" in name only, just as Vladimir Zhironovsky's "Liberal Democratic Party of Russia" is not even remotely liberal or democratic, except in name only.
In fact, the LPDR is described as a socially conservative, nationalist, economically interventionist political party in Russia led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky since its founding in 1989.

The USSR was Communist. It was Communist because all of its leaders since 1917 were Communist. The top elites were all Communist Party members.

The banner you see in this Moscow picture taken in 1917 does not say "SOCIALISM", it says "COMMUNISM".

Communism banner 1917.jpg
Russian_Revolution


It is not uncommon, never has been.
Why isn't the Republican Party labeled the "Conservative Party"?
Labeling and marketing are extremely important in politics the world over.
They're important because people are conditioned to respond to labels.

One of the reasons Bernie Sanders can't seem to win primaries is because he refuses to accept the fact that Americans have been conditioned for seventy plus years to recoil against the word "socialism".
They've been taught to be scared of the word.

source.gif


Bernie's been a New Deal liberal Democrat in the mold of FDR ever since he first set foot on Capitol Hill but HE seems to think the term "socialism" conjures up some romantic notion of friendly hardworking hippie entrepreneurs like Ben & Jerry of Vermont ice cream fame.

Bernie does not understand labels and marketing either, at least not here in the US of A.
He could run in Europe and they would probably call him a centrist.
That's because over there, Euros hear the word and nod and say, "Yeah we're okay with a little bit of socialism...A LITTLE BIT."

Last but not least, the economy of the Imperial Russian Empire bordered on near collapse in 1916.
Marke's suggestion that the Bolsheviks took a healthy national economy and transformed it into "widespread starvation and death" is utter nonsense.
Widespread starvation and death is precisely what spurred the October Revolution of 1917.
The only people eating regularly were the ones Czar Nicholas thought worthy of favor.
Peasants were starving and dying by the millions.
 
Last edited:
Bernie's been a New Deal liberal Democrat in the mold of FDR ever since he first set foot on Capitol Hill but HE seems to think the term "socialism" conjures up some romantic notion of friendly hardworking hippie entrepreneurs like Ben & Jerry of Vermont ice cream fame.
.

Bernie honeymooned in socialist/communist country because he is socialist/communist. He has supported many socialist/communist causes. Do you really think he is so stupid as to use a losing label that incorrectly describes himself? He never was a New Dealer as you pretend. If he was he would embrace the term and get a huge boost to his popularity!!

In any case all the Democrats are stupid, deadly, anti Americans, one part liberal, one part communist who in the end will unite to support libcommie Biden/AOC/Sanders/Warren. Do you understand?
 
Yes, they are. You can't run Windows and Mac PC's and laptop's and the opposite is true. Expect Windows and MAC OS for PC's and laptop's, Chrome OS for phones, name me other OS with wide commercial use.

Linux
 
Last edited:
you have to ask yourself if you are smart enough to be here. Amazon has P/E of 75 while Walmart has only 25. Do you understand??

Sooner or later, Walmart will outrun all of its competitors.
 
The Soviet Union was not the first nor was it the last communist nation that proved communism could take a healthy national economy and create widespread starvation and death through government efforts to manage farms and businesses.

Mistakes could happen, in Capitalism or Communism regimes.
 
Back
Top Bottom