• 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!

Has capitalism increased hatred in the human race?

Has capitalism increased hatred in the human race?


  • Total voters
    67
The problem with government regulating markets is that it introduces this unpredictable player into the market that persons who are trying to make money have to contend with. It distorts markets. It is necessary however now because there is no other balancing effect to the influence of the greed of those who possess great wealth.
 
Ever heard of 'corporate inertia'? Capitalism is like fire - when properly controlled, it's a wonderful thing - keeps us warm, cooks our food, et cetera. But if it's not controlled...try living in a third-world nation where there is little or no effective regulation of the business sector. It sucks. Why? Because if there is no effective regulation, there's nothing to keep whichever corporation is strongest from buying the most politicians to keep them from leveling the playing field...and sooner or later you wind up with monopolies that are next-to-untouchable. That, and it also becomes impossible to pass effective laws for things like minimum wage, overtime pay, or mandatory safety measures in the workplace.

It's not as if any one person in that corporation wants all the bad things to happen, but that's the nature of corporate inertia - once it starts going in a particular direction, it's almost impossible for the employees to stop it. That's why the government must be strong enough to step in to keep that corporation from going too far.

It needs to be regulated by the cultivation of other ideals in society that don't center around the consumption of mundane goods to obtain happiness and the mere possession of wealth as symptomatic of success in life. The cultivation of knowledge is, in fact, superior to these things and people need to be trained properly to understand that. Then markets will be self regulating, for the most part, because people's minds will have things in proper perspective. Having governments regulate markets now may be necessary because of lack of proper emphasis on this feature, but it carries the bad effect of introducing this unpredictable player into markets that other participants must contend with. It creates too much distortion. Not only that, but because people with great wealth have too much influence on the political system, they can influence the political system in such an way that the government interferes in the economic sphere to their advantage.
 
Thats just stupid and thoughtless. You arent using reason, you are using bias. Capitalism is an economic model. People, regardless of model or system, use and manipulate systems.

Of course it's an economic model. Who would dispute that? My point was that those nasty things you mentioned earlier, and that I added to, have been used as American business interests have been advanced in various countries while corporations, executing their capitalism in places where there was no regulation.
 
Could excessively regulate capitalism so that it would be capitalism in name only.



Indeed. The fundamental of the system must remain those who expend the labor, skills, knowledge, reap the reward, if not, pretty soon the entire house of cards constructed against the fundamental, will fall. Many justifiably believe that the US is pretty close to that tipping point now already.

To the bolded, like The Mark said.
 
It's not even a question of too much regulation or too little. That is by far a too course measure, the mere count of regulation.

The purpose and impact of that regulation, how far it curtails freedom of choice and such, are far more pertinent to deeming what is too much or too little.
That is actually what I was trying to get at.

Regulation must balance it's negative effects against it's positive effects, and ideally, come to a net positive.

Of course, disagreement on what constitutes negative and/or positive affects of a regulation is inevitable...
 
Of course it's an economic model. Who would dispute that? My point was that those nasty things you mentioned earlier, and that I added to, have been used as American business interests have been advanced in various countries while corporations, executing their capitalism in places where there was no regulation.
Horse****. You yourself readily acknowledge it is people...people in every economic model and government system that are the problem, yet have the ever present kneejerk need to somehow, even after admitting its NOT capitalism that is the problem to insist that capitalism is the problem.
 
Horse****. You yourself readily acknowledge it is people...people in every economic model and government system that are the problem, yet have the ever present kneejerk need to somehow, even after admitting its NOT capitalism that is the problem to insist that capitalism is the problem.

That makes absolutely no sense to me sorry dude.
 
That is actually what I was trying to get at.

Regulation must balance it's negative effects against it's positive effects, and ideally, come to a net positive.

Of course, disagreement on what constitutes negative and/or positive affects of a regulation is inevitable...

And there in lies the challenge to the people and their elected officials. To strike that balance, to find that net positive, with the least amount of squawking from the constituents.

The most recent major legislation and regulation, just based on the amount of squawking, weren't really even close to striking any sort of balance, and that too can be observed by the party line votes that passed them.

All this means is that the imbalance will need to be addressed at a later date, and, hopefully, won't swing too far away from that balance, in reaction to their first one sided passing.
 
Seems to me you are just talking of a slightly modified capitalism. If not what exactly are you talking about?

There needs to be some constraints imposed on capitalists. Fractional reserve banking should be abolished, full reserve only. Gold standard should be put in place. That should do away with the brutal business cycles caused by the excessive lending associate with fractional reserve banking. There should be a focus on green energy and restrictions put in place to protect the environment. There should be a focus more on a sustainable agrarian based lifestyle in which people subsist mainly on local produce, not that transported from hundreds and thousands of miles away.

I am not sure how any intellectualism will make any difference.

No it will make a difference if such persons are empowered in a way that is independent of the control of capitalists. Currently everything, including intellectual endeavor is done for the sake of making money and not for the sake of what is good for society as a whole. The good of society is only taken into account as far as it supports making money.

Either an investment is good or it is bad.

That is the nature of business. That is the way it should stay. Government should not be interfering with that process as far as is realistically possible.

There are already ethical funds for those who want and there is no such thing as unrestricted capitalism. Every society has it regulated, some more than others.

What do you mean exactly my ethical funds?

I am not saying absolutely no regulation, what I am saying is that regulation should be kept to a minimum. What is of concern is that when the government starts to strongly regulate markets is that it interferes with the natural process of what you termed good and bad investment. For example if someone makes an investment based on their analysis that it will bring a return in the future and then the government steps in, and due to unnecessary regulation changes market conditions such that the investment turns bad, that is a disservice to that investor.
 
No, the free market exchange of goods and services, aka freedom, has not increased hatred. That's an absurd notion.


I suppose there are always those who are consumed with their jealousy, who feel they are entitled to the property of others, but that is the ideology of the left, and it is their hatred.
 
There needs to be some constraints imposed on capitalists. Fractional reserve banking should be abolished, full reserve only. Gold standard should be put in place. That should do away with the brutal business cycles caused by the excessive lending associate with fractional reserve banking. There should be a focus on green energy and restrictions put in place to protect the environment. There should be a focus more on a sustainable agrarian based lifestyle in which people subsist mainly on local produce, not that transported from hundreds and thousands of miles away.
There are limits on capitalism as practiced in the USA (I am assuming that is what you are talking about) as to the Gold standard there were peaks and valleys in the economy when the US was on it as well, fluctuation sin the economy will not be stopped by going back to it.



No it will make a difference if such persons are empowered in a way that is independent of the control of capitalists. Currently everything, including intellectual endeavor is done for the sake of making money and not for the sake of what is good for society as a whole. The good of society is only taken into account as far as it supports making money.
First off that is rather simplistic. Many intellectual endeavors are undertaken purely for the knowledge, though money in any form is always a consideration. Secondly how will anything change under any system you propose?


That is the nature of business. That is the way it should stay. Government should not be interfering with that process as far as is realistically possible.
Ok if govt doesn't interfere then how will it change? Intellectuals? They will act just the same as any other capitalist. or they will fail just like any other capitalist that uses a poor business model.

What do you mean exactly my ethical funds?
Ethical Fund financial definition of Ethical Fund

I am not saying absolutely no regulation, what I am saying is that regulation should be kept to a minimum. What is of concern is that when the government starts to strongly regulate markets is that it interferes with the natural process of what you termed good and bad investment. For example if someone makes an investment based on their analysis that it will bring a return in the future and then the government steps in, and due to unnecessary regulation changes market conditions such that the investment turns bad, that is a disservice to that investor.
Sorry I am confused here, You say you want a system to replace capitalism, then you say you actually dont want to replace capitalism then you want less govt regulation of capitalism. Seems to me your desire to move away from capitalist system is really just a desire to move to a less regulated capitalist society with the hopes that somehow more education will somehow make everything fairer.
Now I am all for better education but I can see no way that more education will somehow reduce greed.
 
There are limits on capitalism as practiced in the USA (I am assuming that is what you are talking about) as to the Gold standard there were peaks and valleys in the economy when the US was on it as well, fluctuation sin the economy will not be stopped by going back to it.

The limits on it do not consider the type of ill effects that occur due to the propaganda devised to promote the conditioning of society to increase its consumption of mundane goods to achieve happiness and freedom. As far as the gold standard, what you left out was the abolishment of the practice of fractional reserve banking to stop the excess lending associated with those business cycles.

First off that is rather simplistic. Many intellectual endeavors are undertaken purely for the knowledge, though money in any form is always a consideration. Secondly how will anything change under any system you propose?

Ok if govt doesn't interfere then how will it change?

What I am saying is that intellectual endeavor should take place independent of the influence of money, and when intellectual endeavor is necessary, there should be no need to consider money. The problem, as I have stated before, is that capitalism has resulted in those in possession of wealth having too much influence on the ideological, political, and sociological system. This in turn is resulting in society having distorted values which cause destructive tendencies like hate to flourish. First of all, having a strong intellectual class devoted to education and the dissemination of of knowledge would counter the ideological influence of capitalists who are naturally motivated to promote the consumption of goods to attain happiness. Second of all, it would serve to properly educate persons so that can be productive and responsible capitalists, menial laborers, skilled laborers, administrators, military officers, government officers, and intellectuals, who see their role as primarily to serve society, not just selfish people endeavoring to obtain mundane objects. Third of all, it would exert a powerful influence on the political system by promoting ideas and candidates that properly understand the need to consider the needs of society as a whole, and not just a narrow interests.

Intellectuals? They will act just the same as any other capitalist. or they will fail just like any other capitalist that uses a poor business model.

The influence of intellectuals in the economic sphere would be to understand when the economic system needs to be reigned in. Because they would be independent, they would be in a better position to objectively judge whether people engaged in business are being fair, are being honest, are not being excessive in terms of risk, and are not abusing workers.

Sorry I am confused here, You say you want a system to replace capitalism, then you say you actually dont want to replace capitalism then you want less govt regulation of capitalism. Seems to me your desire to move away from capitalist system is really just a desire to move to a less regulated capitalist society with the hopes that somehow more education will somehow make everything fairer.
Now I am all for better education but I can see no way that more education will somehow reduce greed.

The difference is that capitalism makes no mention of a need to balance the influence that capitalists have on society, so that is a rather big difference. Education will make a difference for the reasons that I mentioned. Greed is a result of the excessive focus on obtaining mundane things to achieve happiness and freedom. However, the endeavor to obtain mundane objects does not result in happiness and freedom, but rather misery and bondage. In order to obtain these objects society becomes enslaved to capitalists who exploit them so that they can live in great extravagance. When people are educated properly the will understand this, and will thus not blindly become slaves whose value is determine by how much wealth they can produce for their masters.
 
Back
Top Bottom