Current Events > Is capitalism a net good or bad for human society?

(+) Yeah! (+)

It was good for a long time and now it has run its course and is bad.

---

Sotha_Sil posted...

So your argument is that if capitalism is not unrestricted it's not true capitalism and doesn't count? Okay lmao

no just that actively opposing capitalist policies yields better results

---

ssk9716757 posted...

no just that actively opposing capitalist policies yields better results

Social democratic capitalism is not "actively opposing" capitalism lmao

---

ssk9716757 posted...

no just that actively opposing capitalist policies yields better results

you have to be trolling

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Yes, I'm sure the capitalists that are spearhading the globalist movement is going to lead to a new system.

do you think it was kings and lords who lead us to capitalism? the fact that i'm stating a separate path will be taken should be an indication it's not going to come from the people currently leading us. If it comes naturally or more likely through violent revolt, we'll see or, grand kids might see.

---

Sotha_Sil posted...

Social democratic capitalism is not "actively opposing" capitalism lmao

Thats convenient

---

ssk9716757 posted...

Thats convenient

uhh

---

Rika_Furude posted...

There are better economic systems and worse economic systems

Which are?

---

I Like Toast posted...

do you think it was kings and lords who lead us to capitalism? the fact that i'm stating a separate path will be taken should be an indication it's not going to come from the people currently leading us. If it comes naturally or more likely through violent revolt, we'll see or, grand kids might see.

Fair enough, but I don't think that prophesying a better or different future is a worthwhile gesture. Its entirely possible we'll sit on our asses and capitalism eventually kills us out of general incompetence. Personally, I'd rather do almost anything else.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Um, people born into wealthy families are born with everything while people born into poor families have nothing.

Define 'nothing' please.

I was born poor, but we did not have nothing. We did have to cut coupons and went to garage sales. We got food stamps back when you had to go to a government warehouse and get their actual crap, brand food. You could not buy whatever you wanted back then. We loved each other so much, i had no idea i was suffering! It was an amazing childhood.

After my parents got married they were so poor on Christmas my dad hung a tree from the ceiling with a bent metal clothes hanger and they decorated it with garlands of popcorn. My mom worked until she was 7 months pregnant with me in a butchershop lifting 40 pound bags of chicken. But they loved each other. Now we are all successful; they much more than myself. But they did it by making good choices more often than not, and sacrificing pleasure now in exchange for long term success. We are average people in most ways, the difference is we didnt make a bunch of excuses for our failures. Or give up.

Nowadays people give up at the drop of a hat. Thats a personal choice.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Personally, I'd rather do almost anything else.

I'd rather do something better

---

look at the word capitalism, it says capitalize on groups that have power, it is hard to miss but you throw out ideas they will just figure out how to capitalize on it, let the dems and republicans battle it out. one group versus another. Are you guys going to organize something? You already probably have.

---

ehhwhatever posted...

look at the word capitalism, it says capitalize on groups that have power, it is hard to miss but you throw out ideas they will just figure out how to capitalize on it, let the dems and republicans battle it out. one group versus another. Are you guys going to organize something? You already probably have.

That isn't what the word means but sure, making up fake etymologies always makes your point look informed.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Um, people born into wealthy families are born with everything while people born into poor families have nothing.

That's why I said "Whatever economic system exist is what overcomes this nothingness." I do agree that the family you are born into has a giant effect on your life. However, my point is against the idea of capitalism as a taker of wealth. It's ridiculous. Capitalism generates wealth, and some take more than others.

---

Capitalism is inherently exploitative, and by extension, a net negative

The other problem is there's no true endgame. Wealth is not finite, but is continually being siphoned toward the top
---

Sotha_Sil posted...

Not what the topic is asking though.

But many will take that as the implication.
---

Ever since the American dollar became the worlds reserve currency in the 1920s, the human population nearly quadrupled in the short span of 100 years. Socialism has brought nothing but death, famine,and despair, all of which opened the floodgates to fascists. Many of us wouldn't be alive if capitalists didn't get their way. Good intentions doesn't always lead to good results. Real life is not some Disney movie.

Net negative. It encourages destructive and exploitative practices due to the fact that doing things correctly is significantly more costly in a truly free market. Disincentives from such behavior has been shown to only be possible from outside influences. The solution to this is not to be found in a communist revolution, those are too easily taken over by those desiring power. Rather the solution is to create an effective government that steers the markets in the right direction. One that provides the outside influences needed for sustainable and fair practices to be more viable that the destructive and overly expoiltive.

---

capitalism is inherently exploitative, oppressive, and discriminatory along class lines.

---

socialism is inherently exploitative, oppressive, and discriminatory along class lines.

cerealbox760 posted...

socialism is inherently exploitative, oppressive, and discriminatory along class lines.

ohoho! good one!

incorrect though

---

averagejoel posted...

ohoho! good one!

incorrect though

ohoho! nice rebuttal!

it was not very effective though

cerealbox760 posted...

ohoho! nice rebuttal!

it was not very effective though

I don't care about rebuttals. your statement was factually incorrect and I'm not going to get into a debate about economics with someone who probably doesn't know what socialism is

---

Absolutely a net bad. Worst of all are the capitalists who think so many good things we only have because of capitalism.

No, all of human progress, invention and creativity didn't happen and don't happen thanks to capitalism, don't be so stupid.

closetjpopfan posted...

No, all of human progress, invention and creativity didn't happen and don't happen thanks to capitalism, don't be so stupid.

Then why does America lead with innovation? All these other 'socialist' countries in Europe dont invent at the level America does.

averagejoel posted...

I don't care about rebuttals. your statement was factually incorrect and I'm not going to get into a debate about economics with someone who probably doesn't know what socialism is

Your statement was factually incorrect again.

Net good, it is the best system for bringing people out of poverty.

I wonder how much of human progress is built on the back of underpaid people who never get recognized for their input and their work.

---

I mean, do we even have a better alternative?

---

Mareen posted...

I mean, do we even have a better alternative?

In theory yes, in practice no.

cerealbox760 posted...

Your statement was factually incorrect again.

briefly define "capitalism", "socialism", and "communism" in your own words if you want me to continue responding

---

cerealbox760 posted...

Then why does America lead with innovation? All these other 'socialist' countries in Europe dont invent at the level America does.

See, exactly the kind of illogical arguments they use. America leads in innovation. America is capitalist. Therefore capitalism leads in innovation.

No. Learn logic.

edit I mean I could, would write a longer response but yeah. Just don't.

cerealbox760 posted...

Then why does America lead with innovation? All these other 'socialist' countries in Europe dont invent at the level America does.

Which socialist countries in Europe are you referring to

---

averagejoel posted...

briefly define "capitalism", "socialism", and "communism" in your own words if you want me to continue responding

Capitalism: Voluntary exchange of goods.

Socialism: State control over goods. Sometimes Democratic.

Fascism: State control over goods, plus the Racist Nationalism. Hardly Democratic.

Communism: Worker control of goods

In theory, socialism is the stepping stone to communism. Historically, socialism was the stepping stone to fascism. Power corrupts even the most well-meaning socialist. Communism has never been tried because its fantasy

closetjpopfan posted...

See, exactly the kind of illogical arguments they use. America leads in innovation. America is capitalist. Therefore capitalism leads in innovation.

No. Learn logic.

edit I mean I could, would write a longer response but yeah. Just don't.

Profit motive incentivizes innovation. If you disagree, break it down already. The public sector lags in innovation, unlike the private sector

Net good, but it needs to be checked and regulated.

---

cerealbox760 posted...

Profit motive incentivizes innovation. If you disagree, break it down already. The public sector lags in innovation, unlike the private sector

Eh, yes profit motive incentivizes innovation, but it's not and never has been the most important incentive for innovation. In fact profit motive sometimes can even be an obstacle to innovation.

kewldude475 posted...

There really isn't a communist state that sounds half-decent to live in as far as human rights is concerned, so literally, statistically, capitalism is a net good in society.

There are four communist states in the world today, and all of them emerged out of civil war that overthrew oppressive governments; three of which were puppets for Western capitalist interests. It makes sense that these four countries would gave poor human rights records; they emerged out of desperation from countries that had poor human rights records and which have expended vast swathes of their resources (including their own people) repelling predatory nations like the USA and France.

Its worth noting that Kerala, which has a mixed economy but is pretty much run by its various communist parties (in fact, its two leading parties are both called The Communist Party of India), has a very good record with human rights, so it seems more likely that responsible governance and strong democracy is more responsible for good human rights than letting your economical theory/interests run things.

---

closetjpopfan posted...

Eh, yes profit motive incentivizes innovation, but it's not and never has been the most important incentive for innovation. In fact profit motive sometimes can even be an obstacle to innovation.

look around you. Almost everything was invented because someone wanted money

cerealbox760 posted...

look around you. Almost everything was invented because someone wanted money

This. People do invent and innovate for other reasons, and you can have things like Wikipedia and the people who donate their time to keep it accurate and free. But for the most part, without capitalism we wouldnt be sitting here on phones and computers or playing video games. Not to mention everything else. We just wouldnt have anywhere near the same standard of living. I wish it dont be like it is but it do.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

There are four communist states in the world today, and all of them emerged out of civil war that overthrew oppressive governments; three of which were puppets for Western capitalist interests. It makes sense that these four countries would gave poor human rights records; they emerged out of desperation from countries that had poor human rights records and which have expended vast swathes of their resources (including their own people) repelling predatory nations like the USA and France.

lmao tankies are the fucking worst with their historical revisionism.

cerealbox760 posted...

look around you. Almost everything was invented because someone wanted money

Stalolin posted...

This. People do invent and innovate for other reasons, and you can have things like Wikipedia and the people who donate their time to keep it accurate and free. But for the most part, without capitalism we wouldnt be sitting here on phones and computers or playing video games. Not to mention everything else. We just wouldnt have anywhere near the same standard of living. I wish it dont be like it is but it do.

Nah, we would, absolutely. Things aren't invented just because "someone wants money". In fact this wanting or rather should I say NEEDING money is a feature of capitalism, at least it certainly is a feature of the capitalism run rampant that we have today. So obviously people don't invent things because capitalism because people have been inventing things since long before capitalism and this desperate need for money existed.

Capitalism has very little to do with invention. I'm not sure that either of you are a scientist or an engineer, perhaps the only thing you've ever learned is how to market the stuff that other people discover and create or who knows what, which is fine, but I can let you know if you don't that there are more than enough reasons for people to invent stuff without money. Most of human invention was not primarily driven by money.

Profit incentive does influence innovation a little more, but engineers will still always love to make good stuff better without having to come up with a new solution and the profit incentive aspect again is as much for the historical fact that capitalism happened to be the economic system that emerged along with progress in the modern age (along with a host of other factors of course). In fact it'd be more accurate to say that capitalism came about because of progress and innovation and not the other way around.

Where capitalism has its best point is that it has advanced the means of producing and distributing all these newly discovered and improved upon goods, and this in turn raises the standard of living and enhances the atmosphere in which progress and innovation can flourish, that's true, that has to be credited mostly to capitalism. But then we come to the crux of the matter which is that capitalism is not the only system nor the best system that could have achieved this.

The boomers got to see capitalism go from its very best to its very worst. That generation worked their asses off, but they kept a ton of money and the cost of living was very, very feasible compared to modern times. There was way less competition in the workforce and the worker had more leverage.

Since this time, our population has exploded. Competition is unbelievable and a college degree is basically worthless after the government programs that handed them out like candy on Halloween. Wages are down and the cost of living has never been this high.

The biggest issue is the politicians. They refuse to fix things in our favor because the companies that employ us donate so much money that laws are written to protect their interests. If they didnt legally have to pay us, then they wouldnt. You know its true.

Capitalism, in its barest form, is the exploitation of one group by another.

They say capitalism facilitates progress, but that is simply not true. Too often, capitalists with a good mind for self-PR have taken advantage of progress and delayed or even destroyed it, merely for their own personal, greedy gain.

---

Capitalisms best contribution is it drives competition which helps with human technological, healthcare, and scientific advancements.

---

Vermander posted...

Capitalisms best contribution is it drives competition which helps with human technological, healthcare, and scientific advancements.

Theres far more incentive to release updates to products incrementally, and "progress" is only made when it's profitable
---

Shablagoo posted...

Capitalism, in its barest form, is the exploitation of one group by another.

yeah everything seems bad when you intentionally invent a bad definition yourself