Poverty, Equality, and Capitalism

[Anders Hoveland]

I, like many people here, believe working conditions should be better, and incomes higher.

There are many people who essentially live in poverty, and struggle to afford rent in crowded apartments.

Things need to change, so that anyone willing to put work and put serious effort into their work, should be able to live a decent life in decent housing, and be able to afford a few basic extra luxuries, such as a vacation once a year, and to eat out a few times every week.

 

Now I realise there will always be people less motivated, who do not want to work as much, or are more discriminating about where or how they are willing to work. These people should still be able to live a decent life, but should have to deal with more modest standard of living.

 

I just do not think people should have to work so hard, under poor working conditions, for so little.

 

We would all like to improve the standard of living, and many of us at least would like to end poverty. But what does this have to do with "equality"? Most of the progressives are trying to promote "economic equality". But this is going far beyond simply ending poverty. Why do we need "equality" to end poverty and improve the standard of living for the poor?

 

I think capitalism can provide a decent (though modest) standard of living for everyone, and a good standard of living for most. But only under some conditions. If there are too many poor people, it is going to drive down wages, worsen working conditions, and cause unemployment. This is the "Army of the Unemployed" described by Marx. High birth rates, or high levels of immigration, are simply incompatible with providing decent standards of living under capitalism.

 

There are other systems, besides pure capitalism. But these other systems have potential problems, and even dangers. I think it might be preferable if we could essentially keep the structure we already have. I am also not sure that egalitarianism is compatible with ethnic diversity.

 

I hope that everyone in the world can someday live without poverty, and that people can generally have a good standard of living.

(we also need to take serious steps now to prevent overpopulation in the future, overpopulation will be incredible strain on the system of capitalism, because there will not be enough jobs, or housing near the jobs, for everyone)

 

 

[questionposter]

I, like many people here, believe working conditions should be better, and incomes higher.

There are many people who essentially live in poverty, and struggle to afford rent in crowded apartments.

Things need to change, so that anyone willing to put work and put serious effort into their work, should be able to live a decent life in decent housing, and be able to afford a few basic extra luxuries, such as a vacation once a year, and to eat out a few times every week.

 

Now I realise there will always be people less motivated, who do not want to work as much, or are more discriminating about where or how they are willing to work. These people should still be able to live a decent life, but should have to deal with more modest standard of living.

 

I just do not think people should have to work so hard, under poor working conditions, for so little.

 

We would all like to improve the standard of living, and many of us at least would like to end poverty. But what does this have to do with "equality"? Most of the progressives are trying to promote "economic equality". But this is going far beyond simply ending poverty. Why do we need "equality" to end poverty and improve the standard of living for the poor?

 

I think capitalism can provide a decent (though modest) standard of living for everyone, and a good standard of living for most. But only under some conditions. If there are too many poor people, it is going to drive down wages, worsen working conditions, and cause unemployment. This is the "Army of the Unemployed" described by Marx. High birth rates, or high levels of immigration, are simply incompatible with providing decent standards of living under capitalism.

 

There are other systems, besides pure capitalism. But these other systems have potential problems, and even dangers. I think it might be preferable if we could essentially keep the structure we already have. I am also not sure that egalitarianism is compatible with ethnic diversity.

 

I hope that everyone in the world can someday live without poverty, and that people can generally have a good standard of living.

(we also need to take serious steps now to prevent overpopulation in the future, overpopulation will be incredible strain on the system of capitalism, because there will not be enough jobs, or housing near the jobs, for everyone)

 

 

 

There will always be some people who are better than others at something. Personally I don't think money can holistically account for someone actually being "better" or worth more than another person, seeing has how money is just pieces of cotton-paper that are incapable of consciousness, but many successful or people who work hard would complain about the people that don't. Things need to be more balanced, which can be done a few ways. There's communism, which is successful but it's only adequate, no one has much of an incentive to work other than fear of getting sent to prison, which isn't very hospitable, and then there's even a dictator usually to break the balance and hog resources. But then, there's a couple ways to combine socialism and capitalism evenly, such as that people may not be the most successful right away, but will have a safety net to try again, or theoretically an economic system in which every person owns a business and is economically dependent on but competing with everyone else which seems to equalize things a bit, kind of like pushing two same charged magnets together though, but with capitalism involved, just like with communism, corruption is possible.

I also think everyone does deserves a decent standard of living, but not everyone else does, which is why it's not happening right now.

Edited April 22, 2012 by questionposter

[Anvar]

I think equal living standards are impossible because this contradicts with the laws of thermodynamics and statistical physics. Remember the normal distribution.

[questionposter]

I think equal living standards are impossible because this contradicts with the laws of thermodynamics and statistical physics. Remember the normal distribution.

 

It doesn't defy any laws at all, it's just probably not going to happen any time soon.

[imatfaal]

I, like many people here, believe working conditions should be better, and incomes higher.

There are many people who essentially live in poverty, and struggle to afford rent in crowded apartments.

Things need to change, so that anyone willing to put work and put serious effort into their work, should be able to live a decent life in decent housing, and be able to afford a few basic extra luxuries, such as a vacation once a year, and to eat out a few times every week.

 

Now I realise there will always be people less motivated, who do not want to work as much, or are more discriminating about where or how they are willing to work. These people should still be able to live a decent life, but should have to deal with more modest standard of living.

 

I just do not think people should have to work so hard, under poor working conditions, for so little.

 

We would all like to improve the standard of living, and many of us at least would like to end poverty. But what does this have to do with "equality"? Most of the progressives are trying to promote "economic equality". But this is going far beyond simply ending poverty. Why do we need "equality" to end poverty and improve the standard of living for the poor?

 

I think capitalism can provide a decent (though modest) standard of living for everyone, and a good standard of living for most. But only under some conditions. If there are too many poor people, it is going to drive down wages, worsen working conditions, and cause unemployment. This is the "Army of the Unemployed" described by Marx. High birth rates, or high levels of immigration, are simply incompatible with providing decent standards of living under capitalism.

 

There are other systems, besides pure capitalism. But these other systems have potential problems, and even dangers. I think it might be preferable if we could essentially keep the structure we already have. I am also not sure that egalitarianism is compatible with ethnic diversity.

 

I hope that everyone in the world can someday live without poverty, and that people can generally have a good standard of living.

(we also need to take serious steps now to prevent overpopulation in the future, overpopulation will be incredible strain on the system of capitalism, because there will not be enough jobs, or housing near the jobs, for everyone)

 

 

 

From my perspective, and that of many others (I believe) - the most important function of society is to promote, and strive towards equality of opportunity. I kinda agree with Anvar there will always be a distribution of incomes - and very few people would claim that a uniform income across society is the way to go. However, what we can work towards and possibly achieve is equality of opportunity - to work, to get an education, to be involved in politics, to work for the state, to receive medical care, to have recourse to justice etc

 

"There are other systems, besides pure capitalism." - Well sure, what we do now is the prime example. I don't like the current system - but I would also pretty much despise pure capitalism.

 

"I am also not sure that egalitarianism is compatible with ethnic diversity." You're gonna have to expand on that one for me to understand your point - I don't think I will agree with it!

[questionposter]

Actually, I wonder if a purely capitalistic system in which everyone is dependent on everyone else for buying products, or if everyone owned a successful business, that it would be more uniform.

[dimreepr]

The problem as I see it is one of conflict.

 

1. The first area of conflict is the morally corrupt verses society. All systems of governance are open to corruption, indeed most systems have subtle loopholes (for want of a better word) that not only allow this but actively encourage it, but only to those in the know (inner circle of power). The founding fathers of America saw this in the British system and sought to close the loopholes with the constitution, though, which future amendments slowly erode allowing cracks to be exploited. This is evolution at work.

 

2. Which brings me on to the second area of conflict, intellect verses evolution. Many times in this thread the word “equality” crops up, a laudable sentiment, and one I wish were true, but ultimately specious. It’s impossible, there is no equality anywhere in nature, otherwise evolution would stagnate and the world would never change. If the lions and the wildebeest were equal the lions would starve. The speed with which modern society evolves far outstrips nature’s ability to evolve us; we therefore have an imbalance that is the route of the problem, and no amount of intellectual reasoning and argument can change this fundamental.

 

3. The individual verses society. Society’s needs are very different to that of the individual. A healthy society has a pyramidal shape with the average worker at the bottom, society’s leaders at the top. Every individual within that pyramid wants more than he/she has right now and the leaders satisfied with their lot, this is healthy. The conflict arises because the leaders aren’t satisfied either and strive for more and more money/power. Wealth when concentrated in just a few individuals is the cancer that eats at the flesh of society; it can only ever weaken us.

 

 

In conclusion, the only way I see, that any system could ever really work is that the excess’ that our leaders indulge in are stopped or at least minimised. To establish a healthy society we need to find a way to build on the vision of the founding fathers, to find a way to counter the erosion of amendments and reduce the involvement of the state in individual lives.

 

 

[rigney]

I was going to open a new post with the following transcript, but decided it best to go with other reasoning possibilities than my own. Whether or not we realize it, this is a very troubling time we live in. I'll make this short and submissive but please look at the message and draw your own conclusion.

 

 

Scary and perhaps, Prophetic!

 

In 1887, Alexander Tyler; a Scottish historian and professor at the University of

 

Edinburgh had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years

 

prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature and simply cannot exist as a

 

permanent form of government, but will continue until voters discover they

 

can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on,

 

the majority always votes for candidates promising the most benefits, with the result

 

that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policies. This (which is) always

 

followed by a dictatorship. The average age of world civilizations from the beginning of

 

history has averaged roughly 200 years, give or take. During those times, nations have always

 

progressed through the following sequence:

 

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage."

 

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

 

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19, Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000, Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by Democrats: 127 million, Republicans:143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats, 13.2, Republicans, 2.1

 

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, territory won by Republicans was mostly land owned by taxpaying citizens.

 

Territory won by Democrats encompassed mostly citizens living in substandard housing, with inadequate income

 

and receiving various forms of government welfare assistance.

 

Olson believes the United States is somewhere between the "complacency and apathy"

 

phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy.

 

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to over twenty million illegal's and they are allowed to vote, we can say goodbye to the

 

system of government as we know it, in less than five years.

 

I'm not the writer although I understand his premisce as written. Is it something to be considered, or simply wait on the results?

Edited April 28, 2012 by rigney

[jeskill]

The statistics from the above post come from an old urban legend. See the Snopes article: http://www.snopes.co...ot/athenian.asp and the FactCheck.org article: http://www.factcheck...reported-stats/.

 

 

The professor in question also has written on his website:

Olson:

DISCLAIMER: There are a series of emails floating around the internet dealing with the 2008 Obama/McCain election and the 2000 Bush/Gore election, remarks of a Scottish philosopher named Alexander Tyler, suicide rates, or ANYTHING ELSE. I did not author any part of either email. I've been trying to kill this fallacy for 10 years. I didn't have any part of it in 2000, and I still have no part of the email in regards to the 2008 election. For details, see:

http://www.snopes.co...otes/tyler.asp.

 

In short, it's always a good idea to fact check amazing statistics, even if they agree with your worldview.

 

From my perspective, and that of many others (I believe) - the most important function of society is to promote, and strive towards equality of opportunity. I kinda agree with Anvar there will always be a distribution of incomes - and very few people would claim that a uniform income across society is the way to go. However, what we can work towards and possibly achieve is equality of opportunity - to work, to get an education, to be involved in politics, to work for the state, to receive medical care, to have recourse to justice etc

[/Quote]

 

 

As a left-leaning liberal, I would say that society should strive for equality of opportunity and a fair meritocracy. I can't think of one country that truly has this right now, though.

Edited April 29, 2012 by jeskill

[rigney]

The statistics from the above post come from an old urban legend. See the Snopes article: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp and the FactCheck.org article: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/01/unreported-stats/.

 

 

The professor in question also has written on his website:

[/color]

 

In short, it's always a good idea to fact check amazing statistics, even if they agree with your woldview.

 

 

 

 

As a left-leaning liberal, I would say that society should strive for equality of opportunity and a fair meritocracy. I can't think of one country that truly has this right now, though.

 

To be perfectly honest, I received this from an acquaintance a few days ago and really didn't research it to any extent. And while I personally dislike our present form of government policies, disrespecting our president is not a given. After checking Snopes, I apologise to anyone whom I may have offended. I hope there is some way to delete this part of the post. Edited April 29, 2012 by rigney

[jeskill]

Rigney,

 

All of us at one point or another have done the exact same thing. I very much doubt you offended anyone.

[questionposter]

To be perfectly honest, I received this from an acquaintance a few days ago and really didn't research it to any extent. And while I personally dislike our present form of government policies, disrespecting our president is not a given. After checking Snopes, I apologise to anyone whom I may have offended. I hope there is some way to delete this part of the post.

 

Shoot, I already filed that cyber lawsuit. Just ignore the lawyer if they knock on your door or send you an email.

 

 

It's impossible, there is no equality anywhere in nature, otherwise evolution would stagnate and the world would never change.

 

Evolution is not a mystical force that governs anything, it's a pattern of the life cycles of living things on Earth that we have deduced based on our observations, as far as anything being impossible, the only limitations are those physics, which evolution or even life isn't much a part of. As much of a lack of reason for there to do something, there is the same lack of reason to not do something, so if people really think that equality is something that will be good, they should be able to go for it.

Also with regards to evolution your forgetting that the environment can change and that random mutations would happen regardless of any evolutionary pressure, and in that scenario the only things that wouldn't survive would be the things that are unlucky enough to have very self-destructive mutations.

Edited April 30, 2012 by questionposter

[Vent]

I don't think there'd be much incentive to do much involving capitalism if equality was enforced from the top down. Inequality, in other things besides wealth, seems to me to be the precursor to progress, from an individual scale as well as societal.

 

Equal opportunities sound good but they've been messed up in practice if you ask me. They seem to enforce genetic and racial favouritism rather than equality.

[dimreepr]

 

"It's impossible, there is no equality anywhere in nature, otherwise evolution would stagnate and the world would never change."

 

 

Evolution is not a mystical force that governs anything, it's a pattern of the life cycles of living things on Earth that we have deduced based on our observations, as far as anything being impossible, the only limitations are those physics, which evolution or even life isn't much a part of. As much of a lack of reason for there to do something, there is the same lack of reason to not do something, so if people really think that equality is something that will be good, they should be able to go for it.

Also with regards to evolution your forgetting that the environment can change and that random mutations would happen regardless of any evolutionary pressure, and in that scenario the only things that wouldn't survive would be the things that are unlucky enough to have very self-destructive mutations.

 

 

You seem to have missed the point of my post, my reference to evolution, in this context, was meant only to highlight the fact that equality doesn't naturally exist. Politically it is a rallying call that could never be achieved simply because everybody has different abilities and motivation. All we can hope for in any political system is fairness of treatment. We should all have the same opportunities in education, the individual is then responsible as to how that opportunity is utilised.

Edited April 30, 2012 by dimreepr

[questionposter]

You seem to have missed the point of my post, my reference to evolution, in this context, was meant only to highlight the fact that equality doesn't naturally exist. Politically it is a rallying call that could never be achieved simply because everybody has different abilities and motivation. All we can hope for in any political system is fairness of treatment. We should all have the same opportunities in education, the individual is then responsible as to how that opportunity is utilised.

 

I don't know how you know equality doesn't exist anywhere in nature though. What if having different abilities would ultimately balance out anyway?

[dimreepr]

I don't know how you know equality doesn't exist anywhere in nature though. What if having different abilities would ultimately balance out anyway?

 

 

For me it’s an extension of the phrase “you can’t cross the same river twice” it’s merely extrapolation of my observations of the natural world, a bit of a leap, I admit. The predator prey struggle is, in most animals, finely balanced and only when the prey animal is weakened through injury age or disease are the scales tipped in favour of the predator, but it doesn’t make these animals equal. Nature is in constant flux and very few animals remain unchanged by the survival pressures that result. Even the animals that have so far remained unchanged by this process, the horse shoe crab for instance, will, given enough time be changed. My statement was meant only to highlight that we, humans, aren’t equal. Even identical twins, with time, diverge in abilities and motivation.

 

 

[questionposter]

For me it's an extension of the phrase "you can't cross the same river twice" it's merely extrapolation of my observations of the natural world, a bit of a leap, I admit. The predator prey struggle is, in most animals, finely balanced and only when the prey animal is weakened through injury age or disease are the scales tipped in favour of the predator, but it doesn't make these animals equal. Nature is in constant flux and very few animals remain unchanged by the survival pressures that result. Even the animals that have so far remained unchanged by this process, the horse shoe crab for instance, will, given enough time be changed. My statement was meant only to highlight that we, humans, aren't equal. Even identical twins, with time, diverge in abilities and motivation.

 

 

 

Even in quantum mechanics where electrons are constantly fluctuating into random locations, their location averages out to a single most probable distance away from the nucleus.

[dimreepr]

Even in quantum mechanics where electrons are constantly fluctuating into random locations, their location averages out to a single most probable distance away from the nucleus.

 

 

How does this argue my point? If anything it further articulates what I’m saying.

 

 

[questionposter]

How does this argue my point? If anything it further articulates what I'm saying.

 

 

 

Even in most complex parts of nature, things average out.

Edited May 2, 2012 by questionposter

[dimreepr]

Even in most complex parts of nature, things average out.

 

 

 

Even in quantum mechanics where electrons are constantly fluctuating into random locations, their location averages out to a single most probable distance away from the nucleus.

 

 

I’ve highlighted the salient point. Things may average out but that doesn’t make two things with a similar average, the same. The average you describe may make them appear equal, but appearances, in this context, are deceptive.

 

[JustinW]

Questionposter,

 

post #

I also think everyone does deserves a decent standard of living, but not everyone else does, which is why it's not happening right now.

Why do they deserve a certain standard of living? Just because they are alive? Capitalism presents an opportunity to gain a standard of living based on a persons willingness to succeed. Whereas communism or socialism, you just have to settle for what's given. Who's to say what's recieved will be equal to one's contribution?

 

 

This was you're reply to Anvars equal living and normal distribution comment in post #4

It doesn't defy any laws at all, it's just probably not going to happen any time soon.

Even if it does happen, how long would it stay that way? Nothing about the current poverty rates says that socialism or communism is better than capitalism. Or that capitalism causes more poverty. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-population-below-poverty-line

 

 

In post #9 Jeskill said this:

As a left-leaning liberal, I would say that society should strive for equality of opportunity and a fair meritocracy. I can't think of one country that truly has this right now, though.

Then in post #12 you said this

Also with regards to evolution your forgetting that the environment can change and that random mutations would happen regardless of any evolutionary pressure, and in that scenario the only things that wouldn't survive would be the things that are unlucky enough to have very self-destructive mutations.

Which wasn't in reply, but the part that I bolded seemed to me to be relevant to what Jeskill had commented on, in that it always seemed to me that it was a self-destructive behavior for someone not striving to utilize the opportunity that is equal to them through capitalism. It is just the feeling sorry for people that don't use this opportunity that most people scream "equality" about. Did that make any sense, or did I bungle it up with the mismatching quotes?

 

 

 

And personally I think dimreepr nailed it in post number 7. Or at least it sounded good.

 

Sorry I jumped in the conversation so late. I ment to comment several days ago but haven't had the time.

[questionposter]

Questionposter,

 

post #Why do they deserve a certain standard of living? Just because they are alive? Capitalism presents an opportunity to gain a standard of living based on a persons willingness to succeed. Whereas communism or socialism, you just have to settle for what's given. Who's to say what's recieved will be equal to one's contribution?

It doesn't really matter really, we can decide whatever system we want to live in, but there's just no concise logical reason to not have high standards of equality other than some rick people would have to lose some money.

 

 

This was you're reply to Anvars equal living and normal distribution comment in post #4Even if it does happen, how long would it stay that way? Nothing about the current poverty rates says that socialism or communism is better than capitalism. Or that capitalism causes more poverty. http://www.nationmas...ow-poverty-line

It would stay that way for however long people would like it to or tolerated it. The things wrong with socialism and communism aren't the mathematical systems themselves (as ants show), but rather that they can be taken advantage of by a dictator.

 

 

In post #9 Jeskill said this:Then in post #12 you said thisWhich wasn't in reply, but the part that I bolded seemed to me to be relevant to what Jeskill had commented on, in that it always seemed to me that it was a self-destructive behavior for someone not striving to utilize the opportunity that is equal to them through capitalism. It is just the feeling sorry for people that don't use this opportunity that most people scream "equality" about. Did that make any sense, or did I bungle it up with the mismatching quotes?

Over all of your posts I've seen it doesn't surprise me how ignorant (not stupid) you are about the world. Most people don'y say "I want equality" because they are slacking off, they say "I want equality" and are being severely taken advantage of. Do you honestly think thousands of people in Syria happened to not take advantage of some opportunity and at the exact same time? Or do you think it's more logical that they fight every day just to survive and that a dictator is shooting down anyone who opposes? With the US, it use to be something like that during the great depression. People worked hard every day, and got paid less than a dollar a day. How about you try working in a steel factory and seeing how much pay you demand. And this type of thing is still even going on in China with sweatshop workers and it's even worse in Africa where there's literally kids who pick through garbage to make a living because their country is so impoverished. And then there's that whole Rwanda thing where kids are forced into a vicious military and and hooked on crack to disorient them somewhat but keep staying them with the army. And when I said "self destructive" genes, I meant physically self destructive, as in you just happen to be born inside out or born with failed organs or etc. Considering free-will and the variety of thoughts and environments as well as learning capacity, there aren't many "self-destructive" metal genes that would make you not strive for something. And there's no reason to not pity something like that anyway.

 

You also seem to fail to understand the principals of capitalism itself. Logically, everyone cannot be rich in capitalism. It is mathematically impossible in a capitalistic system. This means there is eventually a point to which even if you work, you will not make it because those slots have already been taken.

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter

[JustinW]

questionposter,

 

It doesn't really matter really, we can decide whatever system we want to live in, but there's just no concise logical reason to not have high standards of equality other than some rick people would have to lose some money.

And their freedom to make that money. Money doesn't equal equality.

 

 

It would stay that way for however long people would like it to or tolerated it. The things wrong with socialism and communism aren't the mathematical systems themselves (as ants show), but rather that they can be taken advantage of by a dictator.

Just like any other system, but at least in a capitalistic democracy, the people have more control over what is being done and the opportunity to change it without the threat of being killed.

 

 

Most people don'y say "I want equality" because they are slacking off, they say "I want equality" and are being severely taken advantage of.

How are you being taken advantage of? How are people here in the US being taken advantage of to a point that they feel the need to scream "equality"?

 

 

Do you honestly think thousands of people in Syria happened to not take advantage of some opportunity and at the exact same time?

Syria has an authoritarian government with a nasty little dictator who calls himself a president but so conveniently has no competition for leadership. The syrian people didn't have the opportunity that capitalism provides, so why use them as an example?

 

And this type of thing is still even going on in China with sweatshop workers and it's even worse in Africa where there's literally kids who pick through garbage to make a living because their country is so impoverished. And then there's that whole Rwanda thing where kids are forced into a vicious military and and hooked on crack to disorient them somewhat but keep staying them with the army.

 

All of these examples seem to have one thing in common. A DICTATOR. My whole point here was that capitalism provides the closest form of equality. And my reference to those who scream "equality", was for those here in the US who fail to see that fact.

 

You also seem to fail to understand the principals of capitalism itself. Logically, everyone cannot be rich in capitalism. It is mathematically impossible in a capitalistic system. This means there is eventually a point to which even if you work, you will not make it because those slots have already been taken.

Is there some reason you think everyone should be rich? That's absurd. Capitalism is the opportunity to succeed based on the amount of effort put toward achieving success. Not everyone is going to be rich. A lazy person will probably never be rich. A person that doesn't make the proper choices will probably never be rich. A person that is satisfied with the statis quoe will probably never be rich (unless there statis quoe is already rich). But it is those who strive to become more than they are that find success. It's the opportunity TO succeed that is equal to everyone through capitalism. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it's the best model there is for now.

[questionposter]

questionposter,

 

And their freedom to make that money. Money doesn't equal equality.

They can make however much money they want, they just have to donate a certain percentage of it to the government.

 

 

 

Just like any other system, but at least in a capitalistic democracy, the people have more control over what is being done and the opportunity to change it without the threat of being killed.

In a "purely" capitalistic economy, no, people absolutely do not have control, only a few people though. Luckily though, the US is part socialist.

 

 

 

How are you being taken advantage of? How are people here in the US being taken advantage of to a point that they feel the need to scream "equality"?

Like being born in the ghetto, having no where to turn for work except some corporation, who pays them less than minimum wage if they can get away with it (which they can).

Then there's the prostitution problem where there's people who rape women in places like Colombia, who are prostitutes for a living and can only make whatever money their agency allows, and then have to support a kid who will be born into the same circumstances.

 

 

Syria has an authoritarian government with a nasty little dictator who calls himself a president but so conveniently has no competition for leadership. The syrian people didn't have the opportunity that capitalism provides, so why use them as an example?

Because theoretically with your logic they "can" ignore the bomb shells and bullets and tanks around them and a greedy dictator and become rich if they just try hard enough.

 

 

 

All of these examples seem to have one thing in common. A DICTATOR. My whole point here was that capitalism provides the closest form of equality. And my reference to those who scream "equality", was for those here in the US who fail to see that fact.

Can't someone with a monopoly decide how things work?

 

Is there some reason you think everyone should be rich? That's absurd. Capitalism is the opportunity to succeed based on the amount of effort put toward achieving success. Not everyone is going to be rich. A lazy person will probably never be rich. A person that doesn't make the proper choices will probably never be rich. A person that is satisfied with the statis quoe will probably never be rich (unless there statis quoe is already rich). But it is those who strive to become more than they are that find success. It's the opportunity TO succeed that is equal to everyone through capitalism. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it's the best model there is for now.

Capitalism itself is not the ability to succeed based on your hard work, it is the ability to succeed based on how "better" you are than other people. If your smarter, your chances are higher. If your stronger, your changes are higher. There is practically no difference between this and just plain brute wilderness, but last time I checked human beings wanted to be better than that. Lazy people become rich all the time. They can easily be born rich, or elected to be the CEO because they have some friends, or just happen to invest in in a very profitable company. Granted, there are many people that do work hard to become rich, but again, capitalism is not about working hard. And what does it really matter anyway? So someone doesn't like doing traditional work, why do they deserve to have a horrible life?

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter