Political Crossfire Forums

[economic_reform]

Now before we start, I am all for capitalism, but if you look at the pros and cons of the economic system (all economic systems are different, I understand this) you will see that maybe the age of U.S. capitalism has turned into U.S. Imperialism. I wrote an essay in college briefly discussing the economical pros and cons of capitalism. I would like to hear you guys' opinions on the paper and what is "subjective" and "opinionative". Also before we begin this was a two page essay, so something were not taken to far into detail but also the piece itself is quite lengthy.

Capitalism

Section I

Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution, and other trade of goods and services, for profit in a competitive free market.

In a capitalist economy, privately owned corporations and businesses control the entire economy. This is probably this most popular economic view, a small farmer can buy his neighbor’s small farm for a set amount of money, and buy his neighbor’s neighbor’s small farm, and so on. Eventually the farmer can buy out all of his surrounding farms and create a monopoly. A monopoly is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. Monopolies are normally characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitutable goods. There are laws in the United States regulating the creation of monopolies in an attempt to keep the free market fair. The barriers for business or organizations to become a monopoly are great. There are two acts in the United States that have attempted to "prevent," or slow down potential monopolies: The Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Act. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was the first U.S. federal government action to limit monopolies. It was enacted on July 2, 1890. The Clayton Anti-Trust Act was enacted in 1914 to remedy deficiencies in antitrust law created under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that allowed corporations to dissolve labor unions. The Clayton Act filled in the gaps of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by preventing price discriminations, and from people being involved in two competing organizations. With these laws in place in the American law system it is unlawful for any one company to gain control of all its competitors and become one corporate "giant".

The non-government regulation in capitalism creates the ability for a company to charge whatever they can. Examples of this would be cable television, phone, and electricity. These examples are sometimes able to charge higher fees because they are the only company in that field available to you, but because they are considered a utility, they are not a monopoly. The price of gas is another example. When there is a "situation" in the Middle East, the price of gas seems to go up. The reason we are given is, because it is costing us more to get the product out of the Middle East. The problem with that explanation is that only about 15% of the nation's gas consumption is from foreign sources, majority of our resource is domestic. The reason gas prices go up is because we no longer have the option of the getting the "cheaper" Middle Eastern gas, and can now be gorged by our domestic companies.

Capitalism, inevitably, results in unequal wealth distribution. In actual practice it appears that as the ranks of the wealthy grow the ranks of the poor also increase. At least that seems to be what is happening in the United States. It also appears that wherever there are great disparities of wealth in an area crime increases dramatically. Another negative result of unrestrained capitalism is that the wealthy have little need to spend all of their wealth, so that they keep a great deal of the total wealth of the country invested and growing more family fortunes. As a result they can send their children to better schools getting better educations, and creating an ever-increasing gap between classes. The poor have more need to spend all of their income on the necessities, therefore can save little and accumulate little or no capital growth. In a capitalist society the wealthy have disproportionate power to influence legislation which inevitably favors themselves, often at the expense of the less affluent. This also, all too often, results in the corruption of government officials, and increase of white-collar crime. Although the wealthy provide the means of developing the natural resources of a nation, they often contribute mightily to its pollution and degradation. I think it could be argued that the streams and forests and minerals of the country ought to belong to all of its citizens, not the wealthy who gain access to strip mine and deforest or drill at the expense of an environment that we all share.

Even though we may concede that capitalism is the most successful among the economic systems, we must recognize that it is not without negative aspects or that there is no room for improvements. The smug American attitude which assumes that we excel at everything overlooks areas in which we might benefit by studying how someone else does things. The complexity and chaos of a health care system which leaves 45 million citizens to the mercy of emergency room treatment for minor ailments, which costs the taxpayers a higher percentage of gross national income than any other nation, might well benefit by adapting some of the methods of those countries which cover all of their citizens with lower costs and better results. Socialist and communist countries have often outstripped us in such areas as education and health care, and it makes sense that we ought to imitate whatever aspect of their successes would prove advantageous to ourselves. We first need to acknowledge that there is room for improvement in our still imperfect society.

The non-government regulation in capitalism creates the ability for a company to charge whatever they can. Examples of this would be cable television, phone, and electricity. These examples are sometimes able to charge higher fees because they are the only company in that field available to you, but because they are considered a utility, they are not a monopoly. The price of gas is another example. When there is a "situation" in the Middle East, the price of gas seems to go up. The reason we are given is because it is costing us more to get the product out of the Middle East. The problem I have with that explanation is that only about 15% of the nation's gas consumption is from foreign sources, majority of our resource is domestic. The reason gas prices go up is because we no longer have the option of the getting the "cheaper" Middle East gas, and can now be gorged by our domestic companies.

Capitalism inevitably results in unequal wealth distribution. In actual practice it appears that as the ranks of the wealthy grow the ranks of the poor also increase. At least that seems to be what is happening in the United States. It also appears that wherever there are great disparities of wealth in an area crime increases dramatically. Another negative result of unrestrained capitalism is that the wealthy have little need to spend all of their wealth, so that they keep a great deal of the total wealth of the country invested and growing more family fortunes. As a result they can send their children to better schools getting better educations, and creating an ever-increasing gap between classes. The poor have more need to spend all of their income on the necessities, therefore can save little and accumulate little or no capital growth. In a capitalist society the wealthy have disproportionate power to influence legislation which inevitably favors themselves, often at the expense of the less affluent. This also, all too often, results in the corruption of government officials, and increase of white-collar crime. Although the wealthy provide the means of developing the natural resources of a nation, they often contribute mightily to its pollution and degradation. I think it could be argued that the streams and forests and minerals of the country ought to belong to all of its citizens, not the wealthy who gain access to strip mine and deforest or drill at the expense of an environment that we all share.

Even though we may concede that capitalism is the most successful among the economic systems, we must recognize that it is not without negative aspects or that there is no room for improvements. The American attitude which assumes that we excel at everything overlooks areas in which we might benefit by studying how someone else does things. The complexity and chaos of a health care system which leaves 45 million citizens to the mercy of emergency room treatment for minor ailments, which costs the taxpayers a higher percentage of gross national income than any other nation, might well benefit by adapting some of the methods of those countries which cover all of their citizens with lower costs and better results. Socialist and communist countries have often outstripped us in such areas as education and health care, and it makes sense that we ought to imitate whatever aspect of their successes would prove advantageous to ourselves. We first need to acknowledge that there is room for improvement in our still imperfect society.

My final view on capitalism is that in a country, the United States, which promotes all types of equality, uses an economic system that promotes economic inequality. I say that because within modern market economies is because wages are determined by a market, and are hence influenced by supply and demand. In this view, inequality is caused by the differences in the supply and demand for different types of work. Also, capitalism can lead to a type of government known as Imperialism.

[LeopardPM]

Do I have to read it all?

Quote: Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution, and other trade of goods and services, for profit in a competitive free market.

this is the problem with the redefinition of 'capitalism' - actual capitalism is a pure free market with ALL property ('means of production' and otherwise, no difference) privately owned. The definition you give is really 'State Capitalism' or perhaps 'State Corporatism'.

It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition. I guess its yet another lost word given over to the socialists... just like the conservative socialists are trying to redefine 'free trade' as something arranged by governments with restrictions and quotas....

[economic_reform]

I am a socialist, or I like to believe so. So I think that capitalism has some fatal flaws in it. Personally I believe that there are certain things that the government should control such as:

1) Health Care

2) Education

3) Some aspects of industry (such as weapons manufacturing)

Now on #3 dont get me wrong 'm all for Anti-Gun control movements AND Gun-Control movements, I have no stance on that issue. But still shouldnt the government control Health in regard to people who do not have enough money to pay for insurance. Sure, it is their own fault they didn't do well enough in school, but does that mean they shouldn't have the benefits that others have. I mean should every person who cannot afford insurance or medical bills be denied the right to health?

As for #2. Education, our government seems pretty well concerned with. But America has a , correct me if I'm wrong, 94% literacy rate. That isn't to impressive if you look at other countries literacy rates. I do take in the fact that we are about to hit 300 million people. Sure that is alot of people to teach to read, but I'm not shooting for a 100% literacy rate, just have the U.S. meet the literacy quota.

Not trying to press my political views upon you but Socialism just seems like a better form of government in that they are more involved with their citizens, whereas Capitalism is kinda like a big playground for huge corporations to take advantage of.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Quote: Now before we start, I am all for capitalism, but if you look at the pros and cons of the economic system (all economic systems are different, I understand this) you will see that maybe the age of U.S. capitalism has turned into U.S. Imperialism. I wrote an essay in college briefly discussing the economical pros and cons of capitalism. I would like to hear you guys' opinions on the paper and what is "subjective" and "opinionative". Also before we begin this was a two page essay, so something were not taken to far into detail but also the piece itself is quite lengthy.

Capitalism

Section I

Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution, and other trade of goods and services, for profit in a competitive free market.
you start out with a false definition. Capitalism is one in which all the means of production are privately owned.

[economic_reform]

Not all means of production is private....I pray to God that our nuclear weaponry and biological weaponry is not privately manufactured and distributed. But anyway if you didn't read the rest of it or pay attention, I stated that the essay was about the economical pros and cons of Capitalism:

Pros:

1) A sense of "freedom"

2) Ability to achieve wealth through smarts, hard work and sometimes, luck.

3) A market where the government has very little influence

Cons:

1) Puts a sense false freedom in the country's mind. (Which is in the pros I said "freedom" in quotes)

2) Most capitalistic economies have failed.

3) Members of upper and middle class society recieve benefits that should be accessible to the lower branch of society as well (Ex: Free Health Care [no insurance] and Free public education [no upper class private schools that get more recognition just because a child's parents have money]

[Corona]

economic_reform wrote:

2) Most capitalistic economies have failed.



Examples please, and reasons.

[Roy L]

LeopardPM wrote: Do I have to read it all?

Quote: Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution, and other trade of goods and services, for profit in a competitive free market.

this is the problem with the redefinition of 'capitalism' - actual capitalism is a pure free market with ALL property ('means of production' and otherwise, no difference) privately owned. The definition you give is really 'State Capitalism' or perhaps 'State Corporatism'.
??? YOU are the one trying to redefine capitalism so strictly that even the USA is not and has never been capitalist.

Ridiculous.
Quote:
It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition.
What's really sad is the minority of people who think they can get the naive to embrace feudalism by calling it capitalism.
Quote:
I guess its yet another lost word given over to the socialists... just like the conservative socialists are trying to redefine 'free trade' as something arranged by governments with restrictions and quotas.... It's the greed-besotted elitist right that has done that, not socialists.

[Roy L]

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
you start out with a false definition. Capitalism is one in which all the means of production are privately owned.

Dictionary citation?

Thought not.

[Roy L]

economic_reform wrote:
2) Most capitalistic economies have failed.

Not compared to socialist economies.

[LeopardPM]

Roy L wrote:
??? YOU are the one trying to redefine capitalism so strictly that even the USA is not and has never been capitalist.

Ridiculous.
then the definition of capitalism is arbitrary if it states that 'property is mostly owned privately' - how much is mostly? No wonder so-called 'mixed economies' have come about, they are varying degrees of socialism is all, at the expense of true capitalism. One might call an economy 'capitalistic' as it closer appraoches capitalism, but if the government is involved, then capitalism it is not. This is why I prefer to use the term 'free market' as its meaning isn't yet diluted with all the modern connotations of capitalism, even though they are the same thing.

Quote: Quote:
It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition.
What's really sad is the minority of people who think they can get the naive to embrace feudalism by calling it capitalism.
a man's home is his castle...

there is a definite difference between traditional feudalism, as it occured in history, a capitalism/free market/anarchism - the traditional still has varying aspects of the state associated with it while actual capitalism has power distributed according to desires of the people participating and allowing for all to NOT participate.

Quote: Quote:
I guess its yet another lost word given over to the socialists... just like the conservative socialists are trying to redefine 'free trade' as something arranged by governments with restrictions and quotas.... It's the greed-besotted elitist right that has done that, not socialists.
socialism or having socialistic tendencies is a function of how much someone believes in the government to solve the ills of man - he can be either of left or right influence and still be socialist... so I agree that it is the right-socialists that have been trying to steal 'free trade' for themselves.

[economic_reform]

Corona wrote: economic_reform wrote:

2) Most capitalistic economies have failed.



Examples please, and reasons.

1) The Ottoman Empire was a based on capitalism in the 19th century.

2) The country of Peru cannot adjust to capitalism, therefor causing rebellions and protests.

[Comrade Dave]

Roy L wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
you start out with a false definition. Capitalism is one in which all the means of production are privately owned.

Dictionary citation?

Thought not.

**Marxist definition

[Comrade Dave]

economic_reform wrote: Corona wrote: economic_reform wrote:

2) Most capitalistic economies have failed.



Examples please, and reasons.

1) The Ottoman Empire was a based on capitalism in the 19th century.

2) The country of Peru cannot adjust to capitalism, therefor causing rebellions and protests.
That's completely inductive. While I agree with what you originally said, by offering only two examples it doesn't quite substantiate your original claim that most capitalist economies have failed.

I would point most prominently to the U.S., in which we have a 12.7% poverty rate (in 2004! And nothing has happened since then to drive it down so chances are it's higher). We have a huge class distinction between the rich and poor (top 20% of society owns 80% of the wealth) and our elections are hardly democratic anymore (due to soft money). Capitalism has killed any ideas of democracy our founding fathers had.

[smuj]

LeopardPM wrote: Do I have to read it all?

Quote: Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution, and other trade of goods and services, for profit in a competitive free market.

this is the problem with the redefinition of 'capitalism' - actual capitalism is a pure free market with ALL property ('means of production' and otherwise, no difference) privately owned. The definition you give is really 'State Capitalism' or perhaps 'State Corporatism'.

It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition. I guess its yet another lost word given over to the socialists... just like the conservative socialists are trying to redefine 'free trade' as something arranged by governments with restrictions and quotas....

We should make it clear, that capitalism is an economic sytem, not a political system.

We should also make it clear that a 'free market' is not necessarily a 'fair market'.

The problems I see in capitalism, as it has been manifested in the u.s., is that private industry has no accountability to the public at large, even though it does have undue influence over political decisions.

When boards of directors can be voted in and out of their jobs, I'll embrace the current system, until then, I'm an anarchist.

[Roy L]

Comrade Dave wrote: We have a huge class distinction between the rich and poor (top 20% of society owns 80% of the wealth)
No. Such a distribution would be far more equal than is actually seen in any capitalist country. In the USA, the top 1% owns more than the bottom 90%.

[Roy L]

LeopardPM wrote: Roy L wrote:
??? YOU are the one trying to redefine capitalism so strictly that even the USA is not and has never been capitalist.

Ridiculous.
then the definition of capitalism is arbitrary if it states that 'property is mostly owned privately' - how much is mostly?
More than half. Duh. And it's actually just the means of production, not all property.
Quote: Quote: Quote:
It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition.
What's really sad is the minority of people who think they can get the naive to embrace feudalism by calling it capitalism.
a man's home is his castle... And his landlord's welfare check.

[LeopardPM]

Roy L wrote: LeopardPM wrote: a man's home is his castle... And his landlord's welfare check. or his community's bloodmoney under Georgism...

[Gus]

Everyone that I know has, at one point or another, compromised their own beliefs to something they thought was more right. Considering that the track record for a human's cogitative perfection is 0%, I think it would be foolish to demand 100% application of a theory created solely by one.

That said, definitions aren't "true" or "false" either...they're either agreed upon or not agreed upon. Thus, Leopard was right in saying that the definition of capitalism is arbitrary--it only means the same thing to somebody else as it does to him if their concepts of its words are identical to his.

So discrediting the article because of the "wrong" definition is foolish, I think. Because words have no logical definitions, all that matters in the analysis of the piece is that you understand what his definitions are, not your own. Your own definitions of the words he uses are irrelevant. Nobody is the sole universal authority on what a word represents.

[bob.appleyard]

LeopardPM wrote: It is very sad when the majority of the people actually believe that 'capitalism' somehow has a place for the state to exist within its definition.

How is property protected?

[Norbert]

[quote="Roy L"] economic_reform wrote:
2) Most capitalistic economies have failed.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: i-

Where the Hell is a "hammer and sickle smiley"