Is it ludicrous to think that the world will remain Capitalistic?

[Robert_Sock]

No there isn’t. The world is made up of distinct entities that have sovereignty that pursue their own economic agenda. Why not counter the rest of the claims in my post? Most children starve to death in countries that do not have free markets, free enterprise, and private property rights. Where the people do not have economic and political freedom.

The capitalistic nations in the West have a monopoly on the earth’s resources that render third-world nations to the status of ‘slavery,’ regardless of the economic system.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Tend to agree here. We are a diverse peoples. That is why it so important to respect the individual ethnic cultures of people who have survived over the ages.

Mother Theresa said the West and third world countries are two different mentalities. **But both serve each other. Without the poor, we would be so selfish and bored…and dangerous.
**
Pope John Paul II opinionated that he thought the free market with a strong moral voice is the best. Our power base is wanting to silence the moral voice of the Church.

Free market does improve product, avoid corruption. I also think of difficult times, cottage industries where people are closely connected to each other, helping each other. And how our DNA, one source said, is meant to consume a more simple diet of vegatables, fruits, grains, and less meat. We as a consumerist society, a throw away society with massive wealth, have terrible diets.

So you’re saying that the starvation of innocent people is a good thing!

 

[nmgauss]

So you’re saying that the starvation of innocent people is a good thing!

The very fact that a mature living thing is a burden on itself to survive means that the failure to survive is not the fault of others. The laws of nature demonstrate that if resources are not sufficient to support a given population, starvation ensues.

Who is to say which creatures get the scarce resources? In Prophet Muhammad’s day, Arabia was a tough place in which to find the means of survival. Resources were so limited that warfare developed over competition for whatever was available. In such a situation, socialism would not have solved the problem. Either combat or wealth was a way for the survivors to succeed. Only those who developed wealth through mercantilism were able to rise above the level of abject poverty. This of, course, was capitalism.

 

[DrTaffy]

And its aborted experiment in capitalism during the 1990s led to great poverty, sweeping unemployment and turned it into a country run by criminal gangs, tycoons and directly led to a ruined economy, resulting in the return of yet another autocrat “strong man” in the form of Vladimir Putin.

I am not claiming that Capitalism is always and entirely immune to corruption. But there are many capitalist societies that deal reasonably well with the inevitable arseholes among them, while pretty much every communist society seems to fall prey to corrupt cliques. Socialism less dramatically so, but the observation still stands - capitalism seems more resistant to corruption from within than socialism and communism, at least as embodied so far.

 

[DrTaffy]

Will technology evolve to such a point before the world depletes its finite resources ?

Futurology is a mug’s game, in my opinion, so who can tell? Especially in this case - the most obvious game-changing technologies are things like AI and nanotechnology, which could mature in a few years or never do so, while the other side of the balance sheet is whether the population will continue to explode or collapse as the western lifestyle spreads to ‘developing’ countries.

 

[freeRadical]

Nations that have starvation are living in a world of greedy capitalists who hoard all the earths resources for themselves. IT’S A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY!!!

I don’t know why I take you seriously. You are very ignorant of history and economics.

 

[freeRadical]

The capitalistic nations in the West have a monopoly on the earth’s resources that render third-world nations to the status of ‘slavery,’ regardless of the economic system.

Maybe if those third world nations followed in the footsteps of the West and had free markets, free enterprise, private property rights, and economic and political freedom then they wouldn’t be relegated to the status of “slaves”, to use your terminology. You believe that economics is a zero-sum game. For me to gain, you must lose. But that is patently false. Economics is a positive-sum game. The economic pie is not fixed. For me to gain doesn’t mean you have to lose. But it takes a system of free markets, free enterprise, private property rights, and economic and political freedom to make this happen.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Pope Francis may not be a Marxist, but the world will eventually be Socialistic. Capitalism is doomed as a fair and just economic system, and must be abandoned. Socialism is more ready to lend itself to true Humanitarian causes, which the vast number of people will support. Capitalism is inherently anti-humanitarian, and must not be allowed due to the human atrocities that it produces.

Capitalism always exists…like God. Even in the most socialist societies, capitalism exists.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

There is no “world” economic system. The world is made up of countries that have vastly different economic systems.

Actually there is, and it IS capitalism. No matter where you go in the world, capitalism exists. If you nail two sticks together in a way that I want it enough to give you something for it (let’s call that something “X”), and YOU think that “X” has more value than the two sticks you nailed together, then we just engaged in a capital market.

And the great thing about a capital market is that, in that exchange (my “X” for your two sticks nailed together), both the “X” and the two sticks nailed together just increased in value.

Capitalism exists everywhere, even when the most dictatorial socialist/communist regime tries to control every aspect of every individual’s life trying to stamp it out.

Socialism is simply the aggregation of power into a few people’s hand so that they can prosper while everyone else is forced into communal living.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

The capitalistic nations in the West have a monopoly on the earth’s resources that render third-world nations to the status of ‘slavery,’ regardless of the economic system.

You have been indoctrinated. Many third-world nations have IMMENSE resources. Africa still has, arguably, as much resources as north america did 400 years ago. Why didn’t the American Indians exploit the natural resources of North America? Why doesn’t Africa rise above third-world status??

It has nothing to do with resources, unless you consider the ability to embrace (measured) capitalism as a resource. American indian culture and african culture does not embrace capitalism, therefore the resources upon which they sat (sit) make no difference.

 

[freeRadical]

Actually there is, and it IS capitalism. No matter where you go in the world, capitalism exists. If you nail two sticks together in a way that I want it enough to give you something for it (let’s call that something “X”), and YOU think that “X” has more value than the two sticks you nailed together, then we just engaged in a capital market.

And the great thing about a capital market is that, in that exchange (my “X” for your two sticks nailed together), both the “X” and the two sticks nailed together just increased in value.

Capitalism exists everywhere, even when the most dictatorial socialist/communist regime tries to control every aspect of every individual’s life trying to stamp it out.

Socialism is simply the aggregation of power into a few people’s hand so that they can prosper while everyone else is forced into communal living.

That’s not Capitalism. Capitalism is in economic system in which the means of production are controlled by private owners. What you described is voluntary exchange in a market. Capitalism is not everywhere. Countries in which the means of production are controlled by the government are not Capitalistic countries.

Socialism is when the means of production are controlled by the government.

Communism is when the means of production are held in common.

I think what you meant to say is that voluntary exchange is everywhere but that is debatable.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

That’s not Capitalism. Capitalism is in economic system in which the means of production are controlled by private owners. What you described is voluntary exchange in a market. Capitalism is not everywhere. Countries in which the means of production are controlled by the government are not Capitalistic countries.

Socialism is when the means of production are controlled by the government.

Communism is when the means of production are held in common.

I think what you meant to say is that voluntary exchange is everywhere but that is debatable.

What is the difference between voluntary exchange and capitalism? If we are in the slums of Haiti, and you nail two sticks together in a way that I need them to hold up my tin roof, and I voluntarily trade you my Denver Bronco’s superbowl champions sweatshirt for them, then we just engaged in voluntary exchange in a capitalistic market. Right?

 

[freeRadical]

What is the difference between voluntary exchange and capitalism? If we are in the slums of Haiti, and you nail two sticks together in a way that I need them to hold up my tin roof, and I voluntarily trade you my Denver Bronco’s superbowl champions sweatshirt for them, then we just engaged in voluntary exchange in a capitalistic market. Right?

No you engaged in voluntary exchange, not necessarily in a market. The difference is who controls the means of production. You can have voluntary exchange in a Socialist country, in which the means of production is controlled by the government. Albeit, it would be limited in some ways. Most free markets, free enterprise, and voluntary exchange are found in Capitalistic countries, but they are not the same thing.

In your specific example it depends on who made the Denver Bronco’s sweatshirt. A private company or the government? You can trade your sweatshirt for the sticks in both a Capitalistic country and a Socialist country.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

No you engaged in voluntary exchange, not necessarily in a market. The difference is who controls the means of production. You can have voluntary exchange in a Socialist country, in which the means of production is controlled by the government. Albeit, it would be limited in some ways. Most free markets, free enterprise, and voluntary exchange are found in Capitalistic countries, but they are not the same thing.

In your specific example it depends on who made the Denver Bronco’s sweatshirt. A private company or the government? You can trade your sweatshirt for the sticks in both a Capitalistic country and a Socialist country.

Okay, I got you…but I still argue that capitalism always exist because if there is a market for something (ie: two sticks, a Denver Bronco’s sweatshirt, marijuana, methamphetamines, firearms, etc), then someone will supply it regardless of whether the government controls production of said items.

 

[freeRadical]

Okay, I got you…but I still argue that capitalism always exist because if there is a market for something (ie: two sticks, a Denver Bronco’s sweatshirt, marijuana, methamphetamines, firearms, etc), then someone will supply it regardless of whether the government controls production of said items.

If the government owns the means of production then how can people supply anything?

 

[Robert_Sock]

You have been indoctrinated. Many third-world nations have IMMENSE resources. Africa still has, arguably, as much resources as north america did 400 years ago. Why didn’t the American Indians exploit the natural resources of North America? Why doesn’t Africa rise above third-world status??

It has nothing to do with resources, unless you consider the ability to embrace (measured) capitalism as a resource. American indian culture and african culture does not embrace capitalism, therefore the resources upon which they sat (sit) make no difference.

Yes, of course Africa has plenty of resources, but these resources are being controlled by Western capitalism.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

If the government owns the means of production then how can people supply anything?

by bootleg, by smuggling, by piracy. capitalism will always find a way.

 

[freeRadical]

by bootleg, by smuggling, by piracy. capitalism will always find a way.

I don’t think you understand what I mean by controlling the means of production. How can people produce anything if they don’t have the means to produce it?

In your previous post you mentioned meth. How can someone produce meth if they cannot acquire the materials to produce it because the government owns this material?

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Yes, of course Africa has plenty of resources, but these resources are being controlled by Western capitalism.

Wrong again. Your indoctrination fails you once again.

Western capitalism utterly defeated the American Indian, and has taken advantage of the resources of North America to produce the greatest economy in the history of the world.

Western capitalism has been TRYING to take advantage of vast African resources, but has never been able to because they were not able to utterly defeat the African people.

Just as God is the root of our conscious, capitalism is the root of true economy. Socialism/communism is evil because it ALWAYS involves the subjugation of the masses by an elite few. Just look at America today. While we have a president who rails against “income inequality”, this inequality has been exacerbated during his years in office. How? By increased regulations that prevent upward mobility, thus ensuring his elite supporters maintain their power.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I don’t think you understand what I mean by controlling the means of production. How can people produce anything if they don’t have the means to produce it?

In your previous post you mentioned meth. How can someone produce meth if they cannot acquire the materials to produce it because the government owns this material?

In the case of meth, they can either steal it, can aquire it under false pretenses, or make it themselves in a simple laboratory.

Or, in the case of Marijuana (whose production is TOTALLY under the control of the federal DEA), they can grow it themselves.

Bottom line is if someone wants to buy something bad enough it will CREATE a capitalistic market to supply it.