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

[holyreyes]

freeRadical wrote:

It says that any ideology claiming to solve all mankind’s problems is the Anti-Christ. Communism claims to solve all mankind’s problems so it is Anti-Christ.

Communism is a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, and economic ideology and movement that aims at the establishment of this social order.

Getting rid of money, share everything equally, and live communally. That is Communism.

So just about any political and religious leaders, world governments, world religions including the Catholic Church, the Vatican and the Popes who try to solve mankind’s problems are considered “Communists” and “Anti-Christs?”

And you are also saying that religious nuns, monks and priests who live communally, sharing everything equally and rely on the actions of human kindness are automatically suspects of being “Communists” and therefore “Anti-Christ?” So a poor family without money who live communaly by sharing everything together are “Communists” and Anti-Christs?" OMG, freeRadical you have got to be kidding me… Don’t be so ludicrous. Lol…

 

[nmgauss]

Ask yourself how the world managed to grow and thrive in the past 150 years? Who’s to credit, if not governments? You could say that God is in control, and He is, but He works through people, including those individuals making up government. Whoever is in control, they are doing a real great job!

The world managed to grow because of private investments in the means of production. Means of production require capital, and in order to attract capital, a new venture tries to convince investors that the risk is low for total loss and return on their money is attractive. One of the main reasons that capital is not attracted to poor countries is unstable governments in which confiscation of the means of production is a danger. Look at what happened in Cuba when Castro took over. He confiscated property and means of production and investors lost huge assets. This is not the way to invite investors.

Foreigners like to invest in America because of its stable government and its long history of successful capitalism. American Investors are not ready to put their money in places like Somalia, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, etc. These places are extremely high risk for investors. On the other hand, places like Canada, Japan, India, United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands, are very attractive. Fortunately Mexico has climbed into the ranks of desirable places for investment.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Wow. Are you really that delusional. Governments are the reason that the world managed to grow and thrive in the past 150 years? No, they are not. Capitalism is the reason the world managed to grow and thrive in the past 150 years, despite the efforts of government to the contrary. Whoever is in control, is doing a horrible job.

Are you ever going to over to the Capitalism thread you started and answer my questions? It seems like you have completely abandoned that thread.

A world such as ours cannot possibly survive without guidance! Think about it; the implications are great!

You could at least have given credit to God!

What capitalism thread are you talking about?

 

[minkymurph]

The problem is people confuse economic systems and political systems. Socialism is an economic system in which the mean of production are owned by the State. Period. That is the definition. There are not different shades of Socialism. There is Socialism. Period. And the Church has condemned it. Period. People don’t understand what Socialism is and use the world “socialist” to describe things that have nothing to do with Socialism.

‘People don’t understand socialism’ is a huge generalization and what you write suggests you are not one of them, but what you write suggests your knowledge and understanding of political theory is very limited. Anyone who has read extensively on the topic knows what you say is inaccurate.

What caused the recession in the West was not Capitalism, it was government interference in the free market and the government and Federal Reserve’s implementation of failed Keynesian policies.

I can’t say specifically what caused the recession in your country as I have not studied it in detail, but I would guess you have not studied to any great extent the cause of economic recession in my country. I can tell you it had nothing to do failed Keynesian policies and I think I safely say the economic downtown in many other countries, and it is a global recession, was not a consequence of failed Keynesian policies.

Oh, so governments don’t restrict individual rights for the good of society they restrict individual rights to get re-elected.

I wrote this to rebut an assumption you made in regard to an assumption you thought I was making. What you have wrote here is another assumption in regards to what I think. I’ll tell you what I think.

Contrary to what you wrote in your last response to me, you do not think I think the government knows best for society as a whole and cares about what is best for society as whole.

I think you know what I was saying is I’m not naive enough to believe the desire to be re-elected does not influence their decision.

I also think you know I was not saying governments restrict individuals rights solely because they want re-elected.

You asked me why an individuals rights need to be restricted. I responded. Do you agree or disagree with what I said, or can you not think of a response or counter-argument to my response and so have resorted to a weak attempt to twist what I said knowing it was not what I meant?

 

[minkymurph]

Ask yourself how the world managed to grow and thrive in the past 150 years? Who’s to credit, if not governments? You could say that God is in control, and He is, but He works through people, including those individuals making up government. Whoever is in control, they are doing a real great job!

I would not say God is in control because in my view, only Calvinists believe that.

If the government is doing a great job in your part of the world good, I’m happy for you and I mean that. But how can you assert the whole world has grown and thrived for the past 150 years because of government? What about corrupt governments and dictatorships? Did God work through them? Did countries grown and people thrive under them? If you really believe what you have written I would say you see the world through rose coloured glasses.

The government in my country are NOT doing a great job by any stretch of the imagination and I am certainly far from alone in that thought!!

 

[nmgauss]

I can’t say specifically what caused the recession in your country as I have not studied it in detail, but I would guess you have not studied to any great extent the cause of economic recession in my country.

The roots of the last recession can be found in the government’s “American Dream” campaign that wanted people to own their own homes, thus encouraging banks to issue mortgages to people with poor credit rating. The government spurred GNMA and FHMLC to sell issue large number of mortgages to people whose credit history was questionable. Then a home-buying frenzy began driving prices of homes upward, thus resulting in a bubble that finally burst in 2008.

In addition, banking regulations were relaxed so that banks could introduce into their portfolios high risk instruments in addition to their main loan businesses. This meant that certain banks were more susceptible to failing.

So the market became flooded with junk mortgages that needed to be sold to investors. In order to sell them, quality mortgages began to be bundled with junk mortgages into packages called mortgage-backed securities, which tended to hide the high risk mortgages contained therein. There were so many mortgages issued to people with poor credit that it became an assembly line of signers who would OK the mortgages without even examining the credit histories of the borrowers.

Relaxation of traditional banking rules causing many poor securities to be sold to unsuspecting investors caused this debacle. This is unfettered capitalism against which Pope Francis has been speaking.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I see where you are coming from, Deacon. And I appreciate your frustration with our socialist forum members… but Distributism is a utopian train on its way to a wreck. It sounds good, but basic human nature would over power it in no time and open the door for any low life thug to step in as a dictator.

You studied Economics. I should not have to remind you that the founders of Distributism, while being good Catholics, had absolutely no economic background. That worries me right there.

I think I will stick with the Free Market and Capitalism. It has the best track record in history. Why fix things if the ain’t broken?

 

[minkymurph]

The roots of the last recession can be found in the government’s “American Dream” campaign that wanted people to own their own homes, thus encouraging banks to issue mortgages to people with poor credit rating. The government spurred GNMA and FHMLC to sell issue large number of mortgages to people whose credit history was questionable. Then a home-buying frenzy began driving prices of homes upward, thus resulting in a bubble that finally burst in 2008.

In addition, banking regulations were relaxed so that banks could introduce into their portfolios high risk instruments in addition to their main loan businesses. This meant that certain banks were more susceptible to failing.

So the market became flooded with junk mortgages that needed to be sold to investors. In order to sell them, quality mortgages began to be bundled with junk mortgages into packages called mortgage-backed securities, which tended to hide the high risk mortgages contained therein. There were so many mortgages issued to people with poor credit that it became an assembly line of signers who would OK the mortgages without even examining the credit histories of the borrowers.

Relaxation of traditional banking rules causing many poor securities to be sold to unsuspecting investors caused this debacle. This is unfettered capitalism against which Pope Francis has been speaking.

Wow! This was exactly the roots of the recession in my country too! People being encouraged to own their own homes, banks lent money to people with poor credit, inflated house prices, banks collapsed and were bailed out with taxpayers money, housing market collapsed and people caught in negative equity.

Thank you for the information.

In my view unfettered capitalism will cause economic collapse. There is any amount of evidence for it and I cannot understand why some people cannot see this. Unless they are so wealthy they can ride the tide and don’t care if others can’t.

 

[Robert_Sock]

CCC 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.”

This appears to bolster my claim that it’s the atheism and dictatorships within socialism that are being targeted, and not socialism per se.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I can understand why you say that but it was not meant to be harsh, merely realistic and was not intended as a criticism. Being selfish is not always a bad thing and being self-sacrificing is not always good.

Ten people apply for a public sector. Only one of those ten has no experience and he has less qualifications than everyone else, but his father lives next door to someone who holds a senior position. He gets the job. Not only does he get the job, he is lazy and incompetent and everyone else in the department has to carry him, but never disciplined. This is an example of unfairness working for someone -keeping them in job and a good worker out of it because they do not have an influential father.

That is a good example but I believe you are talking about a government job (public sector)
That sort of thing is rampant in government employment and is the reason government is wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt. Worst of all, the slacker cannot be fired.
I won’t say that favoritism does not exist in the corporate private sector but the risks are considerable higher. All involved in the bogus hiring from Senior management on down to the employee stand to lose. A business or Corporation simply cannot afford “dead weight”.

Another examples of benefiting from unfairness include getting a job because you attended an exclusive school for affluent pupils irrespective of your qualifications and yes - it does happen.

Yes, it does. In this country its called the “Good-old-boys syndrome”. But, you know, life itself is not fair. The only way to solve this kind of “unfairness” is to lower the standards of education. There are just too many success stories about people who overcame the education they missed out on because “Little Fauntleroy” got the seat at Harvard.

It was merely an opinion not an assertion of evidence. You are entitled to disagree but the reason I gave for this opinion is socialism focuses on community to a greater extent than capitalism. Capitalism focuses on the individual. Would you disagree with this? Would you say socialism is more individualistic than capitalism?

I would say that Capitalism is more individualist than socialism…yes.

But Capitalism focuses on Free Enterprise…socialism focuses on the collective/state.

I agree we should put our first and only when a society becomes prosperous can it begin to enjoy the things you mention. A thriving economy is an essential element of any society and when people are prosperous they are more inclined to be generous. Centralized economies are inefficient and will inevitably fail but my point is in affluent societies, generally speaking, people tend to be more insular and less concerned about there neighbor than less affluent societies. There is evidence the affluent have weaker social bonds than the disadvantaged.

There is a tendency within an affluent society to more insular. Because affluent people reach that level on their own. Their neighbors are capable of supporting themselves and don’t need concern.
As far as weaker social bonds…I would rather live with weaker social bonds in an affluent society than strong social bonds in a disadvantaged society. Wouldn’t you?

Perhaps you have not experienced the same trends as I have, and perhaps I am guilty of my own ‘pet hate’ which is over-generalization. What I will say is from capitalism took off in my part of the world social bonds have weakened, communities have considerably weakened, and people have become incredibly lazy.

Murph, I see that you came from Belfast. Therefore I assume you are talking about
Ireland. If so…you do not have a true Capitalist Free Market. In fact, a True Free Market does not exist anywhere in the world right now.
Anywhere a government exerts force, regulation and control of a market…true Capitalism cannot exist.
When you see that in order to produce something, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing…Capitalism cannot exist.

To illustrate, they don’t think they have to work hard or save anymore. They live on credit and think having a degree or being a manager entitles them to a big salary they don’t have to much to earn. My friends daughter left school at 16 with no qualifications and lasted a day in a job. She left because they wanted her to wash dishes!! That’s why we have so many people from less affluent countries employed here now, because they don’t think they are too good for washing dishes.

You can’t live on credit for long…unless the government is “Credit”.

This is a government problem not an economic one.

That is true. Socialist societies have a lower standard of living than Capitalist societies.
I wonder why. Perhaps it is because they place no value on the individual.

They have a lower standard of living because centralized economies are inefficient and there is no incentive for the individual. But, capitalist societies are much more materialistic and have weaker social bonds.

Dump the social bonds, get the government out of the economy, get everyone to work and become prosperous.

minkymurph:
The primary principal of Capitalism IS JUSTICE.

I thought it was profit.

Nope…profit is the motive…justice is the principle.

I would disagree because the reality is all of us to some extent must sacrifice individual rights for the good of society.

That. Sir. is a very dangerous proposition!

When a people begin to sacrifice individual rights…they are well on their way to become a society of sheep.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I would not say God is in control because in my view, only Calvinists believe that.

If the government is doing a great job in your part of the world good, I’m happy for you and I mean that. But how can you assert the whole world has grown and thrived for the past 150 years because of government? What about corrupt governments and dictatorships? Did God work through them? Did countries grown and people thrive under them? If you really believe what you have written I would say you see the world through rose coloured glasses.

The government in my country are NOT doing a great job by any stretch of the imagination and I am certainly far from alone in that thought!!

Yes, there are plenty of ‘corrupt’ governments in our world, but some degree of turmoil is to be expected given the extreme rates of populous and economic growth. Do you agree that Christ suffered and died for our salvation? If you do, why not espouse the view that Christ is guiding the world? It’s odd to me how Catholics can claim that God is all powerful, yet refuse the notion that God is capable of running our world.

 

[epan]

Yeah, practical cars killed lots of jobs in the horse and carriage industries, but they created many more jobs in mining, manufacturing, oil drilling and many other industries. Technology does not just kill jobs, it also creates new opportunities.

Perhaps. Time will tell.

A couple of things are certain, right now: technology is displacing workers, and the new jobs that you predict are not sufficient (yet) to compensate; new technology is concentrating wealth and subduing the lower classes at a level which has not been seen since the last technological revolution.

We need to examine how to come to terms with all if this. Some reforms are required.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Perhaps. Time will tell.

A couple of things are certain, right now: technology is displacing workers, and the new jobs that you predict are not sufficient (yet) to compensate; new technology is concentrating wealth and subduing the lower classes at a level which has not been seen since the last technological revolution.

Actually new technology has made many things far more accessible. A minimum wage worker in 2011 had far more purchasing power from one summer’s worth of wages than his counterpart in 1952 could ever dream of.

mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/08/young-americans-luckiest-generation-in.html

While we are on the topic of the minimum wage, 10 out 10 self-checkout kiosks agree that raising the minimum wage is a great idea.

We need to examine how to come to terms with all if this. Some reforms are required.

Government control of the economy was tried in the Soviet Union.

spoiler alert

It failed miserably.

 

[nmgauss]

Is it the right of every able bodied person to have a job? Does the world owe each person a job? Does the world owe each person a means of self support?

 

[Tzimisce]

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.

Socialism has never worked anywhere it’s been tried.

A great example is Venezuela. After 10 some odd years of socialism, they’re running out of milk and toilet paper.

The great irony of your assertions is that the more Socialist a society is, the more hostile to religion it is.

Karl Marx HATED religion. He called it “The opiate of the masses” - meaning he thought it was for stupid people. I’m sure he’d get a real kick out of hearing the Catholic pope use his rhetoric.

Socialism is also built on greed and stealing. In a socialist state if the government thinks you’re getting too much, they simply come and take the extra from you. This can be done against your will. In other words: theft.

Socialist states have committed some of the greatest atrocities ever known. From Hitler’s third Reich to Stalin’s Russia. And always done in the name of the “greater good”.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Socialism has never worked anywhere it’s been tried.

A great example is Venezuela. After 10 some odd years of socialism, they’re running out of milk and toilet paper.

The great irony of your assertions is that the more Socialist a society is, the more hostile to religion it is.

Karl Marx HATED religion. He called it “The opiate of the masses” - meaning he thought it was for stupid people. I’m sure he’d get a real kick out of hearing the Catholic pope use his rhetoric.

Socialism is also built on greed and stealing. In a socialist state if the government thinks you’re getting too much, they simply come and take the extra from you. This can be done against your will. In other words: theft.

Socialist states have committed some of the greatest atrocities ever known. From Hitler’s third Reich to Stalin’s Russia. And always done in the name of the “greater good”.

 

[nmgauss]

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on. Whether socialism in some form will eventually return as a major organizing force in human affairs is unknown, but no one can accurately appraise its prospects who has not taken into account the dramatic story of its rise and fall.

The Birth of Socialist Planning

It is often thought that the idea of socialism derives from the work of Karl Marx. In fact, Marx wrote only a few pages about socialism, as either a moral or a practical blueprint for society. The true architect of a socialist order was Lenin, who first faced the practical difficulties of organizing an economic system without the driving incentives of profit seeking or the self-generating constraints of competition. Lenin began from the long-standing delusion that economic organization would become less complex once the profit drive and the market mechanism had been dispensed with—“as self-evident,” he wrote, as “the extraordinarily simple operations of watching, recording, and issuing receipts, within the reach of anybody who can read and write and knows the first four rules of arithmetic.”

In fact, economic life pursued under these first four rules rapidly became so disorganized that within four years of the 1917 revolution, Soviet production had fallen to 14 percent of its prerevolutionary level. By 1921 Lenin was forced to institute the New Economic Policy (NEP), a partial return to the market incentives of capitalism. This brief mixture of socialism and capitalism came to an end in 1927 after Stalin instituted the process of forced collectivization that was to mobilize Russian resources for its leap into industrial power.
econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html

 

[CrossofChrist]

Again, I view the historical perspective as socialistic nations being dictatorships. It’s the dictatorships that caused these nations to abuse its citizens, not the underlying socialistic nature of these nations.

Whatever you may think about the history of socialism, it doesn’t negate the fact that the Church strongly disagrees with your view, that there is nothing per se wrong with socialism.

 

[CrossofChrist]

CCC 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.”

This appears to bolster my claim that it’s the atheism and dictatorships within socialism that are being targeted, and not socialism per se.

From the Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism):

For, while the socialists would destroy the “right” of property, alleging it to be a human invention altogether opposed to the inborn equality of man, and, claiming a community of goods, argue that poverty should not be peaceably endured, and that the property and privileges of the rich may be rightly invaded, the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate.

And just so people don’t take this out of context, the same Encyclical says:

*But not the less on this account does our holy Mother not neglect the care of the poor or omit to provide for their necessities; but, rather, drawing them to her with a mother’s embrace, and knowing that they bear the person of Christ Himself, who regards the smallest gift to the poor as a benefit conferred on Himself, holds them in great honor. She does all she can to help them; she provides homes and hospitals where they may be received, nourished, and cared for all the world over and watches over these. She is constantly pressing on the rich that most grave precept to give what remains to the poor; and she holds over their heads the divine sentence that unless they succor the needy they will be repaid by eternal torments. In fine, she does all she can to relieve and comfort the poor, either by holding up to them the example of Christ, "who being rich became poor for our sake,18 or by reminding them of his own words, wherein he pronounced the poor blessed and bade them hope for the reward of eternal bliss. *

This is just one Encyclical from among countless sayings and declaration from multiple Popes rebuking socialist ideology. Some others have already been brought up on this thread. It’s dishonest to try and use what the Church says to support socialism. If you’re going to support social democracy (or some other socialism led by the intelligentsia, something that you have hinted at supporting), it can’t be because of what the Church says.

 

[minkymurph]

That is a good example but I believe you are talking about a government job (public sector)

I am talking about the public sector. It also happens in the private sector but I would have less of a problem with that. There is no doubt that people who do not have a mom or dad who owns their own business are disadvantaged, but I would not like to see a law passed preventing parents from giving their kids a job - that’s what parents do. If I had my own business - which I don’t:crying: I would do the same. I would not want the government telling me I had to employ someone else.

That sort of thing is rampant in government employment and is the reason government is wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt. Worst of all, the slacker cannot be fired.
I won’t say that favoritism does not exist in the corporate private sector but the risks are considerable higher. All involved in the bogus hiring from Senior management on down to the employee stand to lose. A business or Corporation simply cannot afford “dead weight”.

I can’t say I disagree with your reasoning. I worked in the public sector and there is a lot of ‘dead weight.’ I was a union rep and it was my job and duty to defend them if needed, but that does not mean I liked it or agreed with it all the time. Some people were just keeping a good man/woman out of job and it caused a lot of resentment among other employees because they had to carry them. I do have to fall on a certain side because of principles I believe in, but that does not mean I am ignorant of the weaknesses.

Yes, it does. In this country its called the “Good-old-boys syndrome”. But, you know, life itself is not fair. The only way to solve this kind of “unfairness” is to lower the standards of education. There are just too many success stories about people who overcame the education they missed out on because “Little Fauntleroy” got the seat at Harvard.

That is so true. It’s not a fair world and it never will be. I’m too much of a realist to think otherwise, but I do hold to certain principles.

Can you enlarge on what you mean by lowering the standard of education? I’m interested in that.

But Capitalism focuses on Free Enterprise…socialism focuses on the collective/state.

I agree, and there is any amount of evidence centralized planning doesn’t work, but I don’t agree with unfettered capitalism.

Murph, I see that you came from Belfast. Therefore I assume you are talking about
Ireland. If so…you do not have a true Capitalist Free Market. In fact, a True Free Market does not exist anywhere in the world right now.
Anywhere a government exerts force, regulation and control of a market…true Capitalism cannot exist.
When you see that in order to produce something, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing…Capitalism cannot exist.

To an extent I agree with you. I am from Belfast and as a nationalist, we can never have autonomy if we are financially depended on the English. So yes, capitalism cannot exist because we are dependent on hand outs. We need to grow our own economy and support ourselves, but I cannot agree with unfettered capitalism.

Believe it or not, during the ‘Troubles’ community bonds were stronger and friendships real, not superficial. Now I am glad the violence has come to an end. I don’t want my kids growing up in the environment I did, but there is not doubt community bonds are weaker, friendships more superficial, and people more materialistic. I do blame capitalism because when the ‘Troubles’ ended some just saw pound signs and ways to make money and they didn’t care who it hurt. Needless to say it has now crashed and things are worse now than I ever knew them. Even compared to growing up in Belfast in the 70’s. It was caused by greed. People just couldn’t get enough money and they didn’t care how it would affect the economy long term.

You can’t live on credit for long…unless the government is “Credit”.

This is a government problem not an economic one.

Dump the social bonds, get the government out of the economy, get everyone to work and become prosperous.

No we can’t dump the social bonds! Everyone working and prospering yes, but if everyone is to work and be prosperous they need jobs. You can’t expect people to get out to work if employment is incredibly limited and nowhere near enough jobs to go around. Don’t say there is work out there. There is. But you can’t say the potential for full employment exists in a capitalist society. If it did, it would not be capitalist. Does capitalism not bank on a pool of unemployed?

Nope…profit is the motive…justice is the principle.

And a justice system motivated by profit is a good thing?

That. Sir. is a very dangerous proposition!

When a people begin to sacrifice individual rights…they are well on their way to become a society of sheep.

Read the post I made to free radical on the sacrifice of individual rights and come back to me on it.

I have to say, your great to debate with but one minor point, I’m not a Sir, I’m a madam.