The rich are not more trustworthy than the poor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Otavio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it preposterous that anyone would even think that the rich are more trustworthy than the poor. I am not sure if they are less trustworthy, but the one thing we know is that the rich are sinners, just like anyone else. So would I trust a rich person, of course not. Of course, my attitude would not change even if they were poor.
 
GEddie said:
Methinks that is an overstatement.

Irrespective of the economic system, Government requires to procure goods and services – more, in fact, than anybody else. And corruption and bribery would be employed by the heads of businesses to ensure they got those lucrative contracts.
Click to expand...
Not if bribery was illegal and political campaign contributions could not be accepted from any
individual, corporation or group.
Also, some sectors, like transportation and mining, require regulation for the general good. So pure capitalism is not the ideal state.
Click to expand...
No economic system is ideal. Capitalism, when LEAST regulated, comes the closest.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I find it preposterous that anyone would even think that the rich are more trustworthy than the poor. I am not sure if they are less trustworthy, but the one thing we know is that the rich are sinners, just like anyone else. So would I trust a rich person, of course not. Of course, my attitude would not change even if they were poor.
Click to expand...
🙂 Sounds like you don’t trust anybody…🙂
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
…IF true Capitalism existed anywhere in the world today… corruption and bribery could not exist. Because in a true Capitalist economy, government has no authority over the Free Market. Once the first government regulation is imposed…the Market ceases to be Free. What we have are “mixed economies”. If problems exist within these flawed systems it is because of government intervention into the Market…not Capitalism.
Click to expand...
Your statement reads like an act of faith, rather than a reasoned conclusion. Pure Capitalism rests on self-interest, which in an unregulated environment, has predictable consequences, notwithstanding laws about conduct. I wonder if you imagine pure capitalism implies perfect competition, which is a theoretical state of markets which is rare for practical reasons unrelated to the existence of governments.
 
Rau said:
Your statement reads like an act of faith, rather than a reasoned conclusion. Pure Capitalism rests on self-interest, which in an unregulated environment, has predictable consequences, notwithstanding laws about conduct. I wonder if you imagine pure capitalism implies perfect competition, which is a theoretical state of markets which is rare for practical reasons unrelated to the existence of governments.
Click to expand...
Rau, old friend, you are getting a bit “deep”. I am not sure I understand your “wonder”.

Let me state that “perfect competition” implies equality. Since competition involves winners and losers, there cannot be equality. What Pure Capitalism offers is an equal opportunity to succeed or fail.

Pure Capitalism does have predictable consequences, Historically it goes like this:

Free Market…Prosperity
Then…Government intervention
Then Socialism/communism…Poverty
Then Totalitarianism…Slavery
Then collapse or revolt
Then back to a Free Market.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Free Market…Prosperity
Then…Government intervention
Then Socialism/communism…Poverty
Then Totalitarianism…Slavery
Then collapse or revolt
Then back to a Free Market.
Click to expand...
While the starting point in that story is far preferable to the ending point, the story is nevertheless fictional. And incomplete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top