Is capitalism good?

[Deepak]

I am only 23 yrs old but this is what I think....

It may have done wonders for developed world and also for few lucky ones in the 3rd world. Initially I was a staunch supporter of free market economy and am still is but I some feel that it did not do what it promised. For example in India, after 1991 (begining of free market economy) a lot of wealth was generated but it is yet to reach poor. The divide between rich and poor is increasing. I am distressed to see a few people earning (by hook or crook) millions and on other hand millions don't have anything to eat. They are forced to live in inhuman conditions.

Seriously if I were to meet god and he happens to grant me a wish, I would ask him to remove poverty and make everyone happy.

 

[Sazar]

I am only 23 yrs old but this is what I think....

It may have done wonders for developed world and also for few lucky ones in the 3rd world. Initially I was a staunch supporter of free market economy and am still is but I some feel that it did not do what it promised. For example in India, after 1991 (begining of free market economy) a lot of wealth was generated but it is yet to reach poor. The divide between rich and poor is increasing. I am distressed to see a few people earning (by hook or crook) millions and on other hand millions don't have anything to eat. They are forced to live in inhuman conditions.

Seriously if I were to meet god and he happens to grant me a wish, I would ask him to remove poverty and make everyone happy.

ideals are great... heck even communism has great ideals... it is always during the implementation of the ideals where problems arise...

naturally during the implementation process human input is required and therein is the cause of the problems right there... we inherently want more power/wealth and what not... this is in our nature and therefore we often times will yield to the authority of leaders who talk and walk two very different lines...

capitalism == good... implementation of capitalism for the most part == pretty decent... but there are flaws

in india the biggest problems are corruption and lack of investment in infrastructure... corruption naturally exists in all countries... but in India the problem is @ the grass roots level... and grows from there exponentially... thereby sucking out a chunk of the economy that would otherwise benefit the middle class and below...

 

[Deepak]

ideals are great... heck even communism has great ideals... it is always during the implementation of the ideals where problems arise...

??

in india the biggest problems are corruption and lack of investment in infrastructure... corruption naturally exists in all countries... but in India the problem is @ the grass roots level... and grows from there exponentially... thereby sucking out a chunk of the economy that would otherwise benefit the middle class and below...

Alongwith curruption another equally big problem is our population, we are now more than a billion, at independence we were around 300+ M. Our population has grrown so much at everything seems inadequate in comparison....whether health facilities/infrastructure etc.

But really I can't really digest the fact that world's richest man is earning billions and millions of children are dying becse they don;t have anything to eat, no medical facilities, no water, no house, nothing.....I mean there has to be some solution....even if it is long term....can't see light at the end of tunnel.

 

[jvd]

I'm only 21 years old but after learning the past i must say. We are allways making something better . SO while i think america is the best country we have and capitalism is the best concept we have . One day in the future we will make the next step. Just as our forefathers did when they formed america.

 

[Ilfirin]

The reality is that a large percentage of everything America is based around is no longer valid, or has been "interpreted" (and those interpretations interpreted, and so on) so much that it no longer has any meaning at all.

For instance, the whole concept of representative democracy is based around the assumption that having the people directly vote on matters is impossible/impractical. With proper investment, that assumption could very easily become invalid by doing all the voting via the internet and having a computer sum up everything. Of course a great deal of effort would have to be invested in making this un-exploitable, and that's what I meant by "with proper investment". Of course the reasons behind representatives has evolved far beyond that initial assumption, and so they might not become completely useless, but a lot of the duties they (and they includes all forms of representatives - senate, the house, president, etc) do now could be better handled through a more modern system.

Major decisions (such as war), for instance, should not be handled by representatives (such as the president). Their job in such cases should be to inform the people about all sides, and the implications of their voting - then let the people vote, majority wins.


Of course this is just short-sighted speculation, there's a million things to consider and re-invent if a new system of government were to be built.

Hmm, this point was much better formed in my mind before writing this.. think the caffeine is wearing off.

 

[Dave H]

For instance, the whole concept of representative democracy is based around the assumption that having the people directly vote on matters is impossible/impractical.

No, the whole concept of representative democracy is based around the assumption that having the people directly vote on all matters is a really stupid idea. Direct democracy (or a reasonable approximation of it) preceeded the American implementation of representative democracy with seperation of powers/checks and balances by about 2300 years. (Think Athens.) It was extremely well known to the Founding Fathers, and to the political philosophers on whose work American representative democracy is based. (Think Locke.)

They, and the founders of every country since, decided against direct democracy because it's a singularly bad way to organize society. Not because they were still on dial-up.

As for whether capitalism has failed India, that's a fascinating topic, but unfortunately I should really be getting to bed.

 

[epicstruggle]

@Ilfirin:
First the united states does not have a "representative democracy", what we have is a republic. We elected people (who we feel have a good grasp of things) to do the thinking for us. This whole business of representative democracy is ridiculous. Call a spade a spade, a democracy a democracy and a republic a republic.

Second can you imagine a contry where all major decisions were based on majority vote. How god awfull would that be. Lets state two issues which a majority of people in the US support, but would still be bad none the less:
Making burning the US flag illegal.
Teaching about god in school. (or that evolution is not a sound theory)

Also wars should not be decided by the masses, but by our leaders. Some wars although unpopular to those who would have to fight in them (read young people) are still worthy of fighting.

Currently there is no better type of govermnent then the one we have right now. There are places where it could be tweaked and improved but the gains would be minimal in my opinion.

later,

 

[Gubbi]

@Ilfirin:
First the united states does not have a "representative democracy", what we have is a republic. We elected people (who we feel have a good grasp of things) to do the thinking for us. This whole business of representative democracy is ridiculous. Call a spade a spade, a democracy a democracy and a republic a republic.

Well. The U.S. *is* a representative democracy. It is also a republic, but that just means that your head of state is elected directly (as opposed to say the U.K. where the head of government automatically becomes head honcho).

Second can you imagine a contry where all major decisions were based on majority vote. How god awfull would that be.

It would be like ... Switzerland, where they've had direct democracy for years.

What is horrible about it is that you get extremely low participation. And that there is no guarantee that the active voters know what they are voting about.

Lets state two issues which a majority of people in the US support, but would still be bad none the less:
Making burning the US flag illegal.
Teaching about god in school. (or that evolution is not a sound theory)

Yes, God forbid that we get any kind of debate going.

Currently there is no better type of govermnent then the one we have right now. There are places where it could be tweaked and improved but the gains would be minimal in my opinion.

With 3 competing power-structures, the President, Congress and the Senate ? I'm pretty sure it can be done better.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[davefb]

Isn't india the worlds most populous democracy? with all it's good points and bad , at least it's the choice of indian people :-/ ,, well in theory anyway .

w.r.t. wealth and poverty, i suspect the only thing people in the west can really do is to try to "buy sensibly" ie take some personal responsabilty on the products we purchase, though i suspect this is my "30 something guardian reader" ness showing thru

is there anything else we can do?

-dave-

 

[zidane1strife]

ideals are great... heck even communism has great ideals... it is always during the implementation of the ideals where problems arise...

Reality, and its boundaries can be molded to suit or needs… we’ve been gifted with such abilities.

naturally during the implementation process human input is required and therein is the cause of the problems right there... we inherently want more power/wealth and what not... this is in our nature and therefore we often times will yield to the authority of leaders who talk and walk two very different lines...

We shall remove those natural urges at their genetic root(ingegneria genetica)… and the leaders themselves shall become limited.

capitalism == good... implementation of capitalism for the most part == pretty decent... but there are flaws

Capitalism is partially good, but it is inherently flawed… It should not be the means by which the world runs.

It shall be limited to a few aspects of social life, a niche, as to allow for status, but only in a social way and a few privileges, not to run the world.

Along with curruption another equally big problem is our population, we are now more than a billion, at independence we were around 300+ M. Our population has grrown so much at everything seems inadequate in comparison....whether health facilities/infrastructure etc.

But really I can't really digest the fact that world's richest man is earning billions and millions of children are dying becse they don;t have anything to eat, no medical facilities, no water, no house, nothing.....I mean there has to be some solution....even if it is long term....can't see light at the end of tunnel.

The gov.s of the world will be forced to sterilize the entirety of the human race, as longevity becomes unbound, and accidents/crime/disease cease to exist.(those that apply for, and are suited, will be allowed to become parents shall the need arise.)

The population will diminish, and all human beings will be able to live in upper-middle class or above conditions, thanks to macchina taking over the menial tasks of the lower classes(which will be raised in status to upper-middle or above.). The tasks at the top will also be run by macchina supervised by conscious individuals, who will act as leaders.

Major decisions (such as war), for instance, should not be handled by representatives (such as the president).

No more individual nations… No more oppressed… No more war.

As for whether capitalism has failed India, that's a fascinating topic, but unfortunately I should really be getting to bed.

Capitalism has failed everywhere… the American dream is but an illusion, even the greatests of ideas/talents/etc can easily, and will easily fail/be overtaken, it depends as much on luck, as it does in everything else. Now the system is allowing for those at the top to remain there, and making it ever harder for those at the bottom(who basically had no real chance to go up, unless they got some luck.)… this in turn is making those at the top ever richer and those at the bottom ever poorer

I'm pretty sure it can be done better.

FAR BETTER

is there anything else we can do?

Embrace the changes that are to come...

edited

 

[RussSchultz]

With 3 competing power-structures, the President, Congress and the Senate ? I'm pretty sure it can be done better.

I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. Having competing power structures prevents any one of them from becoming overpowering, and it also slows down any decisions so that they can be more carefully considered. This is good for economies and investment because of the predictibility of the future.

A direct democracy becomes a popularity poll that will have wild swings in laws will only drive capital away.

 

[Gubbi]

is there anything else we can do?

Elect people who care ?

The problem is that when push comes to shove good intentions almost always lose out.

Consider a politicians choice of raising the tax on gas or lowering the support for educating women in the third world. Illiterate women from the 3rd world won't be blocking the M1 while honking.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Gubbi]

With 3 competing power-structures, the President, Congress and the Senate ? I'm pretty sure it can be done better.

I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. Having competing power structures prevents any one of them from becoming overpowering

This also prevents any one of them of governing.

Of course the issue is complicated in the U.S. by the fact that it is a federal nation (ie. no Senate in "normal republics").

Most political systems has pathological cases. My personel preference, multi party government (with one level of government) completely fails when the government is in minority. Look at Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and others for it to work. look at Italy for the past 40 years to see how it fails.

A direct democracy becomes a popularity poll that will have wild swings in laws will only drive capital away.

Agreed. The risk of very short-sighted legislation is high.

It takes professionals to govern.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Ilfirin]

@Dave H

No one ever said anything about using such a system for every matter - in fact, I explicitly stated it would only be used for major decisions; decisions where EVERYONE is affected and thus everyone should be involved in making the decision. These decisions would be explicitly listed in the governing document and would be of a number one could count on one hand (if not one finger)

The system I was proposing has nothing to do with the speed of your connection - it wouldn't even be possible now without sufficient R & D.

I also stated that it was an ill-formed and short-sighted thought. But I posted it anyway because I think the implications of the internet on the structure of government is an interesting and valid topic of discussion, even if it was started off on the wrong foot.

@epicstruggle
A representative democracy (as opposed to a direct democracy) is a system where voting is done by representatives who represent the people. That is the system the US has, along with a million other pointless descriptors (such as republic).

I agree that the majority wouldn't work for virtually any decision since the majority opinion is almost always wrong. But the status quo won’t due - all politicians today, with few exceptions, are corrupt, untrustworthy, and rather dumb. The politicians know this, the people know this, everyone knows this and no one cares. It's just the accepted state of affairs. The entire world is run by the people least capable of running it and no one cares. And why should they care? It doesn't affect them.

But even if the politicians were perfectly legit, honest, and good people it wouldn’t matter because people would only vote for those who would better their own position. The reality is that even if the people voted directly the exact same thing would happen – everyone would vote for what’s best for themselves, groups would then form of people in similar conditions, all collaborating together for what’s best for the group, and you’d be left with a handful of groups warring over decisions to best affect themselves – all of them completely oblivious to the big picture, all of them completely wasting their lives.

 

[Ilfirin]

With regards to capitalism, through a fundamental flaw it does a great disservice to all mankind – it is based around money. It instills the thought in everyone's mind that the purpose to life is to make money - that you should be employee 157,893 at IniTech so that you can get more and more shit you don't need. And then when you decide you want to quit, you realize that you can't or else you'll lose all that shit you bought. So you continue being employee 157,893 until you retire and die. Never contributing anything at all to mankind, so you mine as well never have lived - your life was a complete waste. But what do you care? You're dead.

But it isn't all bad - it does allow that .001% of people that realize early on that the only life worth living is one that makes the world better in some way to live too and they can get some work done, even if it is slowed greatly. It also serves to keep that other 99.999% (the “sheepâ€) from screwing everything up even worse than it already is. A life that doesn’t contribute anything is still better than one that actively works against humanity (though I have my doubts about this actually, since truly “evil†(for lack of a better word – think Hitler) people have historically caused great people to spring up, and best yet, collaborate together for the common good. Maybe an entity of pure "evil" is exactly what's needed to wake everyone up), and you need people to do the grunt work.

And to be fair, it isn’t really a flaw of capitalism or the US government but the flaw of the “education†system. And it isn’t actually a flaw – it was intentionally designed that way:

"Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average American (should be) content with their humble role in life, because they're not tempted to think about any other role."
-- William Torrey Harris (U.S. Commissioner of Education - 1889)

Overall it is probably one of the better systems in existence right now, but that's not saying much and if you limit your thinking to that which already exists you limit your thinking to that of a rotting piece of wood.

 

[Gubbi]

@Dave H

No one ever said anything about using such a system for every matter - in fact, I explicitly stated it would only be used for major decisions; decisions where EVERYONE is affected and thus everyone should be involved in making the decision. These decisions would be explicitly listed in the governing document and would be of a number one could count on one hand (if not one finger)

Popular referendums has been used here in Denmark for *big* political questions. Like when Denmark entered the EU. the Maarstricht treaty (transfer of sovereignty to the EU) and wetherwe where to join the Euro (which we didn't ). But these are rather rare (ie. 4-5 referendums in 30 years).

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Gubbi]

With regards to capitalism, through ....<snip>

That made no sense whatsoever.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Ilfirin]

Yeah, I wouldn't expect it to anymore, it's a clichéd argument anyway. It's 10AM here and I haven't gone to sleep yet, and I don't even remember when the last time I did was.

You can safely ignore that last one (and probably both the others too) as pointless bickering and incoherent rambling.

 

[epicstruggle]

@epicstruggle
A representative democracy (as opposed to a direct democracy) is a system where voting is done by representatives who represent the people. That is the system the US has, along with a million other pointless descriptors (such as republic).

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

...
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

I will let words more elonquantly(sp?) spoken and written words do the arguing for me. Im supprised someone didnt tell our founding fathers that a republic was just some "pointless descriptors".

Democracy == MOBacracy


later,
[/quote]

 

[Ilfirin]

Ok, so that might be the single political term that isn't a pointless descriptor whose meaning died off ages ago. Not because of anything the "founding fathers" or you said, but because Plato gave it a valid definition millennia ago.

Anyway, enough making an ass out of myself for one day. I'm going to sleep.