Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Digital Warlord.

Capitalism vs Socialism

Recommended Posts

Digital Warlord.

As far as I can tell, this is the goal of each economic school of thought:

 

If 'utility' = 'what people value', then socialism is the opposite of what they value.

 

Also, this is a fundamental mistake of economics: 'money is worth more to poor people than rich'. What matters to people is not money, what matters is wealth (and individual values). Money is not wealth. If it were, then Greenspan would be my hero (he isn't).

 

The argument for markets then is, of course, that by allowing individuals freedom to choose, we endow them with the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own assessments of their expected utility, thereby dodging any need to attempt to calculate utilities to distribute goods.

 

Discuss...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

In my opinion, communism/socialism is too idealistic. It often leads to great poverty, injustice and unrest.

 

Pure capitalism however, is just as bad.

 

A mixture of the two is the best way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
In my opinion, communism/socialism is too idealistic. It often leads to great poverty, injustice and unrest.

 

Pure capitalism however, is just as bad.

 

A mixture of the two is the best way.

So many people pass off this idea like it's clever. It always comes form Europeans too, despite them never bing satisfied with their current system of economics.

 

Mixing the two just brings the worst from both worlds, the greed of the capitalists runs without check under the power of a corporatist, weak government with some guise of social responsibility. If the Fed hadn't encouraged home ownership to poor people in the first place, there wouldn't have been so much of a crisis. A free market simply wouldn't allow that, and any attempts to regulate it are just going to end in failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

With a completely free market, you get a lot of rich-poor gaps and poverty.

 

However, by a mixture, I meant economically, it's capitalism with some regulation, and a benefit system safety net. Shoulda explained myself better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

We are doing fine here in Finland thank you very much so goodbye see you later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan
With a completely free market, you get a lot of rich-poor gaps and poverty.

 

However, by a mixture, I meant economically, it's capitalism with some regulation, and a benefit system safety net. Shoulda explained myself better.

I agree with Goose for once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

A mixture of the two. Pure Socialism usually ends with a corrupt government, and pure Capitalism ends up with an unfair rich poor balance. Two words, Safety Net.

 

Business has proven over and over it can't go unregulated, and the conservative ' Reaganomics ' economic plan never works.

 

Here's an interesting OP-ED from Krugman about how we are seeing how bad Reaganomics is now: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/...an.html?_r=1&em

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Digital Warlord.

@General Goose - In capitalism, richer people create jobs for poorer people. They also create consumer products for poorer people and compete with other richer people to create better products and for a cheaper price.

 

I hope you realize we haven't had anything like capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ciabatta

I agree with Digital Warlord. I think in times like these it is unnecessary to tax the rich more. It's more of a political move rather than a stimulus of the economy, which the average joe will think help boost consumer spending if the middle class got a tax cut. No sir, you are going to save it in uncertain times. The tax increase on the rich will only help to stifle investments into smaller businesses and ideas.

 

@Mike Tiqueli- Although the Fed encouraged the poor people to have a home it was the responsibility of individual financial institutions as to whether or not they would grant the loans to these poor people and the effect of these loans in the long-run. Even though banks, investment institutions, so and so forth were gaining windfall profits, it effected America and the global economy in the long-run. It was the responsibility of 'capitalists' at the time to make a responsible choice, now we are voting for 'socialists' to enforce a responsible choice. Pure Capitalism would not work and neither would Pure Socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
@Mike Tiqueli- Although the Fed encouraged the poor people to have a home it was the responsibility of individual financial institutions as to whether or not they would grant the loans to these poor people and the effect of these loans in the long-run. Even though banks, investment institutions, so and so forth were gaining windfall profits, it effected America and the global economy in the long-run. It was the responsibility of 'capitalists' at the time to make a responsible choice, now we are voting for 'socialists' to enforce a responsible choice. Pure Capitalism would not work and neither would Pure Socialism.

What you are suggesting is that the companies should call bullsh*t on the government. This is my problem with the socialist-capitalist 'mixture', no company is going to turn down the government, with their bottomless incentives and the pressure they apply. The Clinton policy pretty much forced banks to provide minorities with loans no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ciabatta

I am not saying they should call bullsh*t, what I am saying is although the government had backed riskier mortgages through the use of Government-Sponsored Entities it should have been the individual financial institutions that made the choice whether or not to give out these loans. They have people who have studied economics, finance, so on and so forth within their financial institutions. The 'titans' on Wall Street are filled with people that have gone to school and done their homework or lack thereof. They have Chief Financial Officers, CEOs, a Board of Directors, all of whom could have either looked at the policy and said this is bad or this is good. In the long-run, it was a terrible mistake. Subprime was something that only could have gone well if the people did not default on their mortgages and the housing market remained stable. I think the responsibility lies within the capitalist even though the socialist promoted it. I just think when it came done to making a decision as far as who was going to take part in it, almost everyone made the wrong choice. There are some banks and institutions which did not fall into that trap (BB&T, SCBT Financial Corp., Fifth Third Bancorp) and that's because they cut off their lending to the riskier mortgages when they should have. They did not constantly approve loans like Jim Carrey's character in Yes Man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Digital Warlord.

The problem with socialism is not the goal of wanting to equalize wealth (there's nothing wrong with a moral maxim like that, in fact I intuitively like it), it's that it faces an insurmountable obstacle in the form of a calculation problem in trying to do so.

 

Utility is a fundamentally subjective concept. A person A might derive some measure X of utility from consuming some good G, whereas another person B might derive only utility Y from consuming G. Observing this phenomenon isn't hard: people exhibit differential preference orderings among goods all the time. These preference orderings admit myriad complexity since time can play a part in their structure, requiring that we not treat consumption of G at T1 the same good as consumption of G at T2. Socialism takes as its starting point that there exists for each actor a utility function (which is plausible enough given our observations of differential preference orderings), and then asserts that - to the greatest extent possible - we ought to equalize goods so as to maximize, or perhaps even equalize utility. This process, the socialist concedes, leads to lower potential maximums of utility for particular actors (since goods don't come from nowhere), but nevertheless views the equalized distribution of goods as morally preferable in the aggregate - and must, as such, assert that the aggregated social ends justify the means (the means being appropriation of private resources, perhaps even forcibly, though not necessarily so; compare state socialism and central planning with anarcho-socialism). The degrees to which equality is to preferred, according to the socialist, to individual maximums will vary, as will the degree to which equality is to be pursued despite its relative ubiquity. For example, some socialists may be satisfied with the society {9, 7, 5}, whereas others will require that this should be {7, 7, 7}; and some socialists may be satisfied with the society {4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1} whereas others will require the redistribution of the resources of the person with 4 here.

 

The problem, unfortunately, is that utility functions, in addition to being extremely complex, are inherently incapable of comparison since they lack a common unit. In each neatly numbered society above, the utility figures are treated as though a common unit for comparison exists, but it is unclear how this marvel has been achieved (other than by writing numbers). It is possible for me to say whether I get more out of chocolate ice cream than vanilla, but impossible for you to say whether you would get more out of a particular ice cream cone than I would.

 

The most common objection to this line of thought asks that we attempt a comparison between a seemingly obviously disparate situation: for example, food thrown away by the wealthy and sated vs. the same food to the destitute and starving. Is it possible to say that utility the wealthy person derives from food he or she throws away is higher than the utility that would be derived by a starving person eating that food? The short answer to this question is in the unqualified affirmative, but it should also be noted that the comparison on offer is askew since it ignores transaction costs. If a person is throwing away food, it is probably because he or she has prepared too much, or has let some go bad, and there are costs associated with sending it to a more productive use (say, getting it to a starving person). If the cost of such a transaction could magically be reduced to 0, only people who got some strange pleasure out of wasting perfectly good food would gain from throwing it away (which is, anyway, a case in which the utility could be higher for the person to throw the food out). The problem, in short, is that no person can - even in the most extreme cases - reliably compare the utilities of two different people. There is an insurmountable problem of actually meaningfully calculating utilities to even begin to "correctly" allocate resources in accordance with the moral dictates of socialism. That transaction costs create additional barriers to wealth sharing only bolsters the argument against socialism on the basis of its calculation problems; or, one might say that it suggests that rather than try to redistribute wealth, the committed socialist should try to promote technologies that will drive transaction costs progressively closer to 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yarpie

If we imagine the extreme end of capitalism for a second (no taxation, no representative governments), how exactly would humans rights fall into place? Keeping in mind the largest organisations pushing for these are namely political (WHO, UN etc.). My main concern is the health sector; not that universal healthcare guarantees just, only I can't see how it'd work in privatised hands.

 

Even America hasn't managed to avoid government intervention, their health care isn't private throughout the board.

Edited by Yarpie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

 

If we imagine the extreme end of capitalism for a second (no taxation, no representative governments), how exactly would humans rights fall into place? Keeping in mind the largest organisations pushing for these are namely political (WHO, UN etc.). My main concern is the health sector; not that universal healthcare guarantees just, only I can't see how it'd work in privatised hands.

 

Even America hasn't managed to avoid government intervention, their health care isn't private throughout the board.

I'm not sure how capitalism would interfere with representative democracy. There doesn't seem to be a problem with human rights when it comes to capitalism, the government is usually the one doing that.

 

Another important thing to remember about the American Healthcare system is that it is about as socialized (in terms of money spent per capita) as any other country in the world. They blow about 18% of their GDP on healthcare, 2% more then Canada, despite getting very little in return. What we have is an embarrassingly inefficient system. It appears that socialism and capitalism don't mix well in America (or anywhere for that matter), the USA manages to have private healthcare with socialist costs. Anything would be better then that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ciabatta

@Mike Tequeli-Good point on Healthcare. I believe the last statistic I saw ranked America as spending the most money, GDP wise, on Healthcare but getting very poor results in return. That is just flat out ridiculous. There needs to be a revamping of the whole system.

 

As far as capitalism and human rights go, we can go back in time and see that if we had a laissez-faire form of capitalism as our economic policy we would be in dire straits. It took government to regulate for child labor laws as well to formally recognize unions during the time when underpaying and the unfair and sinister treatment of a employer's labor force for America to feel the impact of capitalism. Although the economic system back in the 1850s wasn't a pure laissez-faire form it was not far off.

 

I do not think now-a-days though there is not much of a need for unions in our economy. I mean look at what they did to The Big Three. They did not give into the pressure of having to compete with foreign car competitors because unions were a driving political force behind those companies. I mean the UAW (United Auto Workers' Union) should've just sat on the board of directors of each of those companies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

Capitalism without regulations is crazy because companies have shown many times that they want what? PROFIT OVER PUBLIC GOOD! and that's the way the system works. They would sell us lead filled tacos if they could. Also if you get rid of the Unions then the worker can be mistreated like the laisse faire projects of the pre depression era. They would use the same excuses for not paying workers but at the same time get raises and have a larger profit. And even if you just give stock to every worker they still have no desicon in the company and they are what makes the company works and make a surplus value anyway. So Mike please just go somewhere with that unregulated free market crap.

 

We've tried it before. It fails everytime. And GM didn't fail because of the Union but because the excutives didn't transform the company in 1980 from making gas guzzers to making more fuel effeicent vechices. So don't put that on the uinon they wanted there far cut in making those crappy cars which were profitable but like I said at first were not in the Public's interest and not even the stock holder's interest! But the board members? O they are so bad off with there high salaries ( talking aobut the past ones who f***ed everything up). So what needs to happen in the face of these facts? The government needs to do four things.

 

Provide a good environment for companies to grow

Regulate and make sure that the company doesn't mess up the health, well being, or future of the people

Make sure that the company faily compenstaes share holders and workers

Promote Public Incentives ( subsides, tax breaks for actions from companies etc..)

 

After those things the market will grow and everyone will be happy. This plan is called common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs
Capitalism without regulations is crazy because companies have shown many times that they want what? PROFIT OVER PUBLIC GOOD! and that's the way the system works. They would sell us lead filled tacos if they could. Also if you get rid of the Unions then the worker can be mistreated like the laisse faire projects of the pre depression era. They would use the same excuses for not paying workers but at the same time get raises and have a larger profit. And even if you just give stock to every worker they still have no desicon in the company and they are what makes the company works and make a surplus value anyway. So Mike please just go somewhere with that unregulated free market crap.

 

We've tried it before. It fails everytime. And GM didn't fail because of the Union but because the excutives didn't transform the company in 1980 from making gas guzzers to making more fuel effeicent vechices. So don't put that on the uinon they wanted there far cut in making those crappy cars which were profitable but like I said at first were not in the Public's interest and not even the stock holder's interest! But the board members? O they are so bad off with there high salaries ( talking aobut the past ones who f***ed everything up). So what needs to happen in the face of these facts? The government needs to do four things.

 

Provide a good environment for companies to grow

Regulate and make sure that the company doesn't mess up the health, well being, or future of the people

Make sure that the company faily compenstaes share holders and workers

Promote Public Incentives ( subsides, tax breaks for actions from companies etc..)

 

After those things the market will grow and everyone will be happy. This plan is called common sense.

That plan is called progressivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Digital Warlord.
If we imagine the extreme end of capitalism for a second (no taxation, no representative governments), how exactly would humans rights fall into place? Keeping in mind the largest organisations pushing for these are namely political (WHO, UN etc.). My main concern is the health sector; not that universal healthcare guarantees just, only I can't see how it'd work in privatised hands.

 

Even America hasn't managed to avoid government intervention, their health care isn't private throughout the board.

You mean like property rights? Where needed, those can be protected by a business as a service.

 

Why couldn't healthcare work privately? If you want the best service then you shop around. The way quality of industry is lowered is through limiting competition, which is precisely what governments do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

 

As far as capitalism and human rights go, we can go back in time and see that if we had a laissez-faire form of capitalism as our economic policy we would be in dire straits. It took government to regulate for child labor laws as well to formally recognize unions during the time when underpaying and the unfair and sinister treatment of a employer's labor force for America to feel the impact of capitalism. Although the economic system back in the 1850s wasn't a pure laissez-faire form it was not far off.

I've herad reports that the conditions of the industrial revolution were exaggerated, I can't confirm that but I'd believe it. Secondly, laissez-faire capitalism was not necessarily the main cause of bad conditions. Much of the Union busting of the 1800s was done by the government allowed by the government, often quite violently. Unions are actually decent examples of non governmental fairness in corporations, even if they do frequently cause more problems for themselves. In our modern society, governemnt regulation has done nothing but cause us problems, especially since the government cannot be disagreed with in the short term, their is no distinction between good regulation and bad regulation, you have to follow it.

 

People have an easier time not listening to the government, throughout the war on drugs, or long gun registration in Canada, but companies don't have this option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan
As far as capitalism and human rights go, we can go back in time and see that if we had a laissez-faire form of capitalism as our economic policy we would be in dire straits. It took government to regulate for child labor laws as well to formally recognize unions during the time when underpaying and the unfair and sinister treatment of a employer's labor force for America to feel the impact of capitalism. Although the economic system back in the 1850s wasn't a pure laissez-faire form it was not far off.

I've herad reports that the conditions of the industrial revolution were exaggerated, I can't confirm that but I'd believe it. Secondly, laissez-faire capitalism was not necessarily the main cause of bad conditions. Much of the Union busting of the 1800s was done by the government allowed by the government, often quite violently. Unions are actually decent examples of non governmental fairness in corporations, even if they do frequently cause more problems for themselves. In our modern society, governemnt regulation has done nothing but cause us problems, especially since the government cannot be disagreed with in the short term, their is no distinction between good regulation and bad regulation, you have to follow it.

 

People have an easier time not listening to the government, throughout the war on drugs, or long gun registration in Canada, but companies don't have this option.

I'm not buying the first one. http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/Industria...gconditions.htm. And if condintions were so ok then why did the workers rebell so much during the Pullman Strike? http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536601569.html. The fact that work was hard and sucked during that period is obvious and has been told in MANY written works. Go to google. And a further note. If multinational corpations will make people work for slave wages today, doing dangerous jobs, in the second and third world, what makes you think the didn't back then?

 

To your second point yes union bashing was done by the government. But really if your entire countries economy was at the hands of a few companies that had great influnce you would do what they said ( like we did for wars to but that's a different subject). Also because there were no standards for worker pay and safety the worker was worse off.

 

Third most regulation isn't bad. Safely, Food, Health, Products etc.... While I agree there might be some regulation that is excessive it's not all bad.

 

And the last thing I want to say is that I agree the government shouldn't have pushed banks to give loans. That was crazy. I can understand lossening credit to an extent but that plan was bad. And both consumers and companies have shown they are not fully reasonable when it comes to credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ciabatta

@bobgtafan: Buddy, I was referring to American history. I believe that is a British site. Let's not forget that Britain had abolished slavery long before the United States so I would think that child labor was also still in effect state side.

 

Also, you don't think that the unions had anything to do with pressuring the Big Three into not wanting to compete with foreign competition. You know they can press these corporations with the power to strike correct? And fair cut? Are you kidding me some of the members of the UAW are racking more than what their job owes them in benefits, pensions, etc.

 

On an end note, unions are not needed today due to minimum wage laws, harassment laws, equal employment laws, so on and so forth. This regulation was made after unions made their mark in the 'Gilded Age'.

 

@Mike Tequeli- Try going back in time and telling Upton Sinclair that conditions were exaggerated.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan
@bobgtafan: Buddy, I was referring to American history. I believe that is a British site. Let's not forget that Britain had abolished slavery long before the United States so I would think that child labor was also still in effect state side.

 

Also, you don't think that the unions had anything to do with pressuring the Big Three into not wanting to compete with foreign competition. You know they can press these corporations with the power to strike correct? And fair cut? Are you kidding me some of the members of the UAW are racking more than what their job owes them in benefits, pensions, etc.

 

On an end note, unions are not needed today due to minimum wage laws, harassment laws, equal employment laws, so on and so forth. This regulation was made after unions made their mark in the 'Gilded Age'.

 

@Mike Tequeli- Try going back in time and telling Upton Sinclair that conditions were exaggerated.

Man if Wal-Mart will pay it's employees 1/3 lower than competatiors what makes you think any other company with the union gone won't simply worker. Also GM could have started investing in new tech 30 years ago. So I call bull**** to your claim that the union stopped there growth. Even if they took the profit from there gas guzzers in the 90's adn started making better cars they wouldn't have been in this mess. It's not a union problem it's a corpate problem. Yes the union is strong in Gm but they should have started long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ciabatta

Like mentioned before, the Union has stifled their growth to an extent. Although the corporate part of GM and Chrysler (Ford is the only one doing good, changing things in corporate and otherwise) are held mainly responsible for the the demise of their companies I blame a good bit of blame on UAW. If they had an auto bailout why is it relevant to have UAW alongside the CEOs, Presidents, and others, pleading for the money? They have a good majority of workers in each company but they do not run GM, Ford, or Chrysler. They do not have the right to plead and make their case for capital for each respective company. Do they have a right to lobby? Yes but to show up alongside GM, Chrysler, and Ford as if it was a fourth corporation is ridiculous, this only goes to show that UAW practically runs the show at these companies, especially GM and Chrysler. At one point, it came down to a matter of giving up concessions and letting each company receive a share in the bailout, the UAW would not let this happen and GM, Ford, and Chrysler didn't argue to that for a period of time. Does that not show you how screwed up their corporate structure is?

 

And your example of Wal-Mart? People at Wal-Mart are treated just like any other minimum wage job. Not a career, a job. Thus meaning that once a Wal-Mart in a certain area goes out of business or an employee is laid-off, people lose their jobs. Most of these people do not have a degree and are paid a MINIMUM WAGE of $6.55/hour (soon to be $7.25/hour I believe). Their competitors, Target, Costco, and discount stores (Source for the Financially Literate), also have these JOBS. There is hardly any room for careers at one of these places of business other than management, pharmacy, and otherwise.

 

To add to your argument on competing wages, how come foreign car companies and manufacturers in the South, an area with little to no union activity, can afford to compete with each other in their region? Because of their environment and market structure which is monopolistic competition. These manufacturing jobs are already high-paying enough because of risks and injuries involved so if someone were to offer a job lower than the market rate to people who are skilled laborers (most of these manufacturing jobs require skilled laborers) most people would not take it unless put in a dire situation like an economic downturn. This shows that Unions (especially the UAW) are not needed in every situation as they were in the mid to late 1800s and early 1900s.

 

In short, the South known for it's apprehensiveness towards Unions will mean that if the Big Three fails so does the UAW. Which goes back to my point of the UAW, they are not needed and they are acting like a corporation because they are the biggest influence on the corporate structure which is what they were intended to be. If car manufacturing jobs go in the Midwest it will be like the Southeast with the closing of textile industries. No one bailed out the textile industries and subsequent entities and the South suffered for years. Now because of the property rates and real-estate prices, the South is one of the prime areas to live within the United States even in this downturn. So basically what is happening is a reversal of the times where the Midwest will suffer and take their hit and they will be forced to learn to do service jobs as is almost required by our transition into a Service Economy.

 

Sorry for the rambling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Werven

Capitalism corrupts, Socialism sucks.

 

Neither really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John The Grudge

There are so many reasons why none of these systems can ever really work the way the were envisioned. In an ideal world money wouldn't hamper scientific advancements. Medicine would be free, regardless of how advanced it is. We'd all have nice homes. We'd have all the good food and drink we want and all the gadgets and entertainment we could ask for.

 

For this to work though, top scientists would have to be happy that a street cleaner has a home as beutifull as their's. Actors and Musicians would be content that they had no more, no less than factory workers.

 

The above scenario would require humans to be utterly selfless. We all know that such a world can never exist as long as humans live on it.

 

With all that being said, I think a form of capitalism is the way to go. As it is, some people get paid millions upon millions while others get paid not many thousands. This is unfair. I know some people are afraid of this concept but I think we should "spread the wealth" a little. Everybody on earth should be able to live comfortably if they are prepared to work. There are people with no homes and bankers are being paid multi million dollar bonuses. It's disgusting.

 

The answer isn't huge tax. They just need to drastically increase minimum wage. Companies would need to lower wages at the top to pay for it. A minimum wage would have to be established uniformly accross the globe for it to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ciabatta

Although I do agree that bankers, hedge fund managers, and other executives are getting paid exorbitant bonuses for what some would label as 'cushy desk jobs', I do not think there needs to be a spreading of the wealth.

 

If there was, I would like for it to be minor. But the "spread the wealth" concept that everyone likes to throw out is a major cog in the America as we know it. For example, would you really like to see that Wal-Mart cashier who dropped out of high school and discontinued their will to compete in society become of equal economic stature to someone as a surgeon who worked through years and years of schooling because they felt their duty was to save lives. I feel like what you are doing there is just undermining the importance of one's position and job by putting it on the same stature of someone who just rings up cheetos because they "hated school". Competition to strive for schooling and jobs is why people excel, it's a basic concept of capitalism and human nature. It's almost human nature that we produce or compete out of rational self-interest so I think it would be against our primitive instincts to put everyone on a level-playing field where there isn't some outrage or corruption in it. Communism in the Soviet Union is a prime example.

 

In my opinion, if we did spread the wealth, teachers would need it the most. Seriously, the most underpaid job period. Our society doesn't place as much value on education as other countries therefore teacher's salaries are low and expendable in times of budget cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John The Grudge

I hear what you're saying and you're totally right. In our society as it is it's fair that a doctor gets paid more than a clerk at Wal-Mart. The only way a capitalist society can work is with classes. I just think that the gap between these classes is too big. I just know that one day, maybe in the distant future, our greed and selfishness will be the end of us.

 

What about the homeless? Are bricks and mortar so precious and rare that enough can't be spared to make shelters for all the homeless in the world? My point is that there has to be a point where you draw a line and say "no human will go without food, clothing and shelter."

 

I couldn't agree more with your comment on teacher salaries. As with politicians, you get what you pay for. I've always considered teaching one of the most important jobs there is. In my world, they'd be highly respected members of society with attractive earnings. It's the only way to attract the cream of the crop. At the moment they kind of have to take what they can get because I suspect that not many people aspire to teach.

Edited by John The Grudge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vinnygorgeous

I think it's best to look at Communism as an antidote to Capitalism, history tells us that it failed but history also tells us that Capitalism still needs an antidote, it is an old archaic system based on monetary considerations. The future of the human race does not depend on monetary solutions. In the end if we are to survive Capitalism will have to end it is simply unsustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ciabatta

I completely disagree.

 

I think the only times where you have any true semblance of what pure capitalism looks like is during the Industrial Revolution before government regulation enforced labor laws, anti-trust laws, so on and so forth are examples of what that 'laissez-faire' system looks like. IMO, I am in favor of government regulation but limited government regulation as a way to create a 'safety net' on human issues such as child labor laws and minimum wage.

 

But as far as the idea that capitalism should be abandoned, I am in huge disagreement over this. Like I stated before, capitalism basically takes our primitive human nature and applies them to a professional environment. The nature of our rational self-interest to produce and provide for ourselves/offspring is one of the core fundamentals of capitalism. The nature to compete is also included in the business world of fighting over promotion and jobs. I think if you leveled the playing field, it would go against these two basic natures that all of us humans have. Communism failed because it relied on the concept of self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency has proven to not work in a macro-economic sense whereas trade is the way to prosper and grow through the concept of comparative advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vinnygorgeous

Capitalism is fuelled by greed it is a money orientated system that only puts value on profit it does not take into consideration human rights or any ethical considerations. Any one that would argue in favour of capitalism is arguing for the world we live in today it is a corrupt world that benefits a minority while the majority leave in constant turbulence. Eventually historians will look back at Capitalism in astonishment that people ever lived the way we do. In a world of surplus how come the majority of human beings at this moment are going with out, because the system is failing spectacularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.