Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Capitalism not perfect-but it's the best system we have available.

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 8, 2012, 11:18 p.m. EST by utahdebater (-72)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I agree that Capitalism is not perfect, but currently it is the best system we have. Communism would be the ultimate system but it's far too idealistic. As for Socialism, it causes innovation and competition to essentially cease. Capitalism truly solves for the Human variable, without Capitalism the USA would not be the largest market in the world.

27 Comments

27 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by nikko (62) 2 years ago

Like, any modern economy, we have a "mixed" economy. Like it or not, the government is a part of that, There are an infinite number of mixed economies possible. A major way that govt plays a key role is this massive thing called property rights. The definition of a corporation; it's rights, and labor laws are a part of that. As is taxation laws. It just so happens that in the last 30 years laws have changed over and over to benefit corporations, banks, and those of financial means over the peasants. Places like Germany and France have a different form of mixed economy that gives the average person far more rights and corporations and banks less, They have evil things such as free college for citizens, mandatory 6 week paid vacations, and banks have tougher rules. Since those things are evil, we call their form of mixed economy "Socialism." The S word scares people - particularly Faux News and right wing radio listeners. So the S scare word is used often to keep everyone in line. It works! Enough of the commy talk!!

[-] 1 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Well Germany and France also are considered Socialist because the Government owns many of the major industries, health care for example, and this does lead to problems.

[-] 2 points by nikko (62) 2 years ago

Well I am not sure what problems those are. But they have lower unemployment, better worker benefits, and their health care stats are way better than ours. They have a younger retirement age. They even have lower debt than we. So I would take their problems.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by elf3 (2950) 2 years ago

we don't have capitalism - we have corporatism there is a difference

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

What we have is capitalism mutated; the abandonment of the notion of good corporate citizenship - abandonment by some corporations of acting in socially and ecologically responsible ways.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Mindless, one-dimentional, thought control. Thanks.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

What do you mean?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I'm sorry, I didn't elaborate here nearly enough. I mean that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx were purely material philosophers, who saw the way wealth was distributed as the root of human problems and came to differing conclusions. This led to a whole bunch of debate regarding the nature of various systems of wealth distribution, such as capitalism and communism., but neither of these systems have ever really existed in a pure form. We do not have "capitalism, and the Soviets never had 'communism." But the purely material philosophy of both end up being a form of though control.

The problem arises in ourselves, not in some abstract "ism." Therefore, the solution must arise within ourselves - must come through self-understanding. We must change in order to change the world and no "ism" of any kind can change us.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

capitalistic economics & socialistic economics ....are different.... in a simplistic, pure sense....

  • Economics from a mathematical view... looking at the ideals

in this approach there are different systems to project economic outcome, one system is based on the ideals or goals of insuring;

  • Individual Freedom & Economic Prosperity ....

this system is based on monetary incentives provided from free-enterprise .... the pure model includes; no restrictions, free-markets & unlimited incentives

in practice... the system prospers & grows rapidly... and then fails when the monetary wealth falls into the hands of the few.... and the systems collapses on itself.... however with every cycle there is much progress, much innovation and discovery... as well as much suffering by the majority at the time of the collapse...

through real-time analysis & projection.. we attempt to predict when to slow it down in effort to stall or bypass the collapse... which is done by applying restrictions...

eventually when it does collapse .... the people start to demand Economic Freedom ...

  • we must understand that this system is cyclic by nature ...

the other, seemingly opposing system is based on the ideals or goals of insuring;

  • Economic Freedom & Individual Prosperity ....

this system is based on common & shared property & resources... the pure model includes; guaranteed economic wealth, healthcare, education, food, etc. near total restrictions and limited incentives...

in practice... the system prospers & grows when first established ... all are taken care of, all have the necessities, and all have work.... and eventually the system starts to slow ... the growth stagnates due to lack of incentives ... and productivity fails ....

through real-time analysis & projection.. we attempt to promote productivity through reducing restrictions and applying non-common & non shared incentives .... eventually the monetary wealth falls into the hands of the few.... and the people start to demand Economic Prosperity...

another cyclic system by nature ...

  • Funny how it all works ....

so... a simple fricking question .... why one or the other ? why not all ?

why not a system based on the ideals & goals of insuring;

  • Individual Freedom, Economic Prosperity, Economic Freedom & Individual Prosperity

all working together... checking and balancing themselves

the simplest approach to building this is to use what is already in place...

a "Federal Reserve Bank" and a new "Social Reserve Bank" working together in harmony

[-] 1 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

I've actually explored the idea of exactly what you just brought up, I'll admit it, I'm no scholar or professionally trained economist, but I agree with you. I do think that would be possible and I think that's kinda the system that China is moving towards currently. The problem is, how do you introduce it without changes that upset the status quo in a bad way?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

;) ---- > how do you introduce it without changes that upset the status quo in a bad way?

well, I think the status quo, has a choice...

A) to support us in this endeavor (which is actually a win win for all of us) for it would relieve them of having to be taxed to support social do good programs ....

or B) have us attempt to "demand" * the govt into moving the Fed's powers to the Treasury ...

I tried to Introduce this here; http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-need-to-create-our-own-bank/

[-] 1 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

I don't think force would go over well though, it might possibly lead to bloodshed.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

ok bad choice of words... how bout "demand" * (as the majority of the people) ... will fix ;)

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Sometimes all you have the power to do is say no. It's not much (the power to say no to injustice, inequality and imperialism), but it's all we've got right now.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Get a book. Read it.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

I've read Wealth of Nations and A Communist Manifesto

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Try Das Kapital. Communist Manifesto was more a call to arms than critique of capitalism.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

I'll do that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's another one by Marx, right?

[-] 1 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yes and Das Kapital is Marx's best work. If you're interested in reading it, there's a series of excellent video lectures available for free online to help you get the most out of the experience:

http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

try reading " The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

without "Capital" the USA would not be the largest market in the world "Either" .... and the new Capitalism is starving the economy of Capital ...

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

see my post "us imperialism (a quick run-down)." it started off as a reply but got too long so I made it its own post.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

There are two forms of capitalism - finance capitalism, also called globalization or free trade, which dominates our society today, and industrial capitalism or "workers capitalism", which our forefathers fought to establish in America.

Our economic problems would all be solved if we were to return to the industrial capitalism which is our heritage.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

I am no fan of socialism but it depends on how much of it is applied to a society. Venezuela to Germany would be examples.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

True.

[-] -2 points by Marleyfowat (6) 2 years ago

Right on!