Capitalism 101

Many people have a blind faith in pure capitalism and an irrational fear of socialism. Pure socialism doesn't work, we've seen the system prosper and then collapse completely within 50 years during the cold war.

However capitalism by itself also fails, it just takes longer. Many countries throughout history have had capitalist systems, and all many have fallen apart.

In order for a system to work it needs a bit of both. In United States is one extreme where the system is nearly entirely capitalist with very little control of business by the government, China is the other extreme by which it is nearly totally communist, but has rudimentary free markets.

Both are working (The US is doing better than China, but China's system doesn't look like it will collapse any time soon.)

Capitalism means that the free market decides everything. A pure capitalist system doesn't exist as far as I know. It assumes that companies that produce the best products will grow and companies that produce poor products will fail.

The US balances a free market with some socialized systems. Schooling is free, fire and police is free, however there are also private alternatives. England, Canada, Russia, France... provides health care for free and France provides nanny services for free.

The problem with pure capitalism is that it assumes the best in the CEOs. The problem is that greed takes over. The best example that I can think of is Microsoft. During the 1990s Microsoft came out as the dominate software developer, because (at the time), they were the best.

Other companies with better products started cropping up. The free market should have boosted these companies, however Microsoft bought them out before they could get big and the superior technology was never seen again.

Pure capitalism + greedy executives results in monopolies, which is the fundamental opposite of capitalism. The book 1984 shows what could happen if an individual company was allowed to grow without interference by the government.

Greed also can make companies exploit people's needs. Supply in demand is the basis for capitalism and will work within reason, but if demand skyrockets, companies start to exploit people.

The Pharmaceutical companies are the worst case of this. Pills that cost cents to make end up costing dollars in the american market. The same drugs are 50 times cheaper in Cuba than the United States because the market there is controlled by the government as it is in most of the developed world.

I mentioned in another post the gas companies, they do the same thing. People need gas to get around, so prices are hiked up beyond reason. The price of oil has been going up for other reasons, however the price of gas is going up faster than the raw oil prices because of the fact that it is running without check.

When companies get rich through capitalism, some try and shut it down. The oil companies and the pharmaceutical companies pour massive amounts of money into Washington to keep the free market from bringing them down. The more powerful a company gets, the better it can do this.

Pills are the best example of this. Many americans used to buy their prescriptions from Canada because they were far cheaper. The free markets says that they should be able to do that, however the powerful drug companies lobbied Washington and made it illegal to get cheap drugs from Canada.

I hope this was informative. I wrote it fast, so if you see any mistakes let me know and I'll fix them :)

The United States is the wealthiest country ever. Until we find intelligent life on another planet that has a wealthier nation than the U.S., we are the wealthiest nation we know of in the entire history of the multiverse.

Japan is the second wealthiest nation in the world. We rewrote their constitution in 1945, when they were way down the list. They have been a capitalistic democracy ever since, so now they are the second richest country we know of in the entire multiverse.

Germany is in third place. We had control of West Germany as a result of our agreement with the Soviet Union after World War II, and we made them a capitalistic democracy after overthrowing their Nazi government. Then we took down the Soviet Union through the arms race combined with their inevitable socialism failure. Then the Soviet Union no longer had control of Eastern Europe, and East Germany was liberated and free to be capitalistic. So now (unified) Germany is in third place.

China has risen to 4th place. That is because they have 1/5 of the world's population and have become much more capitalistic.

Capitalism works. If we became more capitalistic, we would be doing even better.

Now, give me a list of the world's wealthiest socialist nations and tell me where they are on the overall world list.

If Microsoft had so much "superior technology" for competition, how come nobody gave a shit and stuck to Windows?

No, but seriously. I wish I knew a bit more about economics. I mean, I'm all for personal freedom and stuff but I need to read up on stuff regarding economic freedom... if I wouldn't know better, I'd stick with economic freedom and minarchy.

UM, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. In fact, I said explicitly in the first paragraph that socialism doesn't work. :?

I merely showed why the idea of a completely free market doesn't work. In fact, the entire basis of our system is the theory of a man named John Nash. In his book he states that the best way to do things is to do what is best for the individual and the group. The belief before that omitted the "and the group" part.

We didn't see the better technology because Microsoft bought them out before it got off the ground. We are seeing it more now because Apple has re-entered the market as a powerful company. Before 2002-ish very few people knew that they had an alternative, now there is a mass migration to open-source and third party developers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

UM, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. In fact, I said explicitly in the first paragraph that socialism doesn't work. :?

I merely showed why the idea of a completely free market doesn't work. In fact, the entire basis of our system is the theory of a man named John Nash. In his book he states that the best way to do things is to do what is best for the individual and the group. The belief before that omitted the "and the group" part.

---

I was just making the point that capitalism is far more effective than socialism, mainly because a lot of socialists posts here, and I wanted to go ahead and get the point out.

Okay, but certain things do need to be socialized such as school and police. I was merely stating that the government does need to play a bit part in regulating industry or it would self destruct.

If you want to know more about economics I'm sure that you can find John Nash's book on Amazon, it's been the de-facto standard in modern economics for the past fifty years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Okay, but certain things do need to be socialized such as school and police. I was merely stating that the government does need to play a bit part in regulating industry or it would self destruct.

---

Yeah, there does need to be a certain level of government interference, but not much. I think the school system needs to be as close to completely privatized as possible. I think we need to maybe have just a private school system but give vouchers to people who honestly cannot afford it on their own. Lack of competition is what makes our public schools suck so bad. I taught at private schools and had some dealings with public school administrations, and the public school administrations were so incompetent it is unbelievable. I went to public schools all the way through 7th grade, and most of them were pathetic. I really think that if they had some greedy asshole to answer to if they screw up his bank account, they would be doing a much better job. As it is, they just get by enough to not make the news for sucking. Sometimes they can't even do that.

Quote:

---

China has risen to 4th place. That is because they have 1/5 of the world's population and have become much more capitalistic.

---

China in the future will become the super power, and America will look weak. Seriously, have you seen how well China is doing in this time, when the world economy is going backward. Wealth is nothing if you lose it.

It was the Communist idear of rapid industrilization that made China strong, not Capitalism, which is pretty much causing a economic crisis now.

Quote:

---

Many people have a blind faith in pure capitalism and an irrational fear of socialism. Pure socialism doesn't work, we've seen the system prosper and then collapse completely within 50 years during the cold war.

---

Stalinism is not socialism, nor I cannot see how you can come to the conclusion that it doesn't work because of Stalin. Again, if you know anything about the power struggle, the Communist where arguing of what to do i.e. war communism or NEP. Stalin killed off his main rivals and picked war communism.

Socialism, is a vague term. Note, China has gone for NEP, i.e. Capitalism driving towards industrilzation, which Bhurkine argued. Truthlly, intill a country is modernised then there has to be some Capitalism, however not like in the US, which is causing more harm than good. Espically, since the war in Iraq i.e. the need for oil. However, China seems to be the only country that invest heavily on education and science, which is good.

Truthlly, Capitalism has not been proven better or worse than socialism, and I really don't want to get into a debate of why US was made rich i.e. slavery.

Quote:

---

Yeah, there does need to be a certain level of government interference, but not much. I think the school system needs to be as close to completely privatized as possible.

---

Well, in China education is great. America should copy China, plus in western society their is some kind of paris hilton effect, that makes alot of people fat and lazy, hence why America has alot of fat people. Go capitalism.

Communism is a type of socialism.

No one is saying that socialized programs don't work. England has some of the best Health Care and schools in the world. America our health care is capitalist and our schools are severely underfunded.

Like I said, a system can only work when the two are combined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Communism is a type of socialism.

No one is saying that socialized programs don't work. England has some of the best Health Care and schools in the world. America our health care is capitalist and our schools are severely underfunded.

Like I said, a system can only work when the two are combined.

---

The problem with our public education system is lack of standards, which would be completely changed if we privatized the system. They let people graduate from high school without knowing a damn thing. That is the problem here. That would not be happening if the schools were privatized.

Wendy, if China ends up being the wealthiest country in the world, it will only because of increased capitalism, which will result from less government involvement in their system. If that happens, I am all for it. I am not afraid of free countries. A free country is a good country. I am not in some kind of snob competition with the rest of the world. I want every country to adopt our system. If that results in countries' becoming wealthier than mine, that is great. I am an Earthling first.

There are a couple of good documentaries concerning the U.S. public school system and also Capitalism vs. Socialism that would fit perfectly in this thread. I'll see if I can look them up over the next couple of days.

Keep in mind that a country's wealth is determined by GDP, not per capita GDP. If it was determined by per capita GDP, the U.S. would not be the wealthiest country. The point I'm trying to make is, even if China becomes say one dollar wealthier in GDP, the U.S's people would still be wealthier. China is the fourth wealthiest nation with 1.3 billion people, GDP of 3.25 trillion and per capita GDP of somewhere between 1,500 and 3,000. I wasn't able to find an exact number on their per capita GDP, but the numbers I stated would place it in 125th to 149th place for per capita GDP. So if you look at it from that standpoint, the Chinese people are actually very poor.

Slavery? I'd like to know how Wendy correlates slavery with the U.S.'s present-day wealth.

America may be the wealthiest country, but 80% of the wealth is in 20% of the population. You can't say that we don't need a little bit of socialistic properties to help spread out that money just a little. The truth is, no one needs that money, and very few people deserve it. There are many starving people trying to make enough money to feed (and also many trying to make money to get drugs, but meh), that isn't right when there are CEOs with hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank to make even more money with inflation. As much as I think just snatching the money from the person that made it sounds wrong, I think we could come up with a little more fair system of distributing the wealth. Capitalism may be the best way to make a country wealthier, but I think it would be better if the country was a little happier.

The problem with capitalism is the people, by nature are cheap. CEOs will pay as little as possible get get something done, this means wages and shipping jobs overseas. It's the same way with the consumer, which is why I'm completed against privatizing schools.

The better schools will cost more than the bad schools, therefore the bad schools will be packed, despite the fact that the kids get bad educations. Perfect example: Walmart sells clothes and lots of them for very cheap, but they are terrible quality. People continue to buy clothes at Walmart despite the fact that you can get better clothes at Saks or Barneys for a little bit more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The problem with capitalism is the people, by nature are cheap. CEOs will pay as little as possible get get something done, this means wages and shipping jobs overseas. It's the same way with the consumer, which is why I'm completed against privatizing schools.

The better schools will cost more than the bad schools, therefore the bad schools will be packed, despite the fact that the kids get bad educations. Perfect example: Walmart sells clothes and lots of them for very cheap, but they are terrible quality. People continue to buy clothes at Walmart despite the fact that you can get better clothes at Saks or Barneys for a little bit more.

---

So in summation, you know better what people need than they themselves, hence we need socialism based on what you figure is right for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamsinmymynd

America may be the wealthiest country, but 80% of the wealth is in 20% of the population. You can't say that we don't need a little bit of socialistic properties to help spread out that money just a little. The truth is, no one needs that money, and very few people deserve it. There are many starving people trying to make enough money to feed (and also many trying to make money to get drugs, but meh), that isn't right when there are CEOs with hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank to make even more money with inflation. As much as I think just snatching the money from the person that made it sounds wrong, I think we could come up with a little more fair system of distributing the wealth. Capitalism may be the best way to make a country wealthier, but I think it would be better if the country was a little happier.

---

The money that 20% has stimulates the economy and helps everybody. That is why we have the richest "poor" people in the world. Our poor buy a great deal more than food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The problem with capitalism is the people, by nature are cheap. CEOs will pay as little as possible get get something done, this means wages and shipping jobs overseas. It's the same way with the consumer, which is why I'm completed against privatizing schools.

The better schools will cost more than the bad schools, therefore the bad schools will be packed, despite the fact that the kids get bad educations. Perfect example: Walmart sells clothes and lots of them for very cheap, but they are terrible quality. People continue to buy clothes at Walmart despite the fact that you can get better clothes at Saks or Barneys for a little bit more.

---

Most people take their children's education quality much more seriously than the quality of their clothes, and we have lots of private schools here already. It has been proven that we will not have a problem of too many private schools going overseas. If the poor schools compete with each other, they will be much better than otherwise. The lack of financial competition in the public schools system is what drives administrators' heads up their asses. I have seen it with my own eyes many times.

Private school have the ability to teach whatever they want. If schools are completely privatized then schools in the bible belt will start teaching things like abstinence only sex-ed and creationism. We'll end up being a country full of people with syphilis who think the world was created in 6 days.

There are private schools now which are far superior to public schools, but the cheap human nature filled up the public schools.

The problem is poor teaching standards and gross underfunding, not the schools themselves. Lots of other countries have public schools and much higher standards (England, France, Canada...) and they're all way ahead of the US in terms of education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Private school have the ability to teach whatever they want. If schools are completely privatized then schools in the bible belt will start teaching things like abstinence only sex-ed and creationism. We'll end up being a country full of people with syphilis who think the world was created in 6 days.

---

School choice will prevent that. It is not like there will only be one kind of private school. As it is, there is no public school choice. Students are told by the government where they have to go, unless they go to private schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

There are private schools now which are far superior to public schools, but the cheap human nature filled up the public schools.

The problem is poor teaching standards and gross underfunding, not the schools themselves. Lots of other countries have public schools and much higher standards (England, France, Canada...) and they're all way ahead of the US in terms of education.

---

We have social factors that those countries don't have, and our socialist school system really makes those factors do a lot of damage. Privatizing the school system would clean it all up. Every time we throw more money into the school system, nothing changes. Lack of funding is not the problem.

It is true that we need higher standards. There should be a literacy and other things standardized test that all American students have to pass to graduate from high school, which would be the opposite of the absurd No Child Left Behind policy. That would really get private administrators under the new system on their toes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

School choice will prevent that. It is not like there will only be one kind of private school. As it is, there is no public school choice. Students are told by the government where they have to go, unless they go to private schools.

---

But the fact remains that there will be some schools that will be teaching that nonsense.

Quote:

---

We have social factors that those countries don't have, and our socialist school system really makes those factors do a lot of damage. Privatizing the school system would clean it all up. Every time we throw more money into the school system, nothing changes. Lack of funding is not the problem.

It is true that we need higher standards. There should be a literacy and other things standardized test that all American students have to pass to graduate from high school, which would be the opposite of the absurd No Child Left Behind policy. That would really get private administrators under the new system on their toes.

---

No, the government's just too stubborn to ask the countries that have successful socialized programs for help. It can work if it's set up right. The US doesn't have a single public service that is set up right or properly funded that I can think of. Fire departments stand on the street asking for drivers to put change in their hats, the police department has two patrol cars to cover a 200 square mile area, and the school system is at the bottom of the civilized world.

In addition to some sort of graduation test, the curriculum needs to be faster. The average American high school students gets one year of calculus, maybe? That's atrocious. I remember one year taking geometry, then the next year taking trig. Are you kidding me? Trig is geometry and they should be taught in one year in the same class, and why did I have to take a pre-calculus class that was basically just discrete algebra?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

But the fact remains that there will be some schools that will be teaching that nonsense.

---

We already have them, and it is their right to teach it if the school is private and parents choose to send their kids there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, the government's just too stubborn to ask the countries that have successful socialized programs for help. It can work if it's set up right. The US doesn't have a single public service that is set up right or properly funded that I can think of. Fire departments stand on the street asking for drivers to put change in their hats, the police department has two patrol cars to cover a 200 square mile area, and the school system is at the bottom of the civilized world.

---

That is a generalization. My fire department does not beg for change, and I can't go to the store without seeing at least three police cars. And as I said, every time we put more money into our education system, nothing changes.

Our private schools are about the best in the world. It is our public schools that suck, with some exceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

In addition to some sort of graduation test, the curriculum needs to be faster. The average American high school students gets one year of calculus, maybe? That's atrocious. I remember one year taking geometry, then the next year taking trig. Are you kidding me? Trig is geometry and they should be taught in one year in the same class, and why did I have to take a pre-calculus class that was basically just discrete algebra?

---

Woes, geometry is most kids' worst nightmare. There is no way we could fit geometry and trig (advanced geometry) into one school year. I don't think teaching more math is necessary any way. I think we should require logic classes. Logic should be a required course for every school year starting in 9th grade. The main thing we need to do is make sure every kid can read and do at least the basics of everything before graduating. Too many people graduate without being able to read or solve for x when 2x = 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We already have them, and it is their right to teach it if the school is private and parents choose to send their kids there.

---

That's the problem. Kids shouldn't be learning that, in either private or public school. At least not as an alternative to real sex-ed or biology. Myth != Theory, and kids need to know that.

Quote:

---

That is a generalization. My fire department does not beg for change, and I can't go to the store without seeing at least three police cars. And as I said, every time we put more money into our education system, nothing changes.

---

You're rural right? In cities police and fire are stretched way to thin, its the reason chunks of cities can be controlled by gangsters.

Quote:

---

Our private schools are about the best in the world. It is our public schools that suck, with some exceptions.

---

True, but public schools can work if set up right, lots of other countries have them.

Quote:

---

Woes, geometry is most kids' worst nightmare. There is no way we could fit geometry and trig (advanced geometry) into one school year. I don't think teaching more math is necessary any way. I think we should require logic classes. Logic should be a required course for every school year starting in 9th grade. The main thing we need to do is make sure every kid can read and do at least the basics of everything before graduating. Too many people graduate without being able to read or solve for x when 2x = 4.

---

Geometry is not a two semester course and neither is trig, they are so interconnected in real math that they should be taught together. I agree that logic should be a required course. Logic assists in every type of math and despite what some people say, math is crucial in almost every type of white collar work.

The schools do need to completely re-think how they teach literature. Forcing students to read just makes them hate it, I've seen it in my classmates. In fact, I stopped reading all together for a few years after high school, and I think the only reason I got back into it is because my father is a professional writer. Teaching students to enjoy reading is easier than forcing them to. I can't think of a single person that I know that could even tell me the story of Macbeth or Beowolf or La Comedia, which are some of the greatest stories ever written, it's sad :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

That's the problem. Kids shouldn't be learning that, in either private or public school. At least not as an alternative to real sex-ed or biology. Myth != Theory, and kids need to know that.

---

So, it should be illegal to teach it to kids even in private schools? That would be a major infringement on First Amendment rights. You know I think teaching religious stuff as if it is fact is totally bananas, but I think parents have a right to send their kids to school where it happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You're rural right? In cities police and fire are stretched way to thin, its the reason chunks of cities can be controlled by gangsters.

---

I am suburban, not exactly rural. I live in a very large population center. I lived in the city less than two years ago, and there were tons of cops there too. I never once saw anybody begging for fire department change. However, I did run in to it once in the small nearby town of Flora. It is a town by town thing. I agree that all fire and police departments need to be sufficiently funded, but I don't agree with your generalization that they are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

True, but public schools can work if set up right, lots of other countries have them.

---

They don't have our trash element that has resulted from dysfunctional social programming and the war on drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Geometry is not a two semester course and neither is trig, they are so interconnected in real math that they should be taught together. I agree that logic should be a required course. Logic assists in every type of math and despite what some people say, math is crucial in almost every type of white collar work.

---

I have never come across a one semester geometry course. It sounds like a terrible idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The schools do need to completely re-think how they teach literature. Forcing students to read just makes them hate it, I've seen it in my classmates. In fact, I stopped reading all together for a few years after high school, and I think the only reason I got back into it is because my father is a professional writer. Teaching students to enjoy reading is easier than forcing them to. I can't think of a single person that I know that could even tell me the story of Macbeth or Beowolf or La Comedia, which are some of the greatest stories ever written, it's sad :(

---

Plus, most of the stuff they make kids read in school SUCKS. They should at least mix classic literature with books kids will love to read and never give them stuff that sucks as bad as some of the rotten novels that are not that acclaimed and are pathetic but kids are forced to read any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Many people have a blind faith in pure capitalism and an irrational fear of socialism. Pure socialism doesn't work, we've seen the system prosper and then collapse completely within 50 years during the cold war.

However capitalism by itself also fails, it just takes longer. Many countries throughout history have had capitalist systems, and all many have fallen apart.

In order for a system to work it needs a bit of both. In United States is one extreme where the system is nearly entirely capitalist with very little control of business by the government, China is the other extreme by which it is nearly totally communist, but has rudimentary free markets.

Both are working (The US is doing better than China, but China's system doesn't look like it will collapse any time soon.)
:)

---

Its good to see your free thinking enough to question the capitalist system and the ideology upon which it is built. However, the above consists of inaccurate statements.

First of all, by pure socialism I assume you mean Orthodox Marxism. Then you make a link between the ideology of Marxism and the USSR. The USSR was never a communist/socialist country. Lenin realised that the material conditions in Russia in 1917 were not advanced enough for a socialist state. He ought to overcome this problem by implementing state capitalism. The issue is the USSR never got beyond state capitalism. Although the wealth was centralised it was never distributed to the workers. The bourgeoise were replaced by a new bureaucratic caste. Marxism as of yet has not been achieved anywhere in the world.

And the second preposteroous claim is that China is almost entirely communist. China has recently embraced free mrket principles and is moving increasingly into the global market.

The third inccorect claim is that the US is "doing better" than China. Chinas economic growth has been much greater than the United States in the last few years. At some years economic growth in China has been around 7%. That dwarfs the US.

Imran

Imran, welcome back. You have lately been one of the ghosts whose whereabouts I have wondered about.

What kind of system would you say the Soviet Union had? I would say it was very socialistic. The government owned everybody's money and distributed it however they felt like. I decided recently that true communism is something that could never actually exist since if everything supposedly belongs to everybody, it actually does not belong to anybody, except the government.

China is growing rapidly, but they have a great deal of room to grow. They are embracing capitalism, and that is pulling them out of the belly of economic Hell. The United States has been out of economic Hell, so we do not grow so much. China still has not reached our level of wealth, not even per capita. If they do, it will be something I consider a great event because they will only be able to do it through freedom. A free and successful China would be beautiful. I hope the same for every country on Earth.

Education is an aspect in which I disagree with the libertarian stance. Schools shouldn't be allowed to teach lies and nonsense, period. There needs to be a governmental framework for schools about what to teach. This framework needs to be secular and scientific. Schools have a special responsibility and a specific goal in educating children. This goal needs to be similar among all schools. Namely to foster rational and critical thought, among others. A school shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate the children with racism and teach various ways to kill, so why allow other forms of nonsense?

This also applies to universities/colleges (whatever the difference between those is in America, I never got that).

And obviously every child needs to be able to go to school, hence vouchers + privatization = win.

The German school system is OKish, except that religious education has to be offered as per constitution (which is rubbish).

Yes, I don't care what the parents say, schools are about education. That means science, if they want their kids learning about religion then let them go to church. It has no place in a classroom and the kids must be taught that the myth of creation and the theory of evolution are not equals.

Nor should creationism be called a theory, it's not. A theory, by definition is thrown out or revised when contradictory evidence is presented. I have no objection to teaching biblical stories in a literature class. I see no difference in the story of the great flood with the story of the Iliad, both were intended as religious works, but could be considered classic literature.