Poll: Capitalism dying?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:30:23 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Poll: Capitalism dying?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: Do you think capitalism will die sooner or later?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 73

Author Topic: Poll: Capitalism dying?  (Read 9225 times)
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2014, 06:01:50 PM »

Poverty isn't a flaw of capitalism. Capitalism wasn't supposed to eradicate the poor class. No1 has ever said it was. If they did, they were misinformed. Capitalism is perfect because it consistently achieves it's goals.

Yeah, the goal that for every millionaire, there's gonna be hundreds of people stricken with poverty. Pretty sweet goal. But hey, those poverty-stricken cretins will some day be rich thanks to trickle down economics. Just ask everyone in Detroit. They all got rich after that big auto boom.

Because there are so many well off people in socialist or market intervening countries. Yeah you guys are so great. That's why Africa and South America are doing so well. Also, poverty is relative.

The point of socialism isn't to be "well-off", it's to be equal. And I would hardly call Africa or South America socialist. Africa's a victim of imperialism (capitalist imperialism, at that) and, just to pick one South American country, Brazil is extremely wealthy in terms of GDP, but continue to suffer from massive income inequality because of (surprise) capitalism. Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_Brazil
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: August 02, 2014, 10:24:22 PM »

People being poor is obviously a flaw. You could argue that it's a flaw that would exist in any other system as well and perhaps even be worse or that it's a flaw that's in some way balanced out by benefits that necessitate it as a side-effect, but saying that it's not a flaw at all makes you sound like you care more about their markets as their own abstracted entities than about the actual people who have to live in and use them. Which is a horrible, disgusting way to think.

In fairness, there's a legitimate philosophical position that would make poor members of society a feature instead of a flaw. If one holds that an underclass serves the purpose of motivating people to achieve more and thereby either escape from or avoid entering that underclass, then having some poor people in a society becomes a necessity to the economic system.

That's hardly a legitimate philosophical position, unless you believe that human life only has true meaning if there is struggle, sacrifice and bloodshed or that "progress" is inherently good. If you have an instrumental view of economic growth or technological innovation, there can be no justification for the continued presence of poverty in modern society because there is no clearly demonstrable link between economic efficiency and the redistribution of wealth and increased economic output is only desirable in so far as it satisfies need, thus increasing "utility".

We have the means to eliminate poverty as it is defined in western nations and as it is defined in the developing world. Eliminating poverty would not place a constraint on economic growth or technological progress and the only argument against the objective of poverty reduction lies within philosophy that is completely divorced from the language of social scientists and policy analysts. So, unless you believe that tremendous inequality sets the stage for a glorious morality play in which the strong may be separated from the weak and then rewarded accordingly, there is no justification for the existence of poverty. The philosophical thinking described previously cannot be considered a "legitimate philosophy" under any circumstances because this line of thinking justifies barbarism and devalues human life. It's certainly a philosophy but it's a monstrous one and it should not be legitimized.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: August 02, 2014, 11:20:11 PM »

People being poor is obviously a flaw. You could argue that it's a flaw that would exist in any other system as well and perhaps even be worse or that it's a flaw that's in some way balanced out by benefits that necessitate it as a side-effect, but saying that it's not a flaw at all makes you sound like you care more about their markets as their own abstracted entities than about the actual people who have to live in and use them. Which is a horrible, disgusting way to think.

In fairness, there's a legitimate philosophical position that would make poor members of society a feature instead of a flaw. If one holds that an underclass serves the purpose of motivating people to achieve more and thereby either escape from or avoid entering that underclass, then having some poor people in a society becomes a necessity to the economic system.

That's hardly a legitimate philosophical position, unless you believe that human life only has true meaning if there is struggle, sacrifice and bloodshed or that "progress" is inherently good. If you have an instrumental view of economic growth or technological innovation, there can be no justification for the continued presence of poverty in modern society because there is no clearly demonstrable link between economic efficiency and the redistribution of wealth and increased economic output is only desirable in so far as it satisfies need, thus increasing "utility".

We have the means to eliminate poverty as it is defined in western nations and as it is defined in the developing world. Eliminating poverty would not place a constraint on economic growth or technological progress and the only argument against the objective of poverty reduction lies within philosophy that is completely divorced from the language of social scientists and policy analysts. So, unless you believe that tremendous inequality sets the stage for a glorious morality play in which the strong may be separated from the weak and then rewarded accordingly, there is no justification for the existence of poverty. The philosophical thinking described previously cannot be considered a "legitimate philosophy" under any circumstances because this line of thinking justifies barbarism and devalues human life. It's certainly a philosophy but it's a monstrous one and it should not be legitimized.

I think you did not take my meaning clearly. First of all I'm not speaking of my views, but recognizing what I see as a cogent position, even though it need not be shared by others. Second when I speak of a feature I don't mean that it's a goal to maintain a class of poor people, but a recognition that a system that promotes social and economic mobility must perforce have individuals who are better off than others. Hence it's a feature.

Even those who would seek to help the poor may at the same time believe that nature will not treat all equally. In that case the best efforts of man will still leave a measure of inequality since those efforts by man will be reactive. Is it barbaric in that case to believe that there will always be poor in the world with one's duty to help the poor, knowing that our help will not eliminate the poor?
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: August 02, 2014, 11:57:48 PM »

People being poor is obviously a flaw. You could argue that it's a flaw that would exist in any other system as well and perhaps even be worse or that it's a flaw that's in some way balanced out by benefits that necessitate it as a side-effect, but saying that it's not a flaw at all makes you sound like you care more about their markets as their own abstracted entities than about the actual people who have to live in and use them. Which is a horrible, disgusting way to think.

In fairness, there's a legitimate philosophical position that would make poor members of society a feature instead of a flaw. If one holds that an underclass serves the purpose of motivating people to achieve more and thereby either escape from or avoid entering that underclass, then having some poor people in a society becomes a necessity to the economic system.

That's hardly a legitimate philosophical position, unless you believe that human life only has true meaning if there is struggle, sacrifice and bloodshed or that "progress" is inherently good. If you have an instrumental view of economic growth or technological innovation, there can be no justification for the continued presence of poverty in modern society because there is no clearly demonstrable link between economic efficiency and the redistribution of wealth and increased economic output is only desirable in so far as it satisfies need, thus increasing "utility".

We have the means to eliminate poverty as it is defined in western nations and as it is defined in the developing world. Eliminating poverty would not place a constraint on economic growth or technological progress and the only argument against the objective of poverty reduction lies within philosophy that is completely divorced from the language of social scientists and policy analysts. So, unless you believe that tremendous inequality sets the stage for a glorious morality play in which the strong may be separated from the weak and then rewarded accordingly, there is no justification for the existence of poverty. The philosophical thinking described previously cannot be considered a "legitimate philosophy" under any circumstances because this line of thinking justifies barbarism and devalues human life. It's certainly a philosophy but it's a monstrous one and it should not be legitimized.

I think you did not take my meaning clearly. First of all I'm not speaking of my views, but recognizing what I see as a cogent position, even though it need not be shared by others. Second when I speak of a feature I don't mean that it's a goal to maintain a class of poor people, but a recognition that a system that promotes social and economic mobility must perforce have individuals who are better off than others. Hence it's a feature.

Even those who would seek to help the poor may at the same time believe that nature will not treat all equally. In that case the best efforts of man will still leave a measure of inequality since those efforts by man will be reactive. Is it barbaric in that case to believe that there will always be poor in the world with one's duty to help the poor, knowing that our help will not eliminate the poor?

I used the second person as a rhetorical device, which was pretty unclear of me. I certainly understand that line of reasoning but it's always struck me as a facetious argument. There's no real political opposition to a limited level of inequality in which doctors have higher living standards than the unemployed but many believe that it's desirable for millions of Americans to be reduced to privation so long as the labor market remains flexible and economic growth is increased.

I reject the premise that "nature" plays a major role in the existence of inequality but I understand your point.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: August 03, 2014, 03:33:25 AM »

Capitalism is perfect because it consistently achieves it's goals.

I guess concentration camps were perfect too, then?

(yeah I know, Godwin point, whatever)
Boy, this got good. Show me the logical argument that claims perfection is moral

You didn't answer my question, but I take that as a yes.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: August 03, 2014, 04:48:55 AM »

I like market economy, that's a term which I understand the definition of.

Isn't that as vague as capitalism? I mean, markets (in all senses of the word) were essential to the operation of the economy in the 12th century, say.

Yes, I know, that is a big part of my point, actually. Smiley

I have a pretty good idea of what I mean by a market economy. I agree with Mikado that society is different if one compares before and after the industrial revolution. But I'm not sure if capitalism accurately captures this.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: August 03, 2014, 09:11:50 AM »


Even those who would seek to help the poor may at the same time believe that nature will not treat all equally. In that case the best efforts of man will still leave a measure of inequality since those efforts by man will be reactive. Is it barbaric in that case to believe that there will always be poor in the world with one's duty to help the poor, knowing that our help will not eliminate the poor?

I used the second person as a rhetorical device, which was pretty unclear of me. I certainly understand that line of reasoning but it's always struck me as a facetious argument. There's no real political opposition to a limited level of inequality in which doctors have higher living standards than the unemployed but many believe that it's desirable for millions of Americans to be reduced to privation so long as the labor market remains flexible and economic growth is increased.

I reject the premise that "nature" plays a major role in the existence of inequality but I understand your point.

That's an unusual premise to reject. It seems hard to reject the idea that nature provides us with a set of strengths and weaknesses including health, intelligence, artistic, and athletic skills that can result in substantial inequality in outcomes without intervention by human means. There are also acute disruptions from natural sources whether to the person in the form of illness or accident or to personal property from disasters like fire or flood. These natural events can by themselves create substantial inequality that would need to to rectified by human intervention. Thus my contention that nature plays a significant and continuous role in creating inequality. It need not be the only one, but it seems to be an irreducible one.

The challenge for any economic system is then to be able to allocate resources to efficiently react to external events. Those reactions can be market-driven or driven by need to address social needs or some hybrid of both. That doesn't change the fundamental role of external events driving the allocation of resources.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: August 03, 2014, 11:17:40 AM »

Capitalism is perfect because it consistently achieves it's goals.

I guess concentration camps were perfect too, then?

(yeah I know, Godwin point, whatever)
Boy, this got good. Show me the logical argument that claims perfection is moral

You didn't answer my question, but I take that as a yes.

You're unnecessarily loading moral baggage onto what he said. I don't know why.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: August 03, 2014, 01:42:16 PM »

Capitalism is perfect because it consistently achieves it's goals.

I guess concentration camps were perfect too, then?

(yeah I know, Godwin point, whatever)
Boy, this got good. Show me the logical argument that claims perfection is moral

You didn't answer my question, but I take that as a yes.

You're unnecessarily loading moral baggage onto what he said. I don't know why.

I'm simply pointing out how ridiculously absurd this definition of "perfection" is, and using an extreme example to that purpose. I think my point would be clear enough to anyone who isn't either stupid or disingenuous.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: August 11, 2014, 01:26:12 AM »


Poverty isn't a flaw of capitalism. Capitalism wasn't supposed to eradicate the poor class. No1 has ever said it was. If they did, they were misinformed. Capitalism is perfect because it consistently achieves it's goals.

Yeah, the goal that for every millionaire, there's gonna be hundreds of people stricken with poverty. Pretty sweet goal. But hey, those poverty-stricken cretins will some day be rich thanks to trickle down economics. Just ask everyone in Detroit. They all got rich after that big auto boom.
Because there are so many well off people in socialist or market intervening countries. Yeah you guys are so great. That's why Africa and South America are doing so well. Also, poverty is relative.
Africa and South America aren't socialist, so what's your point?
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: August 11, 2014, 04:16:26 PM »

Capitalism is perfect because it consistently achieves it's goals.

I guess concentration camps were perfect too, then?

(yeah I know, Godwin point, whatever)
Boy, this got good. Show me the logical argument that claims perfection is moral

You didn't answer my question, but I take that as a yes.

You're unnecessarily loading moral baggage onto what he said. I don't know why.

I'm simply pointing out how ridiculously absurd this definition of "perfection" is, and using an extreme example to that purpose. I think my point would be clear enough to anyone who isn't either stupid or disingenuous.
Your point was bad because you created an illogical argument equating perfection and morality

If you didn't intend to make some kind of moral or at least normative point then why did you bring it up in the first place?
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: August 11, 2014, 09:11:56 PM »

This discussion is going well. Roll Eyes
Logged
MurrayBannerman
murraybannerman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 756


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: -2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: August 21, 2014, 08:05:30 PM »

The world has become more integrated and free over time, so no. Not one bit.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 13 queries.