Poll: Capitalism dying?

[Deus Naturae]

If capitalism dies, mankind's ability to progress will die.

Not certainly, but capitalism has lead to a lot of competition in order to get a better, cheaper product and that's where the driving force for a lot of innovation in technology comes from. In this system, which there are a lot of flaws, it has worked better than our friends in the USSR and Cuba.

I think it would be best to continue to have a mixed market system, where some things are controlled by the government (schools, police), and others not controlled by the government (businesses) but needs to pay their fair share so everybody can prosper. Almost the current system we have now.

Capitalism is much more efficient than a mixed market system. The only reason we can have a mixed market system is because pure capitalism created enough wealth for all of these safety nets. Capitalism literally has no flaws.

What kind of response is that? Capitalism has a lot of flaws, the largest one being inequality, inequality in gender pay, inequality between the rich and the poor, and it leads to systems such as slavery. Capitalism has a lot of flaws and it's pretty ignorant for someone to think that it's perfect.

Under what system would inequality cease to exist? Certainly not the "mixed market" system you advocate, and certainly not any system capable of doing anything other than impoverishing every member of the populace. I agree that excessive inequality is a bad thing, but you're assuming that this is the result of the free market rather than upward wealth redistribution and destruction, as well as government barriers designed to prevent those on the lower end of the spectrum from escaping poverty.

You probably believe that, even in the absence of such anti-upward mobility policies, a strong welfare state is still needed to help the poor. However, given that basically every politician who champions the welfare state also supports a plethora of regulations (I can specify if you want) in agriculture, energy, housing, labor, medical care, transportation, and countless other economic sectors that make the poor poorer (and quite often, the rich richer), I have to conclude that any sort of social welfare state will inevitably be used as a tool by politicians seeking to harm the poor. Welfare states create a vicious cycle whereby politicians can run for office on the promise of preserving and strengthening welfare programs, quietly enact policies that will steal and destroy even more of what little the poor have (or sometimes, loudly enact them while claiming that they'll really help poor people). The poor then become even more dependent on welfare benefits, and even more likely to vote for candidates that promise to protect and expand these programs, who then enact even more anti-poor policies and perpetuate the cycle. So, the very institution you desire to alleviate inequality will only serve to perpetuate and exacerbate it.

As for slavery, I'm curious why you believe that what we call "capitalism" is responsible for its existence. It's true that slavers subjugate(d) their fellow human beings in search of profit, but the profit motive is not synonymous with capitalism. If I murder someone and steal their wallet out of greed, is that capitalism?

[Deus Naturae]

If I murder someone and steal their wallet out of greed, is that capitalism?

I think the more apt comparison is if you create a fantastic new formula for a drug and I sneak into your laboratory, copy down the formula, sell the exact same thing at 10% less, and undercut you to make a fortune, is that not capitalism?  I mean, it's just smart business sense, right?  Screw government regulations like patent law.

I'm not seeing what that has to do with slavery. My point is that not every profit-motivated action is capitalism...by that logic capitalism has been practiced since the dawn of humanity.

[Deus Naturae]

Under no system would inequality would cease to exist, but there is a very large difference between the rich and the poor, that is a fact. Under other systems, like socialism, inequality isn't as large, and the inequality is usually between the leaders of the country and the followers, that happens in a capitalistic system as well.

And it's also a fact that we currently have a mixed economy. So, excessive inequality is not necessarily caused by the free market.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? You actually believe that the only reason regulations exist is to protect people? That reads like a libertarian parody of a leftist. Do you believe that regulations passed in NC and NJ to prevent Tesla from selling cars are just there to "protect" people from dangerous solar vehicles? Apartheid regulation banning the hiring of blacks? It's one thing to say that we need regulations, but your claim that "regulations can't hurt the poor because they only exist to protect us" is frankly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

As for specific examples, agricultural regulations limiting food production and requiring farmers to charge higher prices for their products, restrictive zoning ordinances and building codes that prevent affordable housing construction, occupational licensing and minimum wage requirements that prevent people from entering the labor market, FDA regulations that delay the release of potentially life-saving medicines for years, etc. Most if not all of which are supported by politicians who champion the welfare state. This leads me to the conclusion that a welfare state will always be used by politicians who wish to make the poor poorer, because this will lead to more people dependent on welfare, which will then lead to more votes for pro-welfare politicians, who will then have an incentive to enact even more anti-poor policies in order to further expand their electoral base.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Capitalism may be driven by profit, but that doesn't that every profit-driven activity is inherently capitalistic. By that logic, a government bureaucrat who embezzles taxpayer money is a capitalist.