is capitalism the best

is capitalism the best

Economics Paper: Why Capitalism Is the Best Economical System?

The collapse of the Feudalism in the late 16th century ushered about a world crossroads. The economic microcosm characterized by the family farm was expanding beyond known borders and rapidly crossing into unknown economic territory. The methods in which individuals acquired and sold goods shifted to mercantilism, which in turn formed the root basis of the capitalist model successfully utilized by many countries today (Wood, 1999). Capitalism is the paramount economic system because it provides limitless opportunity, encourages innovation, and has not been proven inferior to alternative economic systems.

First and foremost, capitalist economic systems provide limitless opportunity for each individual. Capitalism is the only economic system which allows every individual an equal chance of success, regardless of inherited social class. Motivation for success hinges on the guarantee that there are no limitations on the acquisition of wealth. The guaranteed chance of success provided by capitalism inspires hard work, perseverance, and hope.

Moreover, capitalism results in the overall increase of innovation and economic growth. In a capitalist driven economic system, consumers make decisions, or votes, on preferences for products and services. The providers of goods and services are therefore motivated to create the best product to win the consumer. Constant competition results directly in pressure for the producer to continually increase the quality of product while maintaining price. In this way, the power that capitalism inherently bestows to the consumer drives a force for innovation. Without capitalism, innovation is not a priority. In addition to expanding markets, innovation also further increases efficiency, reinforcing and adding to the feedback loop. In recent years, innovation within capitalist economies has increased so rapidly that it has spurred the emergence of an entirely new economic doctrine. This doctrine, dubbed “innovation economics,” centers all economic models around innovation and entrepreneurship, as opposed to traditional models, which are based on public policy. Proponents of the innovation economy predict that exponential growth of capitalist economies is not only feasible, but probable (Baller, Bernd, Blanchard, Buckley, Collins, Eskew, Hodges & Menzer, 2008).

Winston Churchill, a British politician, was famously recorded stating that, “democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried.” (Raymond, 1992) Similarly, capitalism is considered by many to be the best economic system by default due simply to the absence of a more successful model. Modern countries attempting variations of the communist economic system struggle to reach the standard of living which most capitalist countries have achieved (Malik, 2013). These countries are often plagued by governmental corruption and lack of motivation among workers. For example, the Chinese Communist Party was recently ranked 78th of 178 countries in the Transparency International’s Corruption Perception index. This ranking is the worst among comparable developable countries (Transparency International, 2013). The communist USSR under Stalin’s rule suffered heavily due to shortages in basic consumer goods such as food and hygiene products. These shortages were attributed to a lack of motivation among workers to reach outrageous governmental production quotas (Fitzpatrick, 1999). In the last ten years, communist countries are tending towards legislation which increases privatization, causing a gradual governmental shift towards the capitalist model (Moscoso Boedo, 2006).

Free people and free markets are the driving force behind the success of the capitalist model. No other economic model inherently bestows limitless opportunity and power to each individual. The temptation of success and power drives the economy forever forward, creating exponential growth, unprecedented among any other economic systems attempted to date.

Baller, S., Bernd, D., Blanchard, J., Buckley, G., Collins, A., Eskew, M., Hodges, L., & Menzer, J. (2008).Innovation measurement, tracking the state of innovation in the american economy. Retrieved from website: http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/innovation_measurement_01-08.pdf

Fitzpatrick, S. (1999). Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary times : Soviet Russia in the 1930s. (pp. 56). New York, NY :Oxford University Press.

Malik, K. (2013). Human development report 2013. (pp. 2-19). New York, NY: The United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR2013_EN_Summary.pdf

Moscoso Boedo, H. J. (2006). Former communist countries and their transition to capitalism. Informally published manuscript, University of Wisconsin – Madison, Madison, Retrieved from http://people.virginia.edu/

Raymond, W. J. (1992). The dictionary of politics. (7th ed., p. 124). Lawrenceville, VA: Brunswick Publishing Corporation.

Transparency International. (2013). Corruption Perceptions Index 2013Transparency International.

Wood, E. (1999). The origin of capitalism a longer view. (pp. 95-124). New York, NY: Verso Books.

Capitalism is the best form of socialism

Libs do not understand that if you want a big middle class with a fair distribution of wealth, try capitalism. Only in free market America do we have a such large middle class with a comfortable lifestyle. Believe me, the middle class and even the poor live a relatively cushy lifestyle.

  • Capitalism is the best type of social justice there is.

Look at China or Poland, the middle class is raising not because of socialism but because of capitalism.

Socialism does not produce a middle class like this. Only when people are free to act on their own enlightened self interest does the pie get bigger and all live better.

I am an expert on Eastern Europe and post socialist economies as I have lived here a good part of my adult life as well as studied economics. Under socialism there was no middle class. Yes there was a lot of equality on paper but in reality it was some sort of surreal grey dream, not good.

If you look at the Gini coefficient of counties, a measure of wealth dispersion, you will say America has unequal distribution of wealth and in Easter Europe there is a more flat distribution. Well there are lies, dam lies and statistics.

The reason is everyone is/was poor and then you have the elite. Moscow and Russia is a great study of this. You have people living in small blocks of flats and the super rich. But the Gini coefficient shows not as diverse wealth levels as the USA or the UK for example.

Eastern Europe is only now getting a middle class. In contrast, in the USA the ‘poor’ are not poor in my mind, they are with few exceptions living pretty nice lives.

In the USA I have even heard the poor have TV or radio and running water. Poor in Eastern Europe have no running water, no plumbing, no heat in the winter and no food and people sleeping on a floor in a one room studio in the winter with no windows. I have seen this and some of my friends almost live like this. Poor in the USA, and I lived in the south mind you, people have TV’s and radios and plumbing. Let me tell you, you do not want socialism in the USA. You do not want an entitlement state. You do not want anything but capitalism or the middle class will disappear.

Any libs out there that wants change and are anti-capitalists, be aware that you will go out of the fire and into the pan if you embrace a more socialistic state.

Do you really want to change from capitalism to socialism?

Once you set up an entitlement state you can never go back. People do not want their free milk from the state cut off. Basically the system would have to collapse for people to be free from this type of socialism. I am not saying provide no help for the poor, however, a socialism is not help for the poor.

  • If you want to tell me about the nice European social states in Western Europe, try me and leave a comment.

If you want a pie that gets bigger and bigger vote generally libertarian or Tea party small government.

If you want a pie getting smaller and smaller and people fighting over the shrinking pieces vote tax and spend democrat or Neocon republican. Within both the democratic party and the GOP there are elements of good people who want to reverse the damage of government is having on the middle class and the poor.

The middle class is being eroded because of creeping government not because of capitalism.

Muscovite for capitalism

I am a Russian girl. There is no way I would roll back the clock and base a society on a failed economic theory. It is what Zbigniew Bzezinski called the “Grand Failure”.

People who idealize socialism have no idea what they are talking about.

Captalism is almost synonymous with freedom. Socialism is almost synonymous with corruption, elitism and oppression of freedom.

Socialism is a poisonous seduction for the weak,the envious and the parasites. The only good thing about it is that it always eventually self destroys. The not so good thing about it is that it can take one life time.

Not so far from where I live Tyrannical Fidel totally destroyed is country.

Adam this is a brilliant video, thank you. And when Cuba becomes free again, it will only than give hope to people who live there.

The reason people are so adamantly against socialism is they see it destroy’s people’s hopes and dreams. It is not just the material contrast but the whole idea that there is no hope. That is real poverty.

The only real equality I enjoy is “Equal liberty.”

Justice, equality, liberty what should be the goal of government?

The objective of a government is not to make everyone equal materially. It does not work. Again, I have been living in a post socialist country. There was no equality under socialism, not even an illusion of it.

Equality in liberty is a good goal.

For society as a whole (not the individual) the summum bonum is justice. People from Plato to Mortimier J. Adler argued this correctly. You can never have too much justice, it is the ultimate good for a nation.

However, how you achieve a just society is the point of debate. The idea of justice is often elusive and hard to define even with situational ethics. So it is better to focus on the two ideals of equality Vs. personal liberty.

On one hand people argue for material equality, because this is equated to opportunity in life or maximizing comfort.

Yet, when you take from one person to give to another, the ideal of fair and just is comprised. Social engineering is the path of good intentions (questionable) which is the road to hell. This was the experience of the 20th century.

On the other side is liberty. Although I am libertarian leaning to say the least, there are limits to liberty in a just society. For example, it should not be permitted to allow children to take recreational drugs. There are limits to freedom.

There is something called a ‘public good’ such as air. We can not dump anything in the air if we own a factory as we all share that public space.

Small limits on freedoms is something very different than striving government steering and defining something called “the common good”. This is where people get their wires crossed.

The idea of the “common good” sounds great. However, when embraced by a government, it leads to the road of incremental movement to things Europe experienced in the 20th century. Governments pass laws, even in democracies that are unjust in the name of the ‘common good’

So better to have trust in individuals ability to purse enlightened self interest which will unintentionally bring society to ‘the common good’ and maximize the summum bonum of justice.

But outside of the extreme or obvious cases as above, the idea society should be based on the idea that most people are balanced mentally and can handle liberty and responsiblity and they own their own life. This means, although I do like make money, I am not going to stop at nothing to do it.

We can quote enlightenment philosophers from Adam Smith to John Locke and Jefferson until we are blue in the face, but I guess what it comes down to is, do you think men are naturally good or naturally evil.

Are people generally good or evil?

If you believe men are evil, your society should be based on restricting liberties and social engineering and redistribution of wealth forced by the government. You as a politican can play up class warfare and greed and work on people’s jealousy.

If you believe men are at the core good, than a society should guard personal liberties and freedoms of the citizens and protect the citizens from government abuse of power. As a politican you can take the higher ground and appeal to people’s ideals and love or freedom.

I guess my question is why do many people not see this?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson

“there are limits to liberty in a just society. For example, it should not be permitted to allow children to take recreational drugs. There are limits to freedom.”

I am not in agreement with this but I understand what your saying.

Freedom does require responsibility. That is part of protecting it.

I would not be respecting freedom if I dumped my garbage on my neighbor’s lawn or if I pollute a river where other have the freedom to swim on or drink from. To allow children that are not fully mature or ready to take there own decision to take drugs would be irresponsible and putting there there eventual freedom in jeopardy.

I distinguish the responsibility and protection of freedom from its limitation. The word limitation scares the hell out of me.

Jefferson said “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

I may sound a bit extreme but I think that modern democracies have been hijacked a long time ago. To me democracy should not be a goal in its self as we have it to day, instead I look at freedom as being the goal of democracy. We are very far form such a libertarian objective.

I have argued this point before. In the US constitution, the declaration of independence and the bill of rights the word democracy is not found. Democracy is good and nice but the purpose of government is to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens.

Democracy plus protection of freedoms is the ideal. However, it is an old story from Ancient Greece to Rome as well as modern examples from the 19th and 20th century, often democracies do not protect the rights of good peace loving citizens. Just because we have some form of democracy does not mean we are exempt from being on guard against violation of individual rights.

Every socialist republic that was totalitarian did have the world democratic or republic in its title.

I think there is a movement in the US to bring the country closer to the orignal intent of the founding fathers. 2012 is a key election year.

Your suggestion concerning the 12 months moving average is a good suggestion or a kind of “good Rule of thumb”. I never paid to much attention to that but I will now had it to my basic investment criterias. It’s quite reliable.

Tanks for sharing this.

(I will now had it = I will add it)

Capitalist and communist corporatism stink

Just forget that the good life for even the poor in USA is based on the extraction of natural resources, exploitation of human resources and the financial squeezing of predatory lending. all major power eat off of minor powers. Furthermore the planet is dying of toxic waste from cheap deregulated corporations. The choice is not between monopoly capitalism or monopoly communism but corporatism vs free and fair trade. concentration of wealth and power just stinks. to oversimply the choice is between Gandhi style political economy and fascism, meaning corporatism. You don’t need a middle class and a small upper class under a ruling class if people live simply and well without tyrannical ruling classes to force consumerism on the people.

I have no idea what you are talking about? I have lived in post communist countries and they are polluted and corrupt and poor. I could not wait to get back to the clean air and easy life of capitalist America.

I think you need to live in some post industrial Russian city for a while. I am all for Gandhian ideas and ‘small is possible’ type economics but it starts with human freedom. Free movement of labor and capital. So your back to capitalism.

The only real place capitalism has to be watched are public goods like the environment. We could not allow every company to dump pollution into any river near their factory for example. But here are free market solutions for this.

The financial crisis was caused by government trying to control capital and markets like the Federal reserve not the idea of maximizing individual freedom, which results in a greater good for all.

Pros and cons of capitalism: Is capitalism the best economic system?

Are we witnessing the collapse of capitalism? Is capitalism the best economic system? We discuss its pros and cons of free market economy. Join our debate

Is capitalism the best economic system?

The severity of the global financial crisis has brought capitalism back into the spotlight. Many academic discussions and public opinion debates have emerged on the limitations and flaws of capitalism. But what is capitalism? Capitalism is an economic and political system that drives most of the economies in the world. Its main principles are private enterprise and ownership, free market, individualism, and lack of government intervention. Prices are the result of supply and demand. Unlike in state control systems such as socialism or communism, prices are not determined by the governments and the means of production are owned by individuals or private firms, not by state-controlled organizations or groups.

Capitalism, as we know it today, emerged when a group of 18th century thinkers, such as Adam Smith and David Hume, criticized the mercantilist doctrines that ruled western economies. During the Industrial Revolution gradually their ideas acquired salience. The merchants lost prominenced and many protectionist policies were abandoned. Imperialism and globalization helped expanding capitalism during the 19th and 20th centuries. Although Capitalism underwent important crises and was challenged by socialism and other economic conceptions based on central-planning, it still remains today the most widespread economic system in the world. There are, nonetheless, different conceptions of capitalism should work. For instance, keynesianism and monetarism are two capitalist paradigms on the role of governments in societies.

In order to decide if capitalism is the best economic system or needs to be modified or replaced, it is important to assess its advantages and limitations. These are some of the most commonly use arguments found in academic and political debate:

  • Efficiency. Capitalism creates incentives for companies to provide services and goods in an efficient way. Competition forces them to improve the way they are organized and make a better use of the resources available.
  • Consumer satisfaction. Competition and efficiency is supposed to encourage cheap prices and good quality products and services. In a capitalist system there is often a wider variety of products available for purchase. Some alternative systems do not recognize private ownership, which could be problematic from the point of view of consumers.
  • Growth. Capitalist societies have historically proven a great capacity to grow economically.
  • Freedom. Capitalism resonates with some democratic ideals such as individual freedom and separation of powers. In central-planned economies governments hold stronger sway on the economy. Some argue that democracy is only possible in a capitalist society.
  • Curb differences. Free market and free trade is supposed to contribute to gradually balance differences across countries. Countries can have access to goods and services from all over the world and play their competitive advantages.
  • Monopolistic and oligopolistic practices. In capitalism some firms or groups of firms can end up controlling the supply of some products and services. If governments do not intervene, these dominant players can harm smaller players and consumers rights. Some mega-corporations even have the power to shape political decisions.
  • Underprovision of social services. There are services that citizens need and that profit maximizing companies would not be willing to provide at affordable prices. Public health, public transport, defence, etc. Public goods entail positive externalities which are problematic in a pure capitalist system. Governments, need to step in and ensure the adequate provision of public services. In capitalist societies negative externalities, such as pollution and environmental impact are also a common side effect.
  • Wealth inequality. Wealth can be inherited. So some people can be rich just due to the hard work or luck of their ancestors. Capitalist societies are failing to create both equality of outcomes and equality of opportunities. Class gap tends to be wider than in collectivist societies.
  • Economic booms and crises. Capitalist systems are subject to cycles which can prove extremely harmful for the population. Excessive economic specialization driven by capitalism, such as that of resource-rich countries can increase vulnerability to certain external shocks.
  • Abuse of legal loopholes. Many firms and companies increase their profits by exploiting loopholes in the legal system. Profit making is the ultimate goal. This may lead to some practices that although legal, may not contribute to the overall wellbeing of society.

What do you think about capitalism? Is there any better alternative? Are we witnessing a slow collapse of capitalism? Does capitalism need to be reformulated as a doctrine or replaced by another economic system? Do we need more or less government intervention?

You may also want to check out our debates: NAFTA pros and cons and Sustainable development and foreign investment in agriculture

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous.

If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Is capitalism the best economic system?

The US has a mixed economy, not a capitalist economy.

I would argue that the United States is mostly a mixed economy, and is not fully capitalist. The United States government has many regulations on business, provides certain things via the government, such as social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment subsidies, etc. I would argue we have had a mixed economy ever since FDR. You can read what defines a mixed economy here[1] and determine for yourself whether the United States has one.

1) Capitalism is theft. Under capitalism, it is inherently a system where some people get to make money off of other people's labor: that is what business owners do. Why is this tolerated? Shouldn't people only be given compensation for their own labor and not other people's labor? Is a person not entitled to the product of their labor? If a person is entitled to the product of their labor, then it is stealing for a business owner to take profits based off of what the workers of that company are doing. They should only be given compensation for their own personal work, and it can be argued that a business owner doesn't even do nearly as much for the company as the workers do.

2) Capitalism is undemocratic. I believe democracy is a highly-held value in America. Yet, we don't apply it to economics. Why should a business owner be able to dictate to the workers what to do without consent of those workers? Democracy is important because it gives consent to the governed. Well, a business owner is a position of power and authority. Yet, the workers are not represented at all under capitalism. It is unjust rule.

Quotes from my opponent will be italicized and the first part of each number.

1) There will always be winners and losers, but we all get a fair shot to make money.

This is not true. It takes capital to make a business, thus it takes capital(money) to be able to make a lot more money. Some person who was born poor can't just make a business right off the bat like Donald Trump could who was given 1 million dollars by his father. We don't all get a fair shot to make money.

2) In socialism, everyone loses, but its equally bad, and just a silver-lined version. There is no incentive! That is what drives us to be great. If you are guaranteed just as much money as anyone else, you aren't going to care about doing well, and everything will be crappy.

Socialism isn't about making the same amount of money as everyone else, it's about properly compensating people for legitimate work. Someone who works hard, longer, needs special skills to perform their job, etc are supposed to be compensated more than someone who doesn't need/do those things. However, someone who doesn't do anything, or hardly any hard work such as a business owner, wouldn't be compensated as much. Actually, there wouldn't be sole business owners in socialism anyways.

3) Just look at the Soviet Union, Vietnam, many parts of China. They have been so impoverished by communism, millions of citizens starve to death, which is harder than you think.

My opponent believes the lies that were told to them that these countries were socialist or communist. Anyone can just look up the definitions of those two words and see that those societies didn't meet the definitions. As anyone will find out by looking to wikipedia, socialism is the democratic control and social ownership of the means of production. The Soviet Union, Vietnam, and China had/have state ownership of the means of production, not democratic control or social ownership. State ownership of the means of production is known as state capitalism, which again, you can look up on wikipedia.

Cooperative individualism, which is a system in which worker cooperatives are the majority type of business in a society, would probably be much better than capitalism. Worker coops are more productive, have higher wages for their workers, have no single business owner(since worker coops are owned by the workers of that company) and worker coops are generally more able to survive the first 5 years in business as well as recessions[3]. I am citing my previous debate for all of these facts, so if you want a more detailed version of what I am talking about, click on my third source and read my arguments. Cooperative individualism, by the way, is a form of socialism. There are many various forms of socialism, and it is not fair of my opponent to lump all of them together.

1) No, it is not theft. Employment is an agreement between two parties to trade labor in exchange for (usually monetary) compensation. Remember, employees agree to this and can quit whenever they feel like it, one of the pluses of capitalism. Also, do remember that entrepreneurs must have an idea, get it patented, form a business, and get people to buy that product. It is fair that they reap the benefits of good business, and less so the person that just has to come in and sell it. Nevermind the risks of being an entrepreneur. In our system, anyone can make money like this. Anyone can go and start their own business, a plus of capitalism.

2) See, here is where you are even more wrong. In no way, shape, or form is any business owner dictating workers. They are free to leave anytime they want. They have to listen if they want to still get paid money, and that's how it should be. They do give consent, they give consent by signing a contract to work there, by applying for that job. A king builds his kingdom from scratch and starts to gain citizens. He says to those citizens, you can live in my great kingdom, but you have to follow my rules. If you don't or if you don't want to, then leave. its the same with a corporation. He owns that corporation, so he makes the decisions. This is one of the most democratic and American-valued processes I can think of. By these means, and that the owner has absolutely no legal power, especially resembling a dictator's, your claim is false.

1) That is what a bank loan is for, or investors, and is one of the perks of capitalism. In this world, you must work for money and save and invest it wisely. If you can do that, and you have a potentially-successful product, you can take out a bank loan to get the capital you need to invest in your business. Also, you need to be smart with your money, Donald Trump could have easily have let that money go to waste, but he took what he had and turned it into billions. If you have the idea, there is a way to turn that idea into a business, and that is why there is always a fair-shot to make money, because capital isn't worth anything if there is nothing to invest it in.

2) This is where people tend to go amiss. It is not about the work you put in, although that would be the fairest way. It's about what you put out. A programmer and a carpenter may put out the same amount of work. The carpenter makes a couple tables, and the programmer makes a jackpot software development. Obviously the programmer should get paid more because his product has the greatest and most valuable impact on our lives. The people who don't work but make a lot of money did extremely hard and risky work to get to that position, and that is their reward. And without sole business owners, as you mention, there would be no reason for someone to work hard to make a good product that is beneficial to us, because they know they will be compensated just as much as the cashier down the road, that's a waste of the human brain and talents.

3) Quibbling with words doesn't discredit my case. The cause of the Vietnam war was because JFK was concerned with the Domino Theory[1] and thought it was the only way to prevent it. But after the war started to cease, the Domino Theory was not a problem, because the rest of the world saw how communism ruined a country (Soviet Union prime example) and no longer considered it to be a legitimate political or economic system. This is because communism looks good on paper, but does not at all work in real life. (USSR was ruled and controlled by the founding political party Communist Party of the Soviet Union; same with People's Republic of China and also Vietnam, so yes they are communist and socialist)

2) Indeed, I suppose someone who produces something that is more valuable to people would also be compensated more. As for this quote by my opponent: "And without sole business owners, as you mention, there would be no reason for someone to work hard to make a good product that is beneficial to us, because they know they will be compensated just as much as the cashier down the road, that's a waste of the human brain and talents." This is a bare assertion though. I would argue worker cooperatives are just as good as traditional businesses, if not better, at creating products that are beneficial to us. As you can read about in my other debate, worker coops surive the first 5 years at a 80% rate, in comparison to traditional businesses which survive at a 41% rate. If worker coops were terrible at providing products beneficial to us, then why do they survive more often than traditional businesses?

3) Words do matter because if you make an argument that doesn't actually apply to socialism because you used an argument that would apply to a misunderstanding of socialism or communism, then that argument doesn't actually apply. To claim we should discard an entire theory, because a country failed due to having a dictator rise to power instead of achieving socialism would be like saying capitalism should be discarded for the same reason. What if dictators rose to power when capitalism was tried? The events may be competely unrelated. To prove communism fails, you need to show that dictatorship is a natural result of communism. Just having correlation, where one or a few nations fell to dictatorship when they tried communism, doesn't prove causation. I can provide many leftist regimes which didn't result in a dictatorship, such as revolutionary catalonia, the free territory of Ukraine, and the modern day Rojava. None of these nations resulted in a totalitarian dictatorship like the attempts of communism in the USSR, Vietnam, and other places did.

There are three ways in which cooperatives are made: one is a group of middle class people coming together and each pitching in some capital for the creation of a jointly-owned democratic business. The second way is through a rich person creating a traditional company, then transitions it to a worker cooperative(this is actually the most common current way worker coops are made). Some people are selfless like this and decide to not be selfish like other business owners. The third way is the group of people go to a bank and get a loan, this is the most rare way since banks tend not to loan out to worker coops.

"I certainly would not work day and night, take all the risk, and then have my idea given to people who just have to show up and work."

This is said out of selfishness of course. Not everyone is selfish. There are actually people out there who will create a traditional business, and then transition it to a worker coop. This is actually what I have plans to do. I have plans to become a psychiatrist, make my own psychiatric firm, and then give my secretaries, and any other psychiatrists who work there joint-ownership of the company as well as higher wages that will result from having joint-ownership of the company.

" Again, there is no incentive!"

How about just a desire to be a decent human being? I think most people want to be moral and good, selfless people. The incentive is that you want to be a good person. There are many rich people who are philanthropists, such as Bill Gates and John Hunstman. I contend the reason they wouldn't turn their businesses into cooperatives is that they likely don't even know what a worker coop is! I'm sure these selfless people would do so otherwise. We aren't even taught about worker coops in economics classes, so how are people supposed to know about them? Additionally, if you go to my previous debate I linked to, you'll see a source showing that 89% of people don't even know what a coop is, I bet the pecent who know what specifically a worker coop is would be even lower.

"That is how America will lose its hard earned prosperity, by getting rid of the thing that made us great, capitalism."

America is not great because of capitalism. It is held back because of it. What is great about exploiting people for their labor in order make a profit off of them?

1) Your argument is being a little closed-minded of reality. First off, many of the working class have people working below them while working for someone. You are saying that if a person quits they will starve to death. That is in no way true. There are many other jobs out there and saying you must work for someone is not the case. In most inherently capitalist societies (or slightly mixed as you have noted), there are social welfare programs. A majority of conservatives (who mostly side for increased capitalism) want certain facets of these changed, but still existent. In your stated case, the government provides not only food stamps (so you WILL NOT starve), but also welfare checks, if necessary public housing, Low Income Home Energy Assistance, Medicaid and Medicare, etc. No, business owners do not decide whether you get to eat tonight. They have to pay you a set paycheck that you agreed to when you accepted the job. They can not deny you the money if you work, and you are also guaranteed a minimum wage. What you are saying is slavery, labor without pay. That is false. Ownership should not "be shared democratically among people" because he worked to make that business and he should get to own it, that is a primitive value for all people, you own what you make. If you took that business and shared it with other people against his will, THAT is stealing.

2) Yes, but they are free to do so and that is their choice. I think you are taking my analogy too literally. Your king (or dictator if it would please the socialists) makes his kingdom. He says you can come and live here, with protection, rights, and your needs taken care of. But, you must work, and you must do what I say, or you will be kicked out (or fired). In a monarchy, you would be imprisoned or killed, that is where your logic has fallacies. It is ignorant of you to compare a political system to an economic system and compare them equivalents. They have nothing in common and can not be related to each other. That is besides the fact that your comparison is extremely backwards. Democracy represents freedom. In capitalism, you are free to have whatever job you want, start whatever company you want, earn whatever money you want. In socialism, you are told what to do, and how much money you can earn, you can not start your own business, only the government can. Again, democratic control over means of production is false. The government owns it, its no better, its worse. The final claim is so false it frustrates me to explain this again. Capitalism, in no way, shape, or form, forces anyone to do anything. They can do whatever they like, but they must live with the consequences! It is not democracy, neither is the U.S., but it is the most free system there is.

1) You're right, no bank would. Your collateral has to be what you own. And that is why when you see a rich entrepreneur that doesn't have to work, you know he deserves it. You are risking everything you own to start that business, so you deserve to earn that much if it works. Hey, life isn't fair. If you were to risk your own financial well being making a business, you would not be concerned if you hired someone who is impoverished. You want someone to get the job done, and that life isn't fair makes it more fair in a sense. The playing field is not leveled, you use what you got. That is a fair shot.

2) Where are your statistics from, you have provided no citations whatsoever. But in all seriousness, who would want to work to make something good if he knew it would just be split with everyone else. They survive so well (I'm guessing because there is no factual evidence) because there is no competition. Low supply with regular demand makes a lot of money. That is actually a bad thing though. You see, the 41% statistic shows that there is survival of the fittest, which means that the successful have to have a good product to do well. The 80% shows us that even lower-quality products will survive because there is nothing better that is driving them out of business. This is bad for the consumer. This is exactly why they survive longer.

3) In this case, the argument does apply to socialism, but you tried to discredit my argument by saying they weren't truly socialist, though they were. You can not have capitalism and dictatorship in the real world, it just doesn't work like that. The failure of socialism in those countries though, was not single-handedly that they fell to a dictatorship, it was that people were ACTUALLY starving, the economies were absolutely horrendous, the 99% were living in poverty. That is why they were failures. Dictatorship came because of the outrage about the poor conditions.

Firstly, the second and third ways would never happen. Not a single person would use their money to start a business and then just give it to people. And as you said, "banks tend not to loan to worker coops", this is for a certain reason. If they were so good, the banks would love to loan to them, but obviously there are reasons the bank would not want to do that, even if they might for a traditional business. But a change in economic system for solely the first method is unnecessary. This can be achieved in a capitalist society. Each person owns a share of the company, and they are a board of directors for the company. They discuss and decide on company actions. You are proving that capitalism is superior to other economic systems, because cooperative ownership is possible in capitalism. Unfortunately, there is no right-minded person out there who is willing to give up their hard-earned business to someone. We all are selfish at some point. I can consider this happening a handful of times, but nowhere near the amount you are talking about. If that is your plan, I respect that and applaud you selflessness, but I question it as a business decision. It is not sustainable to set your economy off the basis that people will think up businesses and give them away. Its idealistic and just won't happen. America is the greatest country of all time. Period. It is unquestionable if you look at the advances this country has made in every field. If you look at our powerful military. If you look at our functioning, democratic government. All these things were achieved because of how great our economy was made by capitalism. Everything relies on the economy. And everything has proven the US as the greatest nation in history. Why mess with what's working. What's so great about that (your final claim) is that it ultimately benefits everyone. The consumer gets a product in demand. The laborer gets paid money. The owner gets money. If the worker agrees to provide the labor, which is always the case in capitalism, what is wrong with exploiting (to make full use of) what they have given you. They are exploiting the monetary compensation in return. That is how they make money and they worked to be able to do that. I would again like to thank my opponent for this interesting and civil debate.

2) Again, I'm referring to the previous debate I had which I cited in round 1. I said "as you can read in my other debate. " I'm referring to the debate I linked to previously. The citations are in there. It's in my third source in the first round. If you want, I'll provide the direct link to the statistics though, even though you can look at it in my previous debate, here it is[7], it's on page 8. As for your argument that "The 80% shows us that even lower-quality products will survive because there is nothing better that is driving them out of business. This is bad for the consumer. This is exactly why they survive longer." I would actually argue the worker coops provide higher quality products, in fact, if you look at my previous debate, that is exactly what I argue and that is what studies show: worker coops provide higher quality products. I'll directly link to the study that shows this though: [8]. So the reason they survive is not because they provide lower quality products, as you claimed, but because they do provide higher quality products.

3) You're not providing any evidence on how these countries were socialist though. Anyone knows that they had state-control of the economy, and as my definitions show, this is state capitalism, not socialism. I provided definitions of the terms, and you're not providing anything other than your own claim that these countries were socialist.

Now, as for "You are proving that capitalism is superior to other economic systems, because cooperative ownership is possible in capitalism"

Cooperatives are inherently socialistic. As soon as you have more cooperatives in an economy, that economy becomes less capitalistic. Please note that private property is necessary for capitalism, and "Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities"[10] Please note that private property is necessary for capitalism[11] and thus cooperative property is not capitalistic, and you can't have cooperative property under a pure capitalist society. Cooperatives can exist simultaneously with capitalist businesses, but when they do, they make the economy a little less capitalistic.

Top 10 Greatest Benefits of Capitalism

While likely to be a very controversial list, we are in the middle of one of Capitalism’s favorite seasons: Christmas, so it seems fitting to publish it on Christmas Eve. After the death of feudalism in the 19th century, a choice was presented to the world: would the new politico-economic system be capitalism, communism, the “Third Way” or an obscure alternative? Communism sounded great on paper but never really worked as intended, and the most well-known group within the Third Way movement was the Nazi party, whether the rest of the movement liked it or not.

Fortunately, the country in which you are living today is almost certainly capitalist, and in this article we will investigate the numerous benefits that democratic capitalism provides: an equal, happy, healthy society where you can have almost anything you want, for a price.

With capitalism, more choice is provided than ever before. You can eat low fat food, organic food, free-range food… and you know exactly what you’re getting due to the statistics on the packet. There are plenty of diets easily accessible and gyms with top of the range equipment, unparalleled in other countries. There is greater awareness than ever of the importance of fitness due to government campaigns. All of these contribute to an extremely fit society, and, in desperation, one can always resort to liposuction or some other sort of surgery. Which is why everyone is thin and healthy – on the front of magazines, at least.

It might seem at first glance that everyone is selfishly working for their own money, but dig a little deeper and it becomes apparent that every job has a benefit for someone else. Factory workers produce the products that we can’t live without; hairdressers perform a service that benefits us body and sould; and the police work to protect us and make sure we live in a lawful society. Even unpopular and ‘overpaid’ professions such as city bankers and sportsmen have a positive effect on society, whether it be helping us manage our money, entertainment or something else. The bottom line is that no matter the job; highly or poorly paid, glamorous or dirty, competitive or ‘easy’; everyone can have the satisfaction that they, as much as the well-known public figures, are doing their bit for society.

No matter where you start in life, everyone has an opportunity to make it big. The basic principle is that the harder you work, the greater your reward. Arguably no-one epitomizes this better than Li Ka-shing, who fled China in 1940 and entered Hong Kong with next to nothing. His father having died, Li left school at the age of 14 and labored 16 hours every day in a plastics trading company, where his sheer hard work and attention to detail allowed him to found Cheung Kong Industries in the 1950s, after which he never looked back. Li’s net worth today is $26.5 billion.

One of the most common arguments that capitalists use is that capitalism works perfectly with human nature or, more specifically, greed. And it does. Greed is rewarded duly with large amounts of money and the entire economy is fuelled by people working hard to furnish their own needs. In addition, greed causes competition, which is an essential part of advancing the human race. The power of competition is shown during wars, where huge technological achievements are made. For example, the Jeep was invented by the Allies during WWII. Though greed and competition often damage society, one cannot deny that these traits have moved forwards mankind at a rapid pace.

But what about the other aspects of human nature: altruism, patience and kindness? These have their place, too, in the capitalist world. Left-wing politicians like to claim that an extensive, expensive welfare system is the only way to provide a safety net for the poor, but in actual fact there are tens of thousands of registered charities providing not-for-profit activities, from The National Alliance to End Homelessness to Save the Rainforest. Centrally planned altruism is completely unnecessary and, in fact, limits what people would otherwise give on their own initiative.

Most of you reading this list will have grown up in a world-class education system and taken it for granted that you can choose whatever career you want. At school you selected your favorite subjects and could study them as far as you wanted, followed by applying to a job you chose from the widest variety ever seen in history. This is capitalism at its finest: freedom to live your life the way you want.

However, some argue that advertising infringes on one’s freedom. Don’t like advertising? Don’t switch on the TV or the radio and don’t walk around large towns or cities and you will never meet any. That is the beauty of freedom.

One of the greatest things about capitalism is that it works perfectly with democracy: everyone gets 1 vote, and thus equal power politically, whatever their race, political views or gender. In Britain, recent legislation has even allowed some prisoners to vote. Once you reach a certain age, you have as much power to choose the new government as everybody else above that age – whether that be your father, your boss or Bill Gates. Right?

Capitalism allows the economy to grow exponentially. It is a basic fact of economics that the more money a firm makes, the more it can invest in production, and the more it invests in production, the more money it makes. So long as no unfortunate events befall the firm, this growth can, obviously, continue indefinitely. Many see a problem arising with this: there are only a finite, or ‘scarce’ amount of resources on Earth, so this huge growth of production will one day run to a halt.

However, as argued by Julian Simon, the rarer a resource, the greater its monetary value, which leads to innovation. For example as oil begins to run out we are seeing significant increase in prices, which has increased the reward and made it economically viable to search for new oil fields. Sites which were previously too expensive to profitably drill have now become available; and we are also developing new methods of harnessing alternative energy such as wind, solar and nuclear power. The oil scarcity isn’t particularly our problem, anyway, since by the time it is depleted, our generation will be long gone.

Perhaps the strongest argument working in favor of democratic capitalism is that there is no alternative politico-economic system which has proved itself to work in our modern age. Almost every attempted implementation of communism has failed (for example, look at China – they abandoned total communism long ago and are slowly creeping towards capitalism) and any central government risks large amounts of corruption. What’s more is that if, for example, America became socialist and imposed many strong measures on corporations to regulate their behavior, the largest companies (Trans-National Corporations) would most likely move their industry elsewhere, and potential entrepreneurs would be scared to invest in capital, irreparably damaging America’s economy. So as you can see, changing the economic system isn’t even an option.

If you look at this happiness map published by scholars from the University of Leicester, you can clearly see that the foremost democratic, capitalist countries like the USA, Canada, New Zealand and the whole of Europe are the happiest in the world. This is because in these countries, thanks to the free-market, whatever products people want, they can get. Where do all these thousands of products come from? Well, the less happy countries like the Asian Tiger economies tend to be the main exporters of consumer goods. In conclusion, all these unhappy countries need to do is start consuming more than they produce, like Europe, and the wealth and happiness will start flowing in.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Пока оценок нет)
Loading...
Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

36 + = 39

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!:

map