Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Capitalism Is Perfect Or Not?


havok579257

Recommended Posts

havok579257

How do banks get in charge in the first place?

 

 

they have the money to buy politicians.  just like anyone who has a ton of money can buy most elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh no, you wont talk to me.  oh the humanity...

 

to answer your first question... yes. now let's move on.

 

If you think you understand enough, then can you explain how you made two basic errors in your first post?

 

First, capitalism isn't a form of government.

 

Second, no capitalists claim that capitalism will form a utopian society; it's only anti-capitalists that have ever laid claim to the keys to utopia.

 

So... Are you sure you understand enough on the subject to engage in, let alone initiate a debate on the subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

havok579257

If you think you understand enough, then can you explain how you made two basic errors in your first post?

 

and athiesm is not a religion, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its also the fact that we the poor and middle class have to pay taxes but the rich get out of it.  equality for all.  

 

You have to parse out which taxes. Someone surviving off of interest from capital might well pay less in taxes. If you had a million sitting in the bank, you would have an income from it of around 50K. Is that rich, to you? What happens to money that goes to the government, anyway? Most of it is consumed by the bureaucracy and handed out to cronies. A relatively small amount trickles back to social welfare programs. We have to pay for the doubleplusgood democracy bombs, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they have the money to buy politicians.  just like anyone who has a ton of money can buy most elections.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of actual historical events. The pdf I put a link up to is an impressive source. If you haven't read it, I recommend it to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, then give examples of other types of economic systems that don't fit into either capitalist or marxist definitions. 

 

 

Any economy that existed on earth prior to the 18th century?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PhuturePriest

Any economy that existed on earth prior to the 18th century?  

 

How did economies in feudalism work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fidei Defensor

Pope Francis on trickle down economics:

 

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra­lized workings of the prevailing economic system Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pope-francis-denounces-trickle-down-economic-theories-in-critique-of-inequality/2013/11/26/e17ffe4e-56b6-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

Edited by tardis ad astra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the broad sense you could say there is only capitalism and communism (ie. marxism.)  It depends on how one defines them.  Neither are very precise and most people (including yourself as I pointed out early in this thread) misunderstand the meanings of both.)

 

Any economy that existed on earth prior to the 18th century?  

Well, you are attempting to answer what was a rhetorical question for Havok, who I knew couldn't answer it... though I'm not sure why you picked 1700 as a dividing line.  Did you have something specific in mind?

 

As for your answer, it just depends on the definition of capitalism.  In the broadest sense, capitalism vs marxism comes down to who owns the means of production, private individuals or gov't.  So in a broad sense even mercantilist systems were capitalist, in that the means of production was in private hands. 

 

In a very, very narrow sense, nothing was "capitalist" before the 18th century because Marx & Engel's hadn't popularized the term yet, so it was never applied to anything. 

 

Then there is everything in between, which is why capitalist is not a very good term to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do banks get in charge in the first place?

 

 

they have the money to buy politicians.  just like anyone who has a ton of money can buy most elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you are attempting to answer what was a rhetorical question for Havok, who I knew couldn't answer it... though I'm not sure why you picked 1700 as a dividing line.  Did you have something specific in mind?

 

As for your answer, it just depends on the definition of capitalism.  In the broadest sense, capitalism vs marxism comes down to who owns the means of production, private individuals or gov't.  So in a broad sense even mercantilist systems were capitalist, in that the means of production was in private hands. 

 

In a very, very narrow sense, nothing was "capitalist" before the 18th century because Marx & Engel's hadn't popularized the term yet, so it was never applied to anything. 

 

Then there is everything in between, which is why capitalist is not a very good term to use.

 

 

The 18thish century is often chosen by historians because that's when modern industrial capitalism began developing in the UK and other small areas of Europe.  Some argue that it began to emerge in prior centuries but I think it's safe to say that the 18th century is when you begin to see political-economic systems that really begin to resemble what we could consider a modernist capital industrial economy.  

 

You're point is perfectly fair that Merchantilist systems were arguable a early form of capitalism.  As you pointed out it's an ambiguous term.  I think that the 18th century is better but it's not a view that I would argue is clearly right or wrong.

 

I would point out that in the Marxist program the state has to whither away and die before a genuinely socialist system can emerge.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking more along the lines of actual historical events. The pdf I put a link up to is an impressive source. If you haven't read it, I recommend it to you.

 

Asking people to read a book and have a historical perspective is no way to get through to people.  You have to be able to tweet it or put it in an animated gif, dontcha know?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking people to read a book and have a historical perspective is no way to get through to people.  You have to be able to tweet it or put it in an animated gif, dontcha know?
 

 

Agreed, besides, i dont feel like reading a book to participate in the part of the conversation you are bringing to the table. Im lazy

Edited by CrossCuT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crosscut, if I haven't complimented you before for being honest and consistent (in your own way), let me do so now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...