• Capitalism is good

    Under capitalism all people have a chance to make a better life for themselves, people have incentive to work and earn money to be spent. We have seen it throughout history that under capitalism many more people prosper than under systems like socialism and communism that often result in the birth of oppressive totalitarian regimes. In capitalism private property is sacred, the individual is respected with the right to a pursuit of happiness. Without capitalism many great innovations would have never come about. Many would argue that the worker isn't respected and is repressed by an oligarchy of corporate leaders, this is simply untrue due to the fact the worker has at his disposal the most precious commodity in the world, his labor. If a worker isn't treated fairly and receives to little pay, they have the ability to quit there job and work at a better company. This means if a business man wants workers to work at his business and produce the product he wants them to produce he must provide proper working conditions and wages in order to attract labor thus benefiting the worker. Capitalism is a good system

  • With regulation, yes

    With smart regulations, a ratio-pay tax (corporate income tax based on ratio between CEO and lowest paid worker) and/or a bracketed income tax, and employee representation on the board of directors (many EU countries), it is. Capitalism spurred development and innovation. While some will invent or build stuff for moral good, moral good doesn't pay the bills. If modern technology and culture is enjoyed, capitalism has played a part and would probably not exist today, or even the next hundred years.

  • In response to the Yes-answers

    The argument simply beginning with "Capitalism is good" assumes many things--first, that socialism is central planning. Second, that socialism and communism are the only alternatives. Third, that because of competition among labor workers will get a fair trade under capitalism.

    Socialism is not central planning. Socialism is defined as an economic system proposing public ownership of capital. That is, everyone who works at a factory owns and has a say in how to run it. Socialism is democracy extended not only to nations and cities, but to workplaces and companies.

    Now, even as an advocate of socialism I can direct you to non-socialist, non-communist and non-capitalist economic systems; two of the most prominent ones are corporatism and distributism.

    Corporatism is a merger of state, corporate and union power wherein separate interest groups negotiate and act as one body--corpus in Latin. It is not rule by corporations, contrary to popular belief.

    Distributism is an economic system proposing an economy of small, family-owned and run businesses organizing themselves in guilds. It perceives the family as the fundamental unit of the economy and states that everyone should have "three acres and a cow"; enough land for them and their family to work and live on.

    Then there is the question of the "oligarchy of corporate leaders". Ah, yes! The poster claims that this oligarchy is non-existent because workers will always seek better jobs. Yet, capitalism, by nature, encourages and mandates unfair trades.

    Capitalism works like this: Hey, here's a leatherworking bench, make 20 boots for me, I'll sell them and give you 10%. The numbers may vary, but the core is the same. The best the labor market can do is change the numbers, they will never make the system genuinely just.

    Huh? You worked to make those boots. It doesn't matter whose leather workbench you used. Every single cent that comes from those boots should be yours.

    The solution? Socialism.

    Socialism works like this: OK, here's a leatherworking bench, let's both work together in equal amounts to make 30 boots, sell them, and split the money even. Then we'll hold a vote on what to do after that.

  • Not from a moral perspective.

    I know Keynesian economics can bring a lot of good to the economy and as long as elements are added in to ensure fairness (such as welfare) and the reduction of externalities (such as taxes to reduce pollution), it can lead to an economically prosperous society.

    Yet your income and standard of living are not everything. The greatest ill that capitalism has brought us is individualism. Capitalism functions under the postulate of constrained maximisation, which means people want to maximise their happiness given a restricted amount of resources. They do not care about others, only their own interests. According to Adam Smith, this would lead to wealth - and he was right.

    With the development of capitalism, the postulate has become some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. People are truly begin to discard their humanistic natures, and turn to selfishness and greed. We are now a generation of people who enjoy a high standard of living, and yet have discarded the good moral values that our ancestors have left us.

    Advertisements are the best example of this. Women, and more recently men, are sexualised. Advertisers trick and deceive with misleading advertisements without feeling shame as long as they leave a fine print on the bottom. Consumerism-promoting adverts are extremely common - buying is glorified, treated as some kind of healthy hobby like sports or arts.

    How is that moral? It is not, and this is why I oppose capitalism.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.