Amazon.com Widgets

Is pure Capitalism good for the average person? (people in the middle class)

Asked by: Pretzelz
  • ... Yet. Just YET.

    Honestly I'm not fond of capitalism. "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil". Not money itself, but the LOVE of money, which is what capitalism is all about. However, it's the best for now. Communism has failed, globally and colossally. My conclusion is, as long as the two-parent family structure is the norm, capitalism is the the only way. It will stand, unless we go back to a matriarch society where women are independent with the absolute power on human reproduction and children's upbringing whereas men are but breeders whose seed are on the market for sale.

  • Pure Capitalism is for the rich

    With pure Capitalism, there are only two real economic classes in a society. There are the very rich, and there are the very poor. With pure Capitalism there is no government regulations on the economy. This should, in theory benefit everyone because there wouldn't be a limit in how much you can earn. However, no government regulations also means that there is no minimum wage. That means your employer can pay as much as he/ she want. You could earn a dollar, although highly unlikely, for your days work. Without at least some government regulations in the economy there won't be a middle class. There would simply be the very rich and the very poor.

  • Real capitalism, or free market capitalism is the best possible choice in any circumstance.

    The problem is that free market capitalism existed only for a really short time and only in the US. The state should be no more than a noninvasive monitor of the free market.
    Also in order for the countries to be in top health the government a.K.A. The people should retain direct control over only the currency of that state, this ensures that the market will remain free from corporate oligarchies.
    Another thing that is crucial in order for a government to stay on the sidelines, rather than becoming a key factor in the race of who makes it and who doesn't is that it takes only the bare minimum required for defensive and governing roles that the free market couldn't for fill. Because of this the tax system should be non-existent (0.1-0.2%) for the bottom 60% and should gradually rise to 5-10% for the top 40%, this ensures that the state will have the resources to relative safety to it's citizens and it promotes smaller companies, thereby lessening the chance of monopolies forming.

  • Capitalism has run its course.

    Back in the 50's when we competed with Communism, American Capitalism was a true beacon of society. People who worked hard got vacations, were part of functioning, not-so-corrupt unions, and retirement was assured. Nowadays, Chinese Commie-Capitalism is proving to be a force to be reckoned with.

    Corruption is rampant. Money and the bottom line have warped the American dream. The wealthy have become so polarized from the middle class that we have come full circle and reinstated the very system of elitism and quasi-monarchical cronyism that our fore-fathers were fighting in the first place. It's a real mess, and the traditional 1950's Capitalism mindset has so far proven to be pretty ineffective - Bush (who got in power thanks to some big name capitalists) exercised that kind of thinking in his disastrous tax cuts and also in his deregulation of the financial sector, in essence, creating a massive rubber band snap that blew up in Obama's face.

  • Mixed market is most fair

    Black or white is usually not the best outcome. The compromise here would be a mixed market. This could be govt run (nationalized, municipalized, etc), single-payer through govt, guild/union, or corporation for pensions, medical, education, housing allowance, food allowance, as these are the basics for life (including growing up to get a good job and getting too old to hold down job). This mixed system creates far less strife as everyone is seen to be in it together. If govt run, taxes can pay for the system; if guild/union run, fees can pay for the system; same for corporate run. If not govt run, taxes will be low with fees paying for services. If govt run, taxes will be high with taxes paying for services. In all events, the govt should ensure the fairness, inspection, and regulation. As single-payer is between buyer (govt/guild/corporation) and not run by, the provider is a company.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-06-05T03:31:26.757
I'm not sure the middle class is really the average person. The higher or middle tiers of the working class is probably closer to average if you're speaking of medians and not means.
Jack_D says2015-06-07T01:08:18.667
If the word in the question "pure"means unregulated capitalism, a laissez faire economy like Rand Paul might desire, my answer is no. There is an important role for the federal government to play. Capitalism without some regulation produces massive environmental damage, poverty, and other undesirable outcomes. There's a reason the non-socialist Richard Nixon signed The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts; the rivers in Ohio were actually on fire because of pollution! Many of our modern technological advances have come from public investments (see Mariana Mazzucato, The Entrepreneurial State).