The Case Against Capitalism

We have a natural progression of income taxes. I could see the rates of the wealthy being more progressive and I agree with one of your long term premises, that being we should also progressively tax wealth over a given threshold.

Concurrently we must eliminate all forms of regressive taxes, such as sales tax, value added tax, fuel tax et al, because the poor many pays as much tax on a gallon of gas as does the richman.

 

Why only the bad citizens? Do you think a tax is a penalty imposed on someone for a felony or misdemeanor? Wouldn't that be a fine instead of a tax?

 

The poverty level should match the cost of social services, by equivalent analogy. Any market based wage should compete favorably with that cost.

 

A true capitalist only believes (and is correct) that civilian management of business, IE decisions on production, distribution and pricing.

The only government restraints should be regulation of fair business practices and the taxation OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE MOST OF THE PROFITS, while eliminating corporate taxes which are a major reason many companies off shore.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong! True capitalism, properly regulated, which increases wealth such that needed social programs (not socialism) can be paid for.

 

better infrastructure can help us do that on a per capita basis.

for example, in California, I believe we should have underground, maglev capable public transit, capable of being a "conduit to markets" for public and private sector goods and services: connecting Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento. Since it would be underground, it could be in a straight line to each destination.

It could be capable of using the same containers as currently used on freight trucks and trains; and could even afford the convenience of transporting tractors and trailers to be dropped off at the station nearest their destination.

 

simply resorting to the (other) Peoples' money is socialism not capitalism, if not done voluntarily. you are confusing true capitalism with the socialism necessary for a mixed-market economy.

 

Those suggestions may be right on, but it must be the will of the people to be willing to spend their tax dollars that way.

 

No Daniel, your concept of socialism is warped. State Socialism means that the government owns or controls production, distribution and prices. All of your little pet comments about social programs being socialism are bunk and do not reach the threshold of socialism.

 

So if social services are costing, as you claimed, the equivalent of $14 an hour employed person social services are being provided at nearly $9 greater than they should be and the current $7.25 minimum wage should be quite competitive. The only thing I would add would be a limit to how much and how long a person would be allowed to access social services.

 

maybe we can ask academia for an, economic impact study?

- - - Updated - - -

it doesn't work now; why not simply raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars and hour and let markets achieve new equilibriums.

 

it still seems, our friends on the right have no argument for lower wages, but for a private profit motive.

 

While raising the minimum wage to $15 might increase the number of people actively seeking employment, you seem to suggest that it would create a desire for employers to seek more employees.
If a product you like/use doubled in price would you be incentivized to buy more of it?

 

nope; i don't think that at all. if a job isn't worth fifteen an hour the employer needs to find something for his employees to do until it does.

 

How does a society deem who is good and who is bad? Who enacts the taxes, is there a "bad index" it runs in tangent to?

 

It has been done many times. The difference is not the theories, but the reality of each theory, and Capitalism wins every time in practice in spite of some inequities. That being the case regulation needs to solve the problems.

Capitalism is working very well, and is the only way to pay for the social programs needed for that equilibrium.

 

exactly, it just eliminated 40% of all the poverty on earth when China switched to it. Previously socialism had slowly starved 60 million to death in China.

 

sadly at $7/hour its nearly impossible, at $15 it would often be far better to invest in more capital or machines to replace labor than more labor. The liberal solution is always violent: hold a gun to employers head and force him to pay.

Also, never forget that minimum wage is just one of 1000 ways a violent liberal wants to interfere with the free market which he lacks the IQ to understand.

And of course, if bottom pay was $15 that would push up all pay so there would be no net advantage to $15/hour workers.

 

Especially to those who lose their jobs and in general to the citizens of the US whose rate of the standard of living increase would be decreased due to the reduction of economic growth. The depth of the lack of basic economic understanding by the left (as you point out) is breathtaking. You and the others have much more patience than I in taking the time to respond to it.

 

Are you now attempting to equate employment to adoption?

Jobs that pay the minimum wage or less provide an opportunity to build a work history and/or provide a source of additional income for those who have minimal valued skills to sell to gain additional income. Increasing the minimum wage is like removing another rung from the bottom of the ladder and if the job not worth paying the minimum wage is simply a necessary or government imposed cost adding no value at all to the product or service it could result in the elimination of some higher paid employees to balance the books.

So, jobs which are worth $15 an hour exist and those who are already employed are more likely to acquire one than those who are waiting for one to be offered to them, having never worked.

 

The House of Representatives is the first place we should ask that question.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't know what you mean, if we have to quibble. We have a mixed-market economy, not true capitalism. It is merely a matter of degree (of socialism). But, you should already know that, master Smith.

 

so what; it means more production at less cost. supply side economics could supply negative inflation and enable social services dollars to "stretch farther".

moving the goal posts is what government does. don't like it, simply hire more people so government won't need to intervene to bailout capitalism like usual.

in any case, even if machines do more of the work, it still means our standard of living will be improving.

- - - Updated - - -

The scenario being discussed already factors for the unemployed and those needing means tested social services.

The right's Only argument is to make the poor work harder at lower cost, to make the rich, richer.

- - - Updated - - -

A fifteen dollar an hour wage competes with social services favorably. Competition is a natural part of capitalism. Why such lack of Faith, in Capitalism?

 

First, thanks to all the participants who contributed to this thread. I sincerely appreciate the engagement.

Next, here is my overall case against capitalism. I did include some of the merits to the system, but still found them dwarfed by its negatives:


[TABLE="class: grid, width: 600"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 300, bgcolor: transparent"]System Pros

[/TD]
[TD="width: 300, bgcolor: transparent"]System Negatives
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Great wealth generator
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Income Inequality - Without appropriate intervention, society is divided into rich and poor classes. It is easy for the rich to exploit the poor for cheap labor.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Many choices are provided for products and services. Due to choice availability, improvement in quality of goods take place. Over time, production becomes ever more efficient and costs lowered.
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Choices - The choices in products and services are actually provided by very few entities. Also, as goods become more efficient to produce markets become flooded with "cheap junk."

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]In some respects, this system allows people the freedom to choose where they live and work. With a decent interventionist system, good middle classes emerge.

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Social Insecurity - Due to income inequality and imbalances, the economy is insecure. Those in the lower classes become restless and demand intervention and sometimes radical changes.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Unbalanced Growth - Industries tend to concentrate in more profitable sectors. This usually results in certain regions being neglected and basic, essential service industries ignored. Under capitalism it is standard to have developed and undeveloped regions in the economy.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Anti-Competitive - Monopolies, oligopolies, or entities that own a vast majority of a market share are commonplace under capitalism. This is a negative because monopolies can and do exercise power in the free market and charge customers higher prices. Monopolies often pay lower wages to workers.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Immobility - Due to the inequality of wealth, extreme poverty inevitably occurs. Homelessness, slums, diseases, etc. accompanies capitalism. The more capitalistic a region, the bigger the aforementioned problems.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Waste - While much waste is out of sight, out of mind, the capitalist system has no means of capping incredible amounts of it. Features of waste and excess brought by capitalism include landfills and toxic dump sites. The materialistic attractions in this system encourages a throw away lifestyle which contributes a lot to the waste.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Environment - Due to the need to ever produce under capitalism, mass consumption and waste accumulates. The need to place byproducts of the chemicals used for production and waste from consumers, there always needs to be a place to the extras somewhere. Moreover, due to the ever consuming nature of capitalism, ecosystems are devastated, trashed, and spoiled to accommodate the needs for the system. Destruction of Amazon Rainforest

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Market Unpredictability - Major boom and bust cycles; When it's good it's pretty good, when it's bad it's long-term recessions, mass unemployment, and at worst depressions.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Wars - Many of the wars fought have been over profit and to stimulate the capitalist economy. Here is Pope Francis take: We are in a world economic system that is not good. A system that in order to survive must make war, as great empires have always done. But since you cannot have a Third World War, you have regional wars. And what does this mean? That arms are made and sold, and in this way the idolatrous economies, the great world economies that sacrifice man at the feet of the idol of money, obviously keep their balance sheets in the black.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Anti-Proprietorship and Economics of Dispossession - Due to very few true owners in capitalism, classes and individuals are kept from acquiring and owning private property.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Imperialism - The desire for mass profit and production compels arch capitalist to explore and conquer distant lands for commercial opportunities. Once a new place becomes modernized and urbanized, older cultures and their practices often disappear.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]National Identity - Due to the profit motive, many companies use immigrant labor as a labor asset and cheaper labor source. Because many immigrants are naturally attracted to economic opportunities, it can be easy for a region's identity to change once a flood of newcomers enter for work opportunities.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Slows Human Progress - Due to the profit motive, it doesn't serve companies well to release the latest in technological, medical, or any other type of advances to the public until they've made all their money back. So far that's fair. But here's the other side: Medical cures would put an end to "treatments" and stop obsolescence cycles in the medical field and so we barely hear of cures anymore, if at all. That's just one example of the obstructive tendencies that are prevalent in the capitalist model. Other examples of obstruction to progress is corporations buying up patents to potentially competitive components and products in order to keep them off the markets. Many of the greatest infrastructure projects and inventions emerged under different types of economies other than capitalism. For example, it was the United Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR) to launch the first ICBM, to send an satellite (artificial) and animal into Earth's orbit, the first man, woman, and crew into space. In an attempt to compete in the space race, the US government with the help from a German scientist who came from a Socialist regime, developed its space program and achieved great milestones from it. Other ways capitalism slows human advancement is through for-profit colleges. For-profit colleges simply make education more scarce.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[hr][/hr]

Overall, capitalism is an exploitative system that requires significant amounts of intervention to keep people from being destitute. It is an insatiable system that operates without regard to people, sovereignty, finite resources, or the environment. There is nothing wrong with considering a move on from this system to another with a bit more consideration for all involved.

-DS

 

Social services produces nothing for a business to compete with. I lack no faith in Capitalism, it is socialism and government attempts to create equality where it does not exist that has had the most detrimental effect on our economy and debt.

 

Labor. The private sector has tor compete for labor with the public sector for that "commodity" type metric.

 

In the private sector businesses compete with each other other for their labour needs, and the public sector social services subsidizes their profits by enabling those with little or no income the means to consume their products and/or services.

If its' your intent to equate human labour as a commodity, like all commodities their value is acquired only when they are put to use. Those who consume without any contribution or consume more than the value of their contribution result in a cost burden on society as a whole.