How does capitalism have a happy ending?

Capitalism will get a happy ending when we institute common sense financial reforms, intended to protect against the excesses it has created, while preserving the idea of free markets, free labour, etc.

For instance, rather than minimum wage, I say we just pass a maximum ratio law. Currently, the wealthiest people in our society earn something like 200-400 times the amount the poorest do. So let's limit that. All companies that make more than x amount per year are required to keep compensation within a ratio of 75:1. The top earner can make no more than 75 times the top earner. This allows companies to set compensation as they see fit, while ensuring that rewarding top-level executives requires rewarding bottom level employees.

We need intelligent representatives who will stop trying to sell the same old ideas as something new and exciting. Tax cuts aren't going to make us rich, and social programs aren't going to fix poverty. We need to harness the positive aspects of capitalism - free markets, the ability to delegate resources efficiently, innovation, risk - while protecting against the negative aspects, which are pretty numerous these days and account for a simply massive amount of social damage.

 

capitalism is genius because it frees people from common sense of your variety, which many would say are communism

simply reducing regulation to 0 and letting people trade freely and own what they produce and add value to and getting all the welfare jobs destroyed gets everyone in the game of producing what people want

the excesses you speak of are all caused by government intervention

example: 2008

and yes george bush was unconstitutional to start war with iraq or afghanistan!!

no war and no commy regulations and taxes are what most americans want

democrat media is lying nonstop daily to keep wool over eyes of people who believe in adding value without having a welfare job or a pension that was never earned

 

Communism is democratic ownership of the means of production. Which isn't at all what I suggested...

 

If it is government intervention you are against corporations, with their limited liability for shareholders and operators, should be the first to go because they are entirely government created entities.

 

If someone had made the same argument to you 100 years ago, what would you have said? The same arguments were being made then, and the same responses apply.

If there's not enough to go around, as you claim, how might you expect any other system to fix the problem? Prevent new wealth from forming so everyone has a job, no matter how menial? How do you see that will help if there are fewer resources than what new wealth and productivity creates?

 

Socialism is always willing to give Capitalism a happy ending with the other Peoples' money.

 

I'm glad you brought up what people DESERVE, so please tell me why people DESERVE healthcare and a home and not to go hungry? First off, nobody deserves anything. You did not deserve to be born into the internet age where everybody has smart phones and personal computers. A blind man does not DESERVE to be born blind any more than a rich man DESERVES to be born rich. The fact is, we live in a very unequal society, which is a great thing. I am so grateful that Steve Jobs was able to make billions of dollars, because I have an Iphone with unlimited access to information and communication at my fingertips 24 hours a day. I didn't DESERVE this iphone, but I'm grateful that I have it.

The fact is, poor people will ALWAYS exist, you just can't stop that. There is always going to be classes of people who are more well off than others. Does that mean we should use force to make society more equal (which is what government is trying to do)? Of course not. If we use force for rich children who will inherit their family money, we should also stop smart people from reproducing because it would be unfair/unequal for a really smart couple to have a smart child. The passing on of genetic advantages is no different than the passing on of financial advantages. We need to celebrate inequality, as it has given us the world we live in. It isn't fair that Beyonce is freaking gorgeous and has the voice of a goddess, but I get a lot of pleasure from listening to her. I am very grateful that she doesn't sing like me, because that would be a true tragedy.

While we can't get rid of the financially poor class of people, I think that there are some solutions that will make society run much better. The first is to take pride in what we do, and respect each individual regardless of what their class or job is. The whole minimum wage, in my opinion, is demeaning to people making minimum wage simply because we are focusing on what they are making rather than what they are doing. We should be extremely grateful for what they do when they bring you your burger. If burger flipping gets automated, that is AWESOME because those people will now have the time to go on the internet, and educate themselves, and maybe make a bigger contribution to this world that they wouldn't have been able to do if they had been stuck flipping burgers.

This leads me into the real solution to the "problems" created by capitalism. Our society needs to understand the importance of gratitude. We have become so fixated on what the hedge fund manager has or what our boss is making or what we don't have, that we forget to take the time to look around and see what we have. Most of us have electricity, running water, a toilet, refrigerator, stove, and microwave. These are items that nobody had just 120 years ago. Many people own cars, have regular access to gas, and are living into there 60s and 70s. These are all things that we need to stop and be grateful for. The reason I don't look at what the "1%" has is because it really doesn't matter to me. Sometimes, I am frustrated with the way that they got it (if they are politicians...since the majority of politicians ARE in the 1%), but in the end of the day, it doesn't matter what I think about it because they have what they have, and I have what I have. To me, being upset with the 1% is almost akin to being mad with a utopian alien society somewhere out there in the universe. This is getting a little off topic, but if you believe the universe is infinite, then everything that can happen will happen infinitely many times, so somewhere out there there probably IS a utopian society with unlimited resources and an infinite intelligence. However being jealous of this imaginary alien society does me no good because I live here on earth. It is completely irrelevant, at the end of the day, my opinions on them are completely trivial.

We can create this society, and I promise it will not be done in Washington. As I put in another post, who comes to mind when you think of the Renaissance? Do you think of the elected officials? Or do you think of the Medici's, Da vinci, Michaelangelo, and later Shakespeare? Do you know who the rulers and elected leaders of ancient Greece were? Or do you think of Plato, Aristotle and Socrates when Ancient Greece comes to mind? These were not men that were elected or chosen by any particular person or even group of people. These were men who had a vision for the world and an ambition that they weren't afraid to pursue. They didn't need to use force to pursue their ambitions, they had the courage to try and fail as many times as it took.

One last quick thing to think about before thinking capitalism failed is this: If you could trade lives with John D. Rockafeller, Andrew Carnegie or J.P. Morgan, would you? Now, I don't know that status of your life, but here is mine. I make about $1000 a month, and live in a small 1 bedroom apartment with my girlfriend. And yet, I wouldn't trade my life for theirs in a million years. Sometimes I honestly wonder what they did with all of their money. I can fly from here (WA state) to New York in about 8 hours, all of their money combined could not have accomplished that feat. I have the power to instantly communicate with just about anybody on earth at the tips of my fingers at any given moment of the day, as well as instant access to any information I need in a second. I have electricity, a television, and a little "book-like" thing that can compute and process an IMMENSE amount of data in a matter of seconds. These men had a combined net worth that was over a trillion dollars in today's money, and yet, I can do more with my $1000 a month than they could ever dream of doing with their money, and I don't owe it to any one man, but to the free market...to Capitalism.

 

Quite possibly the best idea I've heard on this forum (finally, somebody more interested in solving a problem then proving a point/slandering the other side). I'll have to think about this and get back with a counterargument (I believe every idea should be sufficiently challenged before accepting it), but I just wanted to bookmark it so that I won't forget it. Thanks though, that is great food for thought and a really interesting idea.

 

Other than an open-mined masseuse will anything provide a 'happy ending'?

We get so caught up in the moment, solving our own problems, creating our own lives, that we forget in the grand scheme of things all biological forms on Earth are simply along for the ride. This ride might last a few days or a billion years, but nonetheless, it is a temporary ride.

While we spend time worrying about capitalism and the economy, we don't worry about a meteor strike, or 7+ earthquake, or water crisis, or population growth, or bacteria and disease, or climate change...all of which in short notice can render capitalism and the economy worthless.

We don't pay attention to our own health and typically do as much as possible to destroy our lives with abuse from alcohol, tobacco, drugs, obesity, poor nutrition, lethargic lifestyle, etc.

At the rate we are going it's hard to imagine, at least regarding the collective we, a happy ending with anything...

 

Here, sir, is how capitalism has a happy ending.

My father, oddly enough, was employed as a janitor, cashier, and spent summers picking corn fields throughout his youth. This work was done on a family farm that was declining due to advancements in transportation. There was no market for corn in the southeast because it was cheaper shipped in from the midwest. The family farm shut down a few years prior to his collegiate career. During his first semester in college he thought of a concept that had not entered the market yet. He worked doubles as a janitor until he could finance his new idea. He began operations (while still a student) and it shot through the roof. During the companies initial upswing he asked his older brother (who also lost his planned future when the farm shut down) if he wanted in on the business and he declined on the basis that he wouldn't qualify for tuition grants and hated early mornings. 25 years later, my father still arrives at work 5 days a week at 3:30 a.m., leaving at 230 in the afternoon. His company offers benefits that twice exceed the average of businesses in it's class, offers incentive based bonuses that do not max out until salary/wages have been doubled. Currently right under 75 people without a highschool degree are employed by my father, a few being illiterate. 8 of those people make minimum wage, 6 make six figures.

And I must be a case of "daddy's money" who has been blinded to the "real problems" in America? I worked 30 hours a week through middle school summers and 60+ hours a week during high school summers at that company. I spent 6 years in college, and was unemployed only for the two weeks that followed moving in freshman year. I just graduated with a Masters degree and was 100% (other than car insurance) independent through college. My parents told me that my options were to keep my scholarships or go to work. I am currently employed at my fathers company making $12.50 an hour plus incentives. On my first day back from college my dad told me this: "We discuss this once and only once. You get my company when you pay me what it's work to the penny in cash. I'm going to take that money, tithe my 10% and buy a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing mansion on what was your grandfathers farm. Partially for pleasure, bust mostly to convince you to never quit busting your ass"

While not automation related, I feel that this is a good example of how advancements in technology don't hurt capitalism. Work ethic is the variable to be considered. There are some wealthy business owners that are greedy, lazy, and that cheat the system. But government can't change that. Human imperfection is ignored by most supporters of socialist-leaning economists. Until the government can find a way to make the total population perfect in nature: to each his own.

The key to capitalism is that there WILL AND SHOULD BE a poor class. The only thing these people DESERVE is the opportunity to make as much money as they want. And that is what capitalism does.

 

Anecdotes are great; but, exceptionalism does not provide for the general welfare, either. Why not solve for the deleterious effects of a natural rate of unemployment and the loss of that circulation of money in our Institution of money based markets. It could be done as easily as administering our current regime of minimum wage laws is now and we already have the infrastructure in place in our republic.

 

They don't need welfare - they need jobs. if the state was to spend all the money on jobs that it does on welfare, they will collect more taxes, and then more jobs, etcetera etcetera.

With the welfare as it is now, it will see the state spend money on the goods, the poor get the goods, the money is spent get taxed everytime it changes hands, and all the money comes back to the state en masse.

There is no problem.

 

How do you account for structural forms of unemployment under Any form of Capitalism? Only Socialism can bail out Capitalism as easy as any regime of minimum wage laws is now.

 

and that is all theories, speculation, and assumptions
but we do know how communism ends with historical, present day, and empirical evidence

 

Sure is funny just how far off the two sides are on this.

The Right says better yourself, make your skills more valuable.

The left says not to do a thing, just expect things to be given to you.

 

I think it is even funnier when the right is too cognitively dissonant to realize

those being Infringed upon shouldn't have to a Thing,

if only

the right could be moral enough to bear true witness instead of indulging the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

 

Well, that is because there is a problem that is not being dealt with. if the state was to spend more money on making jobs, it will get more money back through the way i said it would. at the moment, people need welfare, but, that money gets taxed as well, and all comes back to the state.

For this reason, the state should take a loan and create the jobs. or, to raise funds to create jobs could be ignored by inciting the big businesses to 'expand' their base of operations by making sure there are incentives for the big businesses to expand. say, the more people they employ, the less tax they pay? this will be great for the state as they will collect less from the big business, and get more than they were from the salary tax of the employees.

 

The right says better yourself but offers no way to actually do that.

The left says you can do better than that and tries to create a path so everyone can.

The right's altruism is cynical, the left's sincere.
That has to be funny to someone somewhere.

 

Darwin once stated something about survival of the fittest. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this might be a contradiction to many of the socialistic views here. Just saying.

Right and left, Repubs vs dems, get over it already, this is what they want. This is why we mean nothing.

 

Darwin did not understand that human survival has always been a group endeavour since long before human ancestors first climbed down from the trees. Darwin can be excused for his ignorance but there is no excuse for the modern day Darwinists who seek to apply his preliminary precepts on species survival to everyday human interaction, completely disregarding all the science that has proceeded from Darwin's preliminary guesswork, clarifying, codifying and defining its reality, and the limits of its application.

 

Darwin's guesswork? You realize Darwin's guesswork is the basis for why God does not exist right? So now it's guesswork? I was pretty sure Darwin's Theory of Evolution was already written in stone as complete fact. I guess my believing in God isn't so ridiculousness now, since both are guesswork.

 

Science is guesswork supported by observable evidence. There is no complete facts in science because not everything is known. Newly discovered evidence can change everything we know about anything at any time and does so with some regularity.

Complete fact is not a scientific term. It is a term used only by those who have blind faith, mostly religious believers.

Disbelief in the existence of God has been around since at least the ancient Greeks, which is where the term sceptic comes from. Since Darwin was not an ancient Greek but an Englishman of the 19th century it is highly improbable that his musings formed the basis from which the concept that God does not exist arose.

 

I understand the existence of a God has been debated for a very long time and I have zero problem with that. However, modern society uses Darwin's Theory of Evolution as the sole basis for why God does not exist. There is plenty of observable evidence that God does in fact exist. For one, they are called humans. So from a scientific standpoint, My hypothesis is that God does not exist. How do you prove that? Or my hypothesis is that God does exist. How do you prove that? You don't.

 

How do you actually solve for any rate of unemployment? If you don't solve for that, you aren't really solving for simple poverty in our republic.

- - - Updated - - -

It really is too bad, but only for the least wealthy who don't qualify for multimillion dollar bonuses without even a drug test while on means tested (corporate) welfare.

 

Well, you can create jobs by spending money on the country, by taking money out of welfare or social security and building factories. these can be sold or used by the state.

Or, you could try to give bonuses for a company expanding the business they have in the form of tax reductions - the more jobs you create the more money you save.

If you do not understand what i said, i would say you are lacking elementary school knowhow. but let me continue with some more ways to make jobs?

If the state was to make it hard for big business to survive, on the other hand, they could create jobs that way too.

[/quote=]It really is too bad, but only for the least wealthy who don't qualify for multimillion dollar bonuses without even a drug test while on means tested (corporate) welfare.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that only the poor people take drugs? of course they are more likely, but can you support this? this is all speculation.