Capitalism, Pros and Cons

[Fantasea]

Fetters also hinder. Regulations are "fetters" or hindrances. Don't be semantic

See post #652.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

And? It doesn't contradict what I said.

 

[Fantasea]

And? It doesn't contradict what I said.

Only if you wish to be thought of as "semantic".

Try your luck with a different tack.

 

[128shot]

As expressed by Hayek in "the road to serfdom" Socialism is Slavery.


Now when kelzie comes to bitch me out about Euro-socialism, my reply will be this.


Its technically social capitalism OK?!

 

[RightinNYC]

It serves to indicate that your answer was far afield from my statement.You are free to opine as you wish. However, other than the noble purpose of protecting the health of the populace, all of the other federal actions you cite appear to me to be encouraging the most efficient and economical production of food for domestic consumption and export. Not only do we feed ourselves abundantly, we also feed much of the rest of the world.

To me, that is the opposite of fettering.

Actually, our farm subsidies create massive damage to food producers in small, developing countries. Educate yourself.

 

[Fantasea]

Actually, our farm subsidies create massive damage to food producers in small, developing countries. Educate yourself.

However, in the larger sense, it's more important to keep lots of folks in developing countries alive who cannot be fed by the local food producers. Don't you agree?

 

[RightinNYC]

However, in the larger sense, it's more important to keep lots of folks in developing countries alive who cannot be fed by the local food producers. Don't you agree?

According to Oxfam, "If developed nations eliminated subsidy programs, the export value of agriculture in lesser developed nations would increase by 24 percent, plus a further 5.5 percent from tariff equilibrium. ... exporters can offer US surpluses for sale at prices around half the cost of production; destroying local agriculture and creating a captive market in the process."

"Consider a farmer in Ghana who used to be able to make a living growing rice. Several years ago, Ghana was able to feed its people and export their surplus. Now, it imports rice. From where? Developed countries. Why? Because it's cheaper. Even if it costs the rice producer in the developed world much more to produce the rice, he doesn't have to make a profit from his crop. The government pays him to grow it, so he can sell it more cheaply to Ghana than the farmer in Ghana can. And that farmer in Ghana? He can't feed his family anymore."(Lyle Vanclief, Canadian Minister of Agriculture)

-wikipedia

It's back to the "give a man a fish....," isn't it?

 

[Fantasea]

According to Oxfam, "If developed nations eliminated subsidy programs, the export value of agriculture in lesser developed nations would increase by 24 percent, plus a further 5.5 percent from tariff equilibrium. ... exporters can offer US surpluses for sale at prices around half the cost of production; destroying local agriculture and creating a captive market in the process."

"Consider a farmer in Ghana who used to be able to make a living growing rice. Several years ago, Ghana was able to feed its people and export their surplus. Now, it imports rice. From where? Developed countries. Why? Because it's cheaper. Even if it costs the rice producer in the developed world much more to produce the rice, he doesn't have to make a profit from his crop. The government pays him to grow it, so he can sell it more cheaply to Ghana than the farmer in Ghana can. And that farmer in Ghana? He can't feed his family anymore."(Lyle Vanclief, Canadian Minister of Agriculture)

-wikipedia

It's back to the "give a man a fish....," isn't it?

First, a little housekeeping. Please exercise more care when you quote me. If you look at your post to which I am responding, you will find the error to which I am referring.

One of the problems in developing countries is trying to get the locals to move their agricultural methods out of the dark ages and into at least the nineteenth century, if not the twentieth or twenty-first.

Now; Mr. Vanclief's comments notwithstanding, given the following statistics, the folks in Ghana would be hard pressed to survive without whatever benefit accrues from US largesse and could probably use some help from the Canadians, too.

Unemployment rate: 20% (1997 est.)
Population below poverty line: 31.4% (1992 est.)
Inflation rate (consumer prices): 13% (2004 est.)
Agriculture - products: cocoa, rice, coffee, cassava (tapioca), peanuts, corn, shea nuts, bananas; timber
Industries: mining, lumbering, light manufacturing, aluminum smelting, food processing, cement, small commercial ship building

Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gh.html

 

[Rhadamanthus]

This thread has gone from health care to food production with who knows what in betwean. So, if you would please excuse my ignorance, could you take the information you have posted about Ghana, and tell me how a free market would make this situation better?

 

[Fantasea]

This thread has gone from health care to food production with who knows what in betwean. So, if you would please excuse my ignorance, could you take the information you have posted about Ghana, and tell me how a free market would make this situation better?

As with Ghana and many of the former colonies of European nations, the problem was severing the umbilical cord and allowing them to fend for themselves when, as we have seen, they were ill-equipped to do so. A lengthy transitory period during which properly functioning governments would have evolved, together with educational and economic systems would have done much to avoid the misery which is the legacy of most of Africa.

This is not intended to be a discussion of Third World Africa. My only contention is that as far as Ghana is concerned, as bad as things may be, they would be even worse without US imports.

 

[RightinNYC]

First, a little housekeeping. Please exercise more care when you quote me. If you look at your post to which I am responding, you will find the error to which I am referring.

One of the problems in developing countries is trying to get the locals to move their agricultural methods out of the dark ages and into at least the nineteenth century, if not the twentieth or twenty-first.

Now; Mr. Vanclief's comments notwithstanding, given the following statistics, the folks in Ghana would be hard pressed to survive without whatever benefit accrues from US largesse and could probably use some help from the Canadians, too.

Unemployment rate: 20% (1997 est.)
Population below poverty line: 31.4% (1992 est.)
Inflation rate (consumer prices): 13% (2004 est.)
Agriculture - products: cocoa, rice, coffee, cassava (tapioca), peanuts, corn, shea nuts, bananas; timber
Industries: mining, lumbering, light manufacturing, aluminum smelting, food processing, cement, small commercial ship building

Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gh.html

You are woefully unaware of the economic situation in Ghana and the effects of farm subsidies on their people.

Do you want to explain to me how putting much of their population out of work is helping them? Or how wasting TWENTY BILLION dollars a year on our own farms to pay people not to grow things is helping us?

 

[Fantasea]

You are woefully unaware of the economic situation in Ghana and the effects of farm subsidies on their people.

Do you want to explain to me how putting much of their population out of work is helping them? Or how wasting TWENTY BILLION dollars a year on our own farms to pay people not to grow things is helping us?

When we pay farmers not to grow stuff and still have enough to keep folks in third world countries who can't produce enough food from starving, there's a disconnect somewhere.

Perhaps it would be better if we eliminated the subsidies, let our farmers produce all they could, and sell it to the highest bidders who would, in turn, sell it on the world market.

I'm sure you'll tell me what is wrong with that.

 

[RightinNYC]

When we pay farmers not to grow stuff and still have enough to keep folks in third world countries who can't produce enough food from starving, there's a disconnect somewhere.

Perhaps it would be better if we eliminated the subsidies, let our farmers produce all they could, and sell it to the highest bidders who would, in turn, sell it on the world market.

I'm sure you'll tell me what is wrong with that.

Um, that's what I suggested about 20 posts ago

But mass agribusiness like we have is not "unfettered." There are massive billion dollar farm subsidies. How is that a free market?

You, on the other hand, responded with

However, other than the noble purpose of protecting the health of the populace, all of the other federal actions you cite appear to me to be encouraging the most efficient and economical production of food for domestic consumption and export.

We got into this argument because I claimed that the subsidies were NOT the most efficient and economical way to produce food.

I'm glad you came around.

 

[Red_Dave]

As expressed by Hayek in "the road to serfdom" Socialism is Slavery.


Now when kelzie comes to bitch me out about Euro-socialism, my reply will be this.


Its technically social capitalism OK?!

But if the industry in many of these countrys is nationalised then its techinically not capatalism.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

As with Ghana and many of the former colonies of European nations, the problem was severing the umbilical cord and allowing them to fend for themselves when, as we have seen, they were ill-equipped to do so. A lengthy transitory period during which properly functioning governments would have evolved, together with educational and economic systems would have done much to avoid the misery which is the legacy of most of Africa.

This is not intended to be a discussion of Third World Africa. My only contention is that as far as Ghana is concerned, as bad as things may be, they would be even worse without US imports.

Thank you. I'm not the brightest at making these connections.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I've got a good reason for exporting capitalism but I don't feel like writing it all over again so I'm just going to copy and paste:

I have recently started studying about Latin America and particularly the Brazilian Auto industry which is a good case study for what has happened through most of South America that is an economic boom and their arrival on the global market as a strong competitor.


To put this in perspective I've recently been studying the Brazilian automobile industry.

Recently their economy was tanking so they set up a tripartite system in which the representatives from the labor, capital, and state agencies set up a forum in 1992 (called the Sequotor forum).

In this forum they discussed matters of the economy instead of just allowing the market to solve its own problems.

It gave everyone a voice but also the state legalized monopolys for bussinesses.

This system was very similar to European socialism and FDR's New Deal it brought them out of there economic depression, however, the lack of competition, which is the engine that makes an economy run, caused stagnation of the economy. This in turn caused serious inflation (which simply put decreases the value of currency like in the Soviet Union just before their economy collapsed)

In 1993 they realized that reform was necessary so they deregulated the market to allow for competition, since then their economy has stabalized and there GDP is up to 5.6% as of 2004.

Since then they have embraced the free market and are competitive on a global scale.

Brazil along with Argentina led the way in the formation of the Mercosur (common market of the south) trading block under the treaty of Ascuncion along with Paraguay Uraguay and now Venezuela.

Since then other countries, such as Mexico, and other trading blocks, such as the EU, have been allowed to have associate member status under the Orarau Preto treaty of 1995.

These trading blocks are finally tearing down the provincional borders which Latin America resulted to following their independence from Spain. It seems that finally after 200 years Bolivarios dream of a Unified Latin America is becoming a reality.

It's a very exciting time for Latin America, their economies are booming and Democracy is flourishing in a region that has long been plagued by tyranical militant regimes.

This is why I believe that if you give people a free market, Democracy will be the natural progression, so, when people critisize China as being communist I say just give it time.

Now my question is should we enter into a major trading agreement b/w all the nation of the Americas both North, South and Central, as well as major economic powers in Asia, such as, Japan, and much of South East Asia and Australia?

It seems to me that if this this major trading agreement could be reached our economies would soon come to dwarf by comparison the EU (and hay while we're at it we could give them assosiate status) and this would, also, force China to allow for even more economic and political reforms to compete.

It's been said that the major obstacle to an FTAA (Foriegn trade of the Americas Agreement) has been the American people and Washington themselves, because they are skeptical of the stability of the members economies, however, I feel that the EU as a model, that in such an agreement the benefits would outway the disadvantages.

So hopefully after the success of NAFTA and hopefully CAFTA (knock on Wood) the American people will realize that it will be good for all parties involved, especially the U.S..

 

[FireUltra 98]

Hello all. New to the boards, so I'll keep my newbie opinion brief.

IMHO, Capitalism has only pros. Capitalism is the only real and proven vehicle which allows any man or woman to move into a life of prosperity, no other economic or social system can claim that. The two main ingredients for this system are solid laws protecting individual rights and access to free markets.

Prosperity depends on free markets, and not on the kind of command and control in matters of health, energy and the environment that rich, mostly white politicians insist the poor need.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Capitalism does not have provisions for rights. It's an economic system. Political ideologies and ethical ideologies do: Capitalism is neither an ethical system nor a political ideology.

Capitalism largely runs off of the investement of capital and the free market mechanism. Mechanisms cannot be 'ethical' themselves. They can only be regulated by ethics.

Capitalism has large pros, but it is not acceptable in its purest form. It needs tweaking, because the results are horrendously unethical for many.

Capitalism is the way to go as the core system, but it's not the only way to go. The Mechanism of Capitalism is no more intrinsically good or ethical than the mechanism of NS. They can be good or bad, but they shouldn't be worshipped as perfect and moral.

 

[nkgupta80]

Hello all. New to the boards, so I'll keep my newbie opinion brief.

IMHO, Capitalism has only pros. Capitalism is the only real and proven vehicle which allows any man or woman to move into a life of prosperity, no other economic or social system can claim that. The two main ingredients for this system are solid laws protecting individual rights and access to free markets.

Prosperity depends on free markets, and not on the kind of command and control in matters of health, energy and the environment that rich, mostly white politicians insist the poor need.

capitalism has cons. I am a supporter of capitalism, but one can point out where our system has inefficiencies.

1. capitalism produces more waste, since competition necessitates that many companies compete for the same demand. thus 4 factories will each produce 1000 cars for 1000 people. so, theoretically 3000 cars would be left.

2. There is never ever equal opporunity, but under capitalism, this inequality can be potentially taken too far. Yes, there is opportunity for a person to move up in the world, but as one moves up, another will move down. Further more, in capitalism you need a gap in society, usually between rich and poor, to fuel competion.

 

[FireUltra 98]

Capitalism does not have provisions for rights. It's an economic system. . . .

Capitalism is the way to go as the core system, but it's not the only way to go. The Mechanism of Capitalism is no more intrinsically good or ethical than the mechanism of NS. They can be good or bad, but they shouldn't be worshipped as perfect and moral.

I didn't say Capitalism provided rights; I said one of the "ingredients" necessary to support capitalism is to protect individual rights. Without that and access to free markets, you cannot have or support a capitalism based economy.

I agree that capitalism is perfect, but it’s the best model for economic success in the world.

 

[FireUltra 98]

capitalism has cons. I am a supporter of capitalism, but one can point out where our system has inefficiencies.

1. capitalism produces more waste, since competition necessitates that many companies compete for the same demand. thus 4 factories will each produce 1000 cars for 1000 people. so, theoretically 3000 cars would be left.

2. There is never ever equal opporunity, but under capitalism, this inequality can be potentially taken too far. Yes, there is opportunity for a person to move up in the world, but as one moves up, another will move down. Further more, in capitalism you need a gap in society, usually between rich and poor, to fuel competion.

Good post.

1) I think waste can be a good thing though. Waste is a byproduct of progress, sure there will be times when product produced out-measures demand for the product, but that helps keep a lid on the price for such products.

2) Yes, the scale for mobility goes both ways, that's what makes this system so attractive. Without the opportunity to "capitalize" on arbitrage windows, nobody would be willing to invest, create and produce anything. Capitalism is the ultimate zero-sum game.

Again, good points nkgupta80, I appreciate it!:smile:

 

[Kelzie]

I didn't say Capitalism provided rights; I said one of the "ingredients" necessary to support capitalism is to protect individual rights. Without that and access to free markets, you cannot have or support a capitalism based economy.

I agree that capitalism is perfect, but it’s the best model for economic success in the world.

True capitalism has no protection of rights. That is a socialist program...like the right to work in a safe environment. If it was truely capitalist than the mentality would be that the benefit of working must outweigh the hazards since people still work there. Since we do have those protections, and it works better than not, capitalism is not always ideal.

 

[FireUltra 98]

Why are some of you stuck on misunderstanding my position? I did not have sex with that woman . . .wait, wrong post.

I did not say Capitalism provides rights. I said individual rights are an "ingredient" for capitalism to work. Without such rights, the liquidity, mobility and arbitrage opportunities needed to fuel an economy would be unavailable.

Capitalism is not a social program thankfully; it’s an economic system, and the best one by far in the world. No "socialist", not social, "socialist" system in the world can compete with a capitalist economic model, none. GDP is higher, more jobs are created and more revenue is generated for government income (taxes) under capitalism. Is it perfect, no. Is it better than any realistic, proven economic system created by man, yes.

Let me try to provide an example of my point in order to avoid being misunderstood:

Protection of Individual Rights = key ingredient for a good Capitalist, free market system.

Baking Powder = key ingredient to making a good cake.

Seriously though, thanks for replying to my post. Glad to contribute to this thread.

 

[Kelzie]

Why are some of you stuck on misunderstanding my position? I did not have sex with that woman . . .wait, wrong post.

:rofl

I did not say Capitalism provides rights. I said individual rights are an "ingredient" for capitalism to work. Without such rights, the liquidity, mobility and arbitrage opportunities needed to fuel an economy would be unavailable.

Well, the programs that guarantee those rights are socialist in nature. So sar you saying that in order for capitalism to work, it needs elements of its opposite? Cause that's my view, I just want to be clear on yours.

Capitalism is not a social program thankfully; it’s an economic system, and the best one by far in the world. No "socialist", not social, "socialist" system in the world can compete with a capitalist economic model, none. GDP is higher, more jobs are created and more revenue is generated for government income (taxes) under capitalism. Is it perfect, no. Is it better than any realistic, proven economic system created by man, yes.

Social programs are socialist. They are the government interferring in the market. Welfare, police, firemen, etc are all socialist programs. And there are many "socialist" systems that are doing very well. But only because they encorporate elements of capitalism in their economy.

Let me try to provide an example of my point in order to avoid being misunderstood:

Protection of Individual Rights = key ingredient for a good Capitalist, free market system.

Baking Powder = key ingredient to making a good cake.

Seriously though, thanks for replying to my post. Glad to contribute to this thread.

I see what you're saying...but baking soda is not obtained by using the opposite system of a cake.

 

[George_Washington]

Capitalism is mostly the best form of economics there is but you guys are right in that it needs to be regulated to an extent. However, I think we could possibly do without some of the regulations we have in this country right now. In Europe, they don't have as extensive an FDA. People are more free to take the kind of drugs they want. They also don't have as strict speed limits as we have over here. I think we need a national autoban where there is no speed limit like Germany has. Also, Europe doesn't regulate alcohol as much, which I also respect about them. I also like that a lot of European countries don't get as picky about killing animals for fashion as we do.