Capitalism

[killersheep]

Is it true that capitalism does poorly when a small amount of people own a majority of the capital?

[Andre]

Isn't that the definition?

[killersheep]

Isn't that the definition?

I thought the definition was somewhere in the realm of:

A system in which property,capital and distribution are privately or corporately owned and have inherent rights to maintain that system.

[Andre]

Yeah, thats what I said.

[Kirkland Laing]

When all the economic growth a country produces goes to a very small class of rich people, stupid things happen. The rich can't possibly consume enough to spend all this money, so they start casting around for something, anything, to do with all the cash they have sloshing around. And since, in an ever more unequal economy that nonetheless preaches ever rising living standards, the low-paid need payday loans to keep up and the stagnating middle class needs to borrow money on the strngth of the appreciating value of their house, that's where their money goes. It still gets spent, eventually, on things like cars and food and new furniture, because that's what middle class people mostly spend their money on, but instead of being spent directly by people who are earning it, it gets funneled downward to them via increased debt and financial legerdemain that extracts more and more money upward from poor to rich with each cycle. That's not sustainable.

Median income growth produces not just growth, but stable growth for everyone, the rich included. Top end growth, almost by definition, produces unstable, unsustainable growth. Modern economies are driven by consumer spending, and if you want consumer spending to increase consistently you have to increase consumer income. So the low/mid paid workers need a big tax cut and the wealthy need a big tax increase.

[Bookkeeper]

I thought within any type of government that a small amout of people control the majority of the currency, is there one that does not. Communism, Fascism, Monarchy, etc.

[killersheep]

I thought within any type of government that a small amout of people control the majority of the currency, is there one that does not. Communism, Fascism, Monarchy, etc.

I would disagree here, in Communism and Socialism everything is public, so essentially everyone owns everything.

In Facism there are systems of economic planning and price fixing, and nationalized certain industries to benefit the whole.

[boozeboxer]

Literally hundreds of scholarly economic papers and studies have been done on such things.

[El Kabong]

All of life is about balance that being said

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries"

[DaxxKahn]

For all it's faults and shortcomings...ask anyone who has ever lived under a dictator which they prefer...

[Andre]

For all it's faults and shortcomings...ask anyone who has ever lived under a dictator which they prefer...

Thats is very true , but i think we as the people could evolve a different way of being. maybe. Nothing can be ran fair with a top man and a pyramid scale down and out,which is what every system becomes. If we could build something that grows from within the masses upwards,we all could have a hope.

[killersheep]

All of life is about balance that being said

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries"

Here's a chart showing the unequal blessings.

[El Kabong]

Capitalism feeds off of natural human instincts and socialism is more of a "In a perfect world EVERYBODY would have a million dollars" but that doesn't factor into account that if everyone actually had a million dollars then a million dollars would cease to be a million dollars the way we think of it, it would be more like toilet paper....it would be worthless.

[killersheep]

Capitalism feeds off of natural human instincts and socialism is more of a "In a perfect world EVERYBODY would have a million dollars" but that doesn't factor into account that if everyone actually had a million dollars then a million dollars would cease to be a million dollars the way we think of it, it would be more like toilet paper....it would be worthless.

I think you are confusing this argument, I am not advocating pulling a Robin Hood for Socialism. I believe in indivduals owning property. However, there is an issue when that much of the property is in the hands of the few. It clogs the system, because the wealth is not flowing, as a result of that the country is less productive. I believe that stagnation of wealth and dependence on foreign banks is as dangerous as any terrorist organization.

[Andre]

Capitalism feeds off of natural human instincts and socialism is more of a "In a perfect world EVERYBODY would have a million dollars" but that doesn't factor into account that if everyone actually had a million dollars then a million dollars would cease to be a million dollars the way we think of it, it would be more like toilet paper....it would be worthless.

I would like to wipe my ass one million times on seperate dollar bills, American dollars, hmm luxury.