Can "capitalism" really work in the long term? Will it not:
a) Impovrish everyone but a handful of people in the end who are left with no one to buy their useless krap?
b) Inevitably lead to eccological ruin because proffit will ALWAYS come before right and wrong?
c) Leave us so resource poor that we starve-out due to unrestrained consumerism?
2006-11-19
05:58:41
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Social Science
➔ Economics
Should have thought of this. IF YOUR RESPONCE is simply of the "How Dare YOU" school don't bother. I'm looking for answers on spisific points, not rabbid nationalism.
2006-11-19
06:08:05 ·
update #1
Forgot to spell check that last bit, SORRY!!!
2006-11-19
06:09:06 ·
update #2
At least its better than communism. It's Darwinism! B and C are on the way, and the income gap is widening to my knowledge. So yes, those things might occur, but capitalism won't be replaced by another economic system, at least not in America. Money makes the world go 'round, even if ruins the world in the process.
2006-11-19 06:09:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Capitalism is the only process to create wealth, and wealth is the only cure to poverty. Point "a" is a good description of the Soviet economy, where the nation was destitute except for the party members. They had warehouses full of useless krap that nobody needed, but the government thought they should produce.
If you're alluding to the idea that socialism is superior, you should read more history and less propaganda. If you believe that the European models of social democracy are superior, just remember that they too produce wealth through markets. They just happen to tax and redistribute more than the US.
Point "b" can also be addressed by checking out the ecological history of the Soviet Union. There, rivers were more polluted than any Western nation would ever allow. They were the only nation to ever have a nuclear meltdown. Totalitarian governments do not have citizen oversight, and all governments that try to control markets become totalitarian.
Regarding point "c," to which resources to you refer? Do you mean fossil fuels? We are nowhere near running out of those.
So:
a) Capitalism is the only way to lift people from poverty
b) Capitalistic nations have better enviornmental records than socialist nations.
c) Resources are plentiful, and capitalism is the best way to invent new types and uses of resources.
(If you're not plugging socialism, then what are you suggesting?)
2006-11-19 06:17:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by dwg1998red 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
a) people who are impoverished are dependent on government social programs and products of government monopoly school system. Both are anti-capitalism. Poorest countries in the world have no capitalism (North Korea, Rwanda...)
b) 100 years ago no one ever dreamed of nuclear power, hydrogen fuel cells. You nor anyone else knows what the future will bring or what great technological innovations will appear. To predict ecological ruin is just nonsense. It is profit that will motivate people to innovate these breakthrough technologies.
c)once again, you have no idea what energy innovations will exist in a mere 20 years much less 100 years. Resource poor? Why do you assume that no new resources will be discovered, or at least new more efficient uses for old resources? Do you think Henry Ford envisioned using grease to power the combustion engine and auto?
Where is this crystal ball that all anti-capitalist have that predict nothing but despair? Have you no faith in human innovation and liberty?
-----
The opposite of capitalism is big centralized government:
Holocaust
Gulags
Genocide
Government induced Famines (Zimbabwe)
Concentration Camps
World Wars
Tyrants
Nuclear Bombs
-----
I'll put my money on capitalism and liberty anyday.
.
2006-11-19 06:34:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by Zak 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
you're desirable.. Peoples tolerance of undesirable politicians and undesirable government is coming to an end.. and the tip will recommend revolution in one type or yet another. every person is uninterested in stupid old politicians sitting in congress and the Whitehouse utilising and dropping our funds.. ;lining their own wallet.. by no skill speaking different than with banks and massive company. every person is uninterested.. it's time to kick the entire bunch out of there and employ some stable managers... some who're not bloody millionaires who have not got a clue what that's to attend from pay day to pay day.. ones who ought to difficulty for worry your toddlers get sick and you at the instant are not insured adequate... that's time we rid ourselves of an elite government that we could people sit down in Congress until they seem to be one hundred years old.. 0.5 of them senile... The time is coming...
2016-10-22 09:03:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by goodknight 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You put this in a different meaning or perspective . Starve out due to unrestrained consumerism. I doubt it .
2006-11-19 06:55:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by StarShine G 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
capitolism is a subsystem of meritocracy. It fails under the weight of the greed of the masses who produce the goods and services but produce no jobs. When we "take from the rich" to give to the poor, we find rather quickly that the jobs disappear.
2006-11-19 13:41:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Propose something better - PLEASE!!! I can't wait to hear your answer. Capitalism is one of the components making the US the most powerful country in the world. So, what would you recommend? Also, from your question, I am going to assume that you do not understand the economy or any of the economic patterns, cycles, processes, etc.
2006-11-19 06:05:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by Local Celebrity 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Eventually capitalism will have to be significantly altered at the very least to take into account the very scarcity of raw materials it evolved to deal with.
2006-11-19 13:43:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
a totally free market society based on demand and supply without governmental interference is the only true and sustainable way to go.
2006-11-19 06:52:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Robert P 2
·
0⤊
0⤋