How much longer must we wait for the evils of capitalism to be seen?

Answer 1

The truth is people are too greedy for any other form to work. Capitalism is evil, but the other option is a dictatorship. True communism only works when nobody gets corrupt by power.

John smith said that as long as it can expand it is fine, but when capitalism cannot expand any further it will collapse. (it will be a long time coming)

Marx says that the workers will get upset at the governments and corporations abuses they will rise up and overthrow it. Right now they are too scared of losing their jobs and houses, so unless they are starving they won't do that.

The answer my friend is We have no idea. But two smarter people than me One a communist and one a capitalist, both think it will happen.

I think we can see the evils, look at the environment. Look at the technology increases in computers and TV's, but Cars still seem to have the same combustion engine form 50 years ago, with some modifications.

Answer 2

Many "evils" of capitalism are simply a misunderstanding of the best possible outcome in an environmet of less than desrired parameters. Just because capitalism might not result in the desired outcome, that does not mean that it "failed" as the desired outcome may in fact not be acheivable by any mechanism, and it also may ignore other positve outcomes that were a result.
For example, the wealth of corporations is often regarded as an evil. (There is no debate that Enron was evil) However, if that corporation is responsible for the creation of jobs, opportunities for its employees to create personal wealth (retirement, home ownership, education, etc), bringing better and more affordable and innovative goods and services to market which improve everyone's day to day lives, who is to judge what is "excessive" coporate profit? Would you deny that corporation its "excessive" profits if that would mean the elimination of all of those aformentioned benefits? In "game theory" this is called a "non-zero-sum game". This means that benefits and costs add up to a net overall gain for all "players" - aka win-win. Nothing motivates as effectively or as efficiently as the opportunity for personal gain. Capitalism does this in spades. When that motivation is channeled into ventures that create opportunity for everyone, this is a good thing. If I make myself wealthy by creating a business that provides desired goods and services and employs 1000 people, the consumers and those 1000 employees benefit by my motivation to enrich myself. Eliminate that opportuinity to enrich myself and I do not create that business, and those 1000 jobs are not created, nor are those goods and services provided.
Another misconception is that a free market results in prices that you want to pay. The reality is that a free market results in prices that people are willing to pay and that businesses are will to sell at. There is a distinction between "you want" and "people are willing". A free market also results in the most efficient distribution and availability of goods and services. Artificially reducing prices results in more people "in the market" (more people willing to buy at the reduced price) and fewer goods and services for sale (fewer businesses willing to provide the goods and servcives at the reduced price). This results in the replacement of a market economy and supply and demand in balance with an imbalance resulting in a "lottery economy" with fewer people obtaining the goods and services than had a market economy been allowed to prevail.
Also, in terms of efficiency, a proper free market will "trim the fat". If corporate profits are in fact "excessive", in a free market, new competition will enter the market, incentivised by the excess profits. This is caused by an entity that is incentivised at the opportunity for personal gain ("excessive" profit) and a willingness and ability to accept less "excessive" profits in order to take market from the incumbant. This reduces the "excessive" profits available until it is not possible to accept further reductions and still retain the incentivisation to participate in that market. So two questions must be asked in regard to "excessive profit".. If the profits are in fact "excessive", why are new players not entering the market as there would be a profit opportunity to be taken advange of? If the profits were reduced, would this disincentivise continued participation by businesses in the market?
Nevertheless, while capitalism generally provides the best possible result, it is neccessary to be vigilant for the abuses such as Enron.

Answer 3

Capitalism is not utopia. No system is.

But given the fact that we have seen the evils of socialism, and plenty of them at that during the 20th century, why are you so eager to try it again?

I think Chris J put it better and more concisely than I have.

Answer 4

Capitalism may have its evils, but it's the only thing that really works.

Answer 5

We should wait until the evils of communism are rooted out

Answer 6

I'd rather deal with the evils of capitalism where my hard work is rewarded, rather than having to provide for those who don't want to take personal responsibility for their situations.

Lazy people suck!

Answer 7

We already do. It just happens that the good of capitalism so immensely outweighs the bad, that it is still the best economic system ever created.

Answer 8

They've already been seen but it's the best system out there, so we can only do our best to repair damage done by those evils.

Answer 9

While there are evils in capialism, it's still better than all other economic systems that have been tried.

Answer 10

do you mean...dealt with? The evils are already seen.