Why capitalism is important and why we aren't capitalist

[The rose in spring]

Gopher dude

The rose in spring

Gopher dude

If you don't have money in a capitalist system you can't make money. And vice versa.

Tell that to Jerry Baldwin

Quote:

In a capitalism heavy system: the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

That is farther from the truth. In every other system, that is true. In Capitalism, no. Yeah the rich have an advantage, but no person is stuck in a cast or has to give to a lord. He/she can actually make money with skill and luck. Nobody has to be stuck where they are. Likewise, the rich can lose their money if they don't attend to their business. It's something called accountability.

Quote:

This is pretty much the biggest flaw. This is the same with all PURE systems.

It's the problem with all systems. The rich have always dominated, but in capitalism, it is an exception

Quote:

Having a PURE anything system is usually a very, very, very aweful idea.

The same "awful" idea that industrialized the world?

You're talking about exceptions though- not the rule.

Not everyone is born with skills. A lot of people are brought into the world with absolutely no skills, education, OR money.

In a capitalist system they'd be floppin' all over the ******** places and dieing in the sun like fish.
In a capitalist society there'd be nothing stopping someone from just getting ALL of the money and doing WHATEVER they wanted to do with it- and then it wouldn't be any different from a totaliratian fiasco or a MONEYarchy. ((:3 lolololololol, so ******** witty.))

Well for a few hundred years it was pretty bad: children forced to work in coal mines, the life expentancy lowered by 20 years, massive pollution and no one giving a s**t.

And yet capitalism has been the only reason we have exceptions like Baldwin. Every other system was set in place so the rich always stay rich and the poor always stay poor with absolutely no exception. You have Feudalism, the Caste System, Mercantilism, all designed so the rich have all the power. In capitalism, if the rich are beaten, then they can lose everything. If a poor person gets a good business, he/she can become rich, even drive billionaires into poverty.

[The rose in spring]

The20

The rose in spring

The20

The rose in spring

Hell it's even self-destructive at times, but the ability for the rich to be held accountable and the poor to run the rich out of business because he/she has a better idea.

WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN THE LAST TIME?!
The more money you have the less likely is it hat anybody will piss at your leg. This is like anarchy, just a little more subtle.

If they are unable to satisfy the consumer, then they go broke. Many millionaires have lost their income that way.

Like the banks?

Who were bailed out by the government hence the "we are no longer capitalist" statement.

[Gopher dude]

The rose in spring

Gopher dude

The rose in spring

Gopher dude

If you don't have money in a capitalist system you can't make money. And vice versa.

Tell that to Jerry Baldwin

Quote:

In a capitalism heavy system: the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

That is farther from the truth. In every other system, that is true. In Capitalism, no. Yeah the rich have an advantage, but no person is stuck in a cast or has to give to a lord. He/she can actually make money with skill and luck. Nobody has to be stuck where they are. Likewise, the rich can lose their money if they don't attend to their business. It's something called accountability.

Quote:

This is pretty much the biggest flaw. This is the same with all PURE systems.

It's the problem with all systems. The rich have always dominated, but in capitalism, it is an exception

Quote:

Having a PURE anything system is usually a very, very, very aweful idea.

The same "awful" idea that industrialized the world?

You're talking about exceptions though- not the rule.

Not everyone is born with skills. A lot of people are brought into the world with absolutely no skills, education, OR money.

In a capitalist system they'd be floppin' all over the ******** places and dieing in the sun like fish.
In a capitalist society there'd be nothing stopping someone from just getting ALL of the money and doing WHATEVER they wanted to do with it- and then it wouldn't be any different from a totaliratian fiasco or a MONEYarchy. ((:3 lolololololol, so ******** witty.))

Well for a few hundred years it was pretty bad: children forced to work in coal mines, the life expentancy lowered by 20 years, massive pollution and no one giving a s**t.

And yet capitalism has been the only reason we have exceptions like Baldwin. Every other system was set in place so the rich always stay rich and the poor always stay poor with absolutely no exception. You have Feudalism, the Caste System, Mercantilism, all designed so the rich have all the power. In capitalism, if the rich are beaten, then they can lose everything. If a poor person gets a good business, he/she can become rich, even drive billionaires into poverty.

Fuedalism is the rich being born rich and teetering a little to less then rich or greater then rich. And the pooor vice versa. There's actually a little bit of wiggle room within it and even then- you can pay for someones way into a feudalist system if you want to.

Caste system is rigid.

Even then your arguement is always about exceptions, not rules. People with money are usually very secure because if it's a pure capitalist system they've either born with it and will retain it in a money dynasty or they ******** earned it through sweat and tears- there's no way the'll lose it unless it's taken or they get risky.
And that "usually" doesn't happen.

A rich person losing all their money would be as common as a poor person gaining money.

[The rose in spring]

Gopher dude

The rose in spring

Gopher dude

The rose in spring

Gopher dude

If you don't have money in a capitalist system you can't make money. And vice versa.

Tell that to Jerry Baldwin

Quote:

In a capitalism heavy system: the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

That is farther from the truth. In every other system, that is true. In Capitalism, no. Yeah the rich have an advantage, but no person is stuck in a cast or has to give to a lord. He/she can actually make money with skill and luck. Nobody has to be stuck where they are. Likewise, the rich can lose their money if they don't attend to their business. It's something called accountability.

Quote:

This is pretty much the biggest flaw. This is the same with all PURE systems.

It's the problem with all systems. The rich have always dominated, but in capitalism, it is an exception

Quote:

Having a PURE anything system is usually a very, very, very aweful idea.

The same "awful" idea that industrialized the world?

You're talking about exceptions though- not the rule.

Not everyone is born with skills. A lot of people are brought into the world with absolutely no skills, education, OR money.

In a capitalist system they'd be floppin' all over the ******** places and dieing in the sun like fish.
In a capitalist society there'd be nothing stopping someone from just getting ALL of the money and doing WHATEVER they wanted to do with it- and then it wouldn't be any different from a totaliratian fiasco or a MONEYarchy. ((:3 lolololololol, so ******** witty.))

Well for a few hundred years it was pretty bad: children forced to work in coal mines, the life expentancy lowered by 20 years, massive pollution and no one giving a s**t.

And yet capitalism has been the only reason we have exceptions like Baldwin. Every other system was set in place so the rich always stay rich and the poor always stay poor with absolutely no exception. You have Feudalism, the Caste System, Mercantilism, all designed so the rich have all the power. In capitalism, if the rich are beaten, then they can lose everything. If a poor person gets a good business, he/she can become rich, even drive billionaires into poverty.

Fuedalism is the rich being born rich and teetering a little to less then rich or greater then rich. And the pooor vice versa. There's actually a little bit of wiggle room within it and even then- you can pay for someones way into a feudalist system if you want to.

Caste system is rigid.

Even then your arguement is always about exceptions, not rules. People with money are usually very secure because if it's a pure capitalist system they've either born with it and will retain it in a money dynasty or they ******** earned it through sweat and tears- there's no way the'll lose it unless it's taken or they get risky.
And that "usually" doesn't happen.

A rich person losing all their money would be as common as a poor person gaining money.

You really don't read the news. It's very common for a rich person to lose money. Usually because of bad investments. In Feudal times, the poor had no wiggle room. Neither in the Caste, Neither in the Mercantile times, neither in the Communist block and certainly not in the old days of bartering. But whatever. It's midnight. I need to get up to go to my white-collar job since I decided to get a degree. Salutations.

[Gopher dude]

The rose in spring

Gopher dude

The rose in spring

Gopher dude

The rose in spring

Tell that to Jerry Baldwin


That is farther from the truth. In every other system, that is true. In Capitalism, no. Yeah the rich have an advantage, but no person is stuck in a cast or has to give to a lord. He/she can actually make money with skill and luck. Nobody has to be stuck where they are. Likewise, the rich can lose their money if they don't attend to their business. It's something called accountability.


It's the problem with all systems. The rich have always dominated, but in capitalism, it is an exception


The same "awful" idea that industrialized the world?

You're talking about exceptions though- not the rule.

Not everyone is born with skills. A lot of people are brought into the world with absolutely no skills, education, OR money.

In a capitalist system they'd be floppin' all over the ******** places and dieing in the sun like fish.
In a capitalist society there'd be nothing stopping someone from just getting ALL of the money and doing WHATEVER they wanted to do with it- and then it wouldn't be any different from a totaliratian fiasco or a MONEYarchy. ((:3 lolololololol, so ******** witty.))

Well for a few hundred years it was pretty bad: children forced to work in coal mines, the life expentancy lowered by 20 years, massive pollution and no one giving a s**t.

And yet capitalism has been the only reason we have exceptions like Baldwin. Every other system was set in place so the rich always stay rich and the poor always stay poor with absolutely no exception. You have Feudalism, the Caste System, Mercantilism, all designed so the rich have all the power. In capitalism, if the rich are beaten, then they can lose everything. If a poor person gets a good business, he/she can become rich, even drive billionaires into poverty.

Fuedalism is the rich being born rich and teetering a little to less then rich or greater then rich. And the pooor vice versa. There's actually a little bit of wiggle room within it and even then- you can pay for someones way into a feudalist system if you want to.

Caste system is rigid.

Even then your arguement is always about exceptions, not rules. People with money are usually very secure because if it's a pure capitalist system they've either born with it and will retain it in a money dynasty or they ******** earned it through sweat and tears- there's no way the'll lose it unless it's taken or they get risky.
And that "usually" doesn't happen.

A rich person losing all their money would be as common as a poor person gaining money.

You really don't read the news. It's very common for a rich person to lose money. Usually because of bad investments. In Feudal times, the poor had no wiggle room. Neither in the Caste, Neither in the Mercantile times, neither in the Communist block and certainly not in the old days of bartering. But whatever. It's midnight. I need to get up to go to my white-collar job since I decided to get a degree. Salutations.

The BP-oil guys lost millions and they all ended up being punished with retirement and hefty pensions cheques, etc.. etc..

Don't you talk to me about ********' Feudal times. If you were a serf you could work your way up to raising a family and having 12 acres of land a long side lesser serfs. If you were a mason you could become head guild master of the mason's guild.

Even if you were a poor, disgusting, beggar- the rich had an obligation to feed you there scraps and you might one day become a s**t farmer.

In the old days of bartering you could literally sit on your duff and just wait for your wealth to have kids. Provided someone didn't steal it or take the land or lions.

[N3bu]

Olya

And Industrial Revolution was one of the most miserable episodes in our history.

I disagree, and not because the Ind. Rev wasn't miserable. But because the whole of Human history is so much more miserable.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Capitalism with protectionist market policies is still capitalism.

[The rose in spring]

Gopher dude

The BP-oil guys lost millions and they all ended up being punished with retirement and hefty pensions cheques, etc.. etc..

Hence why capitalism is a better system. In a free market, those people would have gone under and ended up in the poor house.

Quote:

Don't you talk to me about ********' Feudal times. If you were a serf you could work your way up to raising a family and having 12 acres of land a long side lesser serfs. If you were a mason you could become head guild master of the mason's guild.

In a serfdom, every time, you harvested wheat, you gave some to the vassal, when you made it into bread, both you and the baker gave bread to the vassal. Under feudalism, you swore an oath to that lord and that lord owned you. If you were a serf, you gave to him in return for safety. The only time peasants EVER moved up in the world was during the plague. Some lords died and people vacated the mansion.

Quote:

Even if you were a poor, disgusting, beggar- the rich had an obligation to feed you there scraps and you might one day become a s**t farmer.

Most of the poor back then had a very short life.

Quote:

In the old days of bartering you could literally sit on your duff and just wait for your wealth to have kids. Provided someone didn't steal it or take the land or lions.

In the old days of bartering, if you had firewood and the farmer also had firewood, you would starve to death.

[shoeless joe]

N3bu

Olya

And Industrial Revolution was one of the most miserable episodes in our history.

I disagree, and not because the Ind. Rev wasn't miserable. But because the whole of Human history is so much more miserable.

This a lot.

[low iq 111]

Olya

Capitalism doesn't work. Period. You do not need to introduce an over-reliance on foreign market for that. Moreover, we do not live in a capitalist state. We live in a mixed economy. This mixed economy system also does not work. You can blame the political system for that.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

what does work then?

[low iq 111]

we have been almost capitalist though. we have had our taxes pretty low. but it is obvious that most americans are selfish and do not wish to give to other down trodden americans or other countries. americans need to be forced to give at least at this point in time. i don't think we should be giving away everything. before you assume i don't believe in the way europe does healthcare. however i'm pretty certain that americans would not want to help even a little bit with education and other basics that i feel are human rights. before you assume again-i think we need reform in education and that college is a waste right now. but we should never just get rid of education. i would be "for" libertarianism if i didn't feel our society is retarded.

americans should have been doing a lot more giving in the 90s and 00s but spent it on themselves. i look around plain and simple. i see that most houses and most things go to waste. most people have a dining room and china that gets used no more than 5 times a year. that is simply disgusting.

We have enough resources on this planet to meet the basic needs of every human alive, and yet we'd rather let a small percent of our populace hoard those resources than to keep innocents from starving to ******** death. Why?

[Kit Kat Purrpurr]

Olya

Capitalism doesn't work. Period. You do not need to introduce an over-reliance on foreign market for that. Moreover, we do not live in a capitalist state. We live in a mixed economy. This mixed economy system also does not work. You can blame the political system for that.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

Sole capitalism cannot work, and neither can sole Communism. The one thing that has to be taken into account for both is human nature. In the end, the desire for more than what one currently has can cause the ultimate demise of any form of economy. In strict capitalism, one person could potentially buy up everyone else and leave the majority with nothing. But in strict communism, people would eventually try to gain more than what they keep getting. Or they wouldn't work as hard because they don't have to, causing the eventual decay of the economy as products became cheap crap. Then the wealth of the nation would decrease, and the amount of money going around would lessen. If that pattern continued, the market would collapse.

But as you said, we live in a mixed economy, which helps balance out the two ends of the spectrum. That's how we manage to keep afloat at least.

[Ask Jappleack]

king haxxxxxx

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Capitalism with protectionist market policies is still capitalism.

Do you think you look cool in your signature? You actually look like a douchebag to be honest.

Also notice how he says just enough so that his statements aren't argueable, like a small step ahead of stating the obvious, so no one can easily or often refute his statements, making him seem to match his sig more.