what if the economic system is good and fair in theory ;but just doesn't work . Should you change it for one that does work but is imposed?
good economics?
- Thread starter falcondule
- Start date
No.
People should choose how they want to live. It may take longer than some like, but it's the best way.
People should choose how they want to live. It may take longer than some like, but it's the best way.
what if you were out of a job and you and your kids were hurting and hungry . how long then? what if your kids died waiting? I guess you're right ;it's the best way...
Your thinking that fascist or communist society is best for every one has been shown to be false.
You seek to destroy democracy. Okay fine. In your opinoin, how would the perfect government work?
It's easy to tear down and destroy. Now let's see how good a builder you are.
Capitalism is an economic system designed to fail (the growth/correction cycle). I you're going to name destructive economic theories, don't discount the worst offender.
Capitalism created the world's greatest economies. Please tell me why it is designed to fail? Be specific.
Purpose of an Economy
Douglas offered a fourth factor of production he called the cultural inheritance of society which he defined "...as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization."
Douglas begins by claiming there are three possible policy alternatives with respect to any economic system:
"1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.
"2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.
"3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."
Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1924 a British engineer named CH Douglas wrote a book entitled Social Credit after coming to suspect the three classic factors of production, land, labor, and capital weren't sufficient to produce a fair economy.
Douglas offered a fourth factor of production he called the cultural inheritance of society which he defined "...as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization."
Douglas begins by claiming there are three possible policy alternatives with respect to any economic system:
"1. The first of these is that it is a disguised Government, of which the primary, though admittedly not the only, object is to impose upon the world a system of thought and action.
"2. The second alternative has a certain similarity to the first, but is simpler. It assumes that the primary objective of the industrial system is the provision of employment.
"3. And the third, which is essentially simpler still, in fact, so simple that it appears entirely unintelligible to the majority, is that the object of the industrial system is merely to provide goods and services."
Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Capitalism didn't create the worlds greatest economies. America didn't become great until a combination of 3rd Way ideas being implemented and all of our competitors conveniently blowing themselves up. Prior to WW2, we looked a lot like India minus the sea of people. China became great by using control economics without ignoring supply/demand (as other control economies did to their determent). India became great by educating it's people (at the cost of all other concerns) to provide a high skill workforce. Capitalism has at best been a foundation upon which non-capitalists economies were built.
Even though I agree with most of what you are saying, I think you are underplaying the importance of capitalism to our economy.
Even before WWII or even WWI, the intercontinental railroad wouldn't have been built without capitalism. The excesses of those days, Robber Barons, show how regulated capitalism is necessary to a healthy economy, but that without capitalism there wouldn't have been the financial engine to develop our nation.
capitalism can work if it benefits the people. without strict oversight ,it usually doesn't. family ownership of a business is not what i would call capitalism.
Capitalism's Most Recent Failure?
Any economic system should be judged by its failures as well as its successes:
"The automobile-driven economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s made Detroit a globally recognized symbol of successful capitalist renewal after the great depression and the war (1929-1945).
"High-wage auto industry jobs with real security and exemplary benefits were said to prove capitalism's ability to generate and sustain a large 'middle class', one that could include African Americans, too.
"Auto-industry jobs became inspirations and models for what workers across America might seek and acquire – those middle-class components of a modern 'American Dream'.
"True, quality jobs in Detroit were forced from the automobile capitalists by long and hard union struggles, especially across the 1930s.
"Once defeated in those struggles, auto capitalists quickly arranged to rewrite the history so that good wages and working conditions became something they 'gave' to their workers.
"In any case, Detroit became a vibrant, world-class city in the 1950s and 1960s; its distinctive culture and sound shaped the world's music much as its cars shaped the world's industries.
"Over the past 40 years, capitalism turned that success into the abject failure culminating now in the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history."
Detroit's Decline Is a Distinctively Capitalist Failure | Professor Richard D. Wolff
Richard D. Wolff is a Socialist who paints a pretty clear distinction between the productive capitalism that funded the railroads and today's financial capitalism which plunders everything previous generations of labor and capital toiled to create.
Any economic system should be judged by its failures as well as its successes:
"The automobile-driven economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s made Detroit a globally recognized symbol of successful capitalist renewal after the great depression and the war (1929-1945).
"High-wage auto industry jobs with real security and exemplary benefits were said to prove capitalism's ability to generate and sustain a large 'middle class', one that could include African Americans, too.
"Auto-industry jobs became inspirations and models for what workers across America might seek and acquire – those middle-class components of a modern 'American Dream'.
"True, quality jobs in Detroit were forced from the automobile capitalists by long and hard union struggles, especially across the 1930s.
"Once defeated in those struggles, auto capitalists quickly arranged to rewrite the history so that good wages and working conditions became something they 'gave' to their workers.
"In any case, Detroit became a vibrant, world-class city in the 1950s and 1960s; its distinctive culture and sound shaped the world's music much as its cars shaped the world's industries.
"Over the past 40 years, capitalism turned that success into the abject failure culminating now in the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history."
Detroit's Decline Is a Distinctively Capitalist Failure | Professor Richard D. Wolff
Richard D. Wolff is a Socialist who paints a pretty clear distinction between the productive capitalism that funded the railroads and today's financial capitalism which plunders everything previous generations of labor and capital toiled to create.
A major obstacle to human progress has always been to view economics in terms of money and stomach.
this is what china has been doing and when their "SYSTEM" fails as most do ,then the world will hold its breath!
this is what china has been doing and when their "SYSTEM" fails as most do ,then the world will hold its breath!
If you want to point to the intercontinental railroad, then I'll point to the continent spanning water works and highways of the Romans as proof of the glories and superiority of fascist feudalism.
Capitalism might have fueled it, but any number of economic models would have seen it built (it was a matter of national and economic security, an agrarian society with the tech would have built it eventually in the same situation) as well so it doesn't really prove anything.
If you want to point to the intercontinental railroad, then I'll point to the continent spanning water works and highways of the Romans as proof of the glories and superiority of fascist feudalism.
The Roman Empire was a Republic which devolved into an oligarchy thanks to Julius Caesar.
And? It's government type doesn't change the fact that it had a feudal/control economy.
The one we are presently burdened with is "imposed". Prices are set. Monopolies and insider trading goes on. Wages are on the cusp of being set and are already many places. The cards are stacked in favor of people who do not toil for their bread.
One of the early talking points of the First Industrial Revolution claimed that the machine would one day free humanity from the need to toil for their daily bread; do you think some percentage of US workers have already reached that point?The one we are presently burdened with is "imposed". Prices are set. Monopolies and insider trading goes on. Wages are on the cusp of being set and are already many places. The cards are stacked in favor of people who do not toil for their bread.
Please cite your sources or is "feudal/control economy" just an opinion?
Here is an example:
Ancient Roman Economy
Ancient Rome was an agrarian and slave based economy whose main concern was feeding the vast number of citizens and legionaries who populated the Mediterranean region. Agriculture and trade dominated Roman economic fortunes, only supplemented by small scale industrial production.
factory to servitude
Machinery has eliminated many heavy industrial jobs, however there is still much employment concerned with small crafts, installing intricate parts and manufacturing a myriad of devices craved by Americans. Unfortunately they are manufactured elsewhere and those elsewheres do not have safety and labor regulations.
Meanwhile those who would toil in a factory are relegated to the service industry which would be O.K. if it paid adequately.
So what our "work force" has become, as I see it, is a big servant class.
I can even accept that, but not at these wages when the upper class can well afford to pay a dollar extra for a burger to insure a decent lifestyle for the masses.
Machinery has eliminated many heavy industrial jobs, however there is still much employment concerned with small crafts, installing intricate parts and manufacturing a myriad of devices craved by Americans. Unfortunately they are manufactured elsewhere and those elsewheres do not have safety and labor regulations.
Meanwhile those who would toil in a factory are relegated to the service industry which would be O.K. if it paid adequately.
So what our "work force" has become, as I see it, is a big servant class.
I can even accept that, but not at these wages when the upper class can well afford to pay a dollar extra for a burger to insure a decent lifestyle for the masses.
Similar threads
