View Single Post
Old 09-21-2013, 10:31 AM   #18
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
The core problem here is the fatal flaw with capitalism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer..

Under what "system" do the rich not get rich and the poor do not get poorer? What is it about "capitalism" and only capitalism that causes this phenomenon? And why is that necessarily fatal? Is there some ideal "system" in which the rich and the poor constantly stay at the same level of economic separation? Perhaps, the only "solution" to the discrepancy is to eliminate it. Perhaps, some new form of "socialism" not yet invented will make everyone "equal."

And what do you mean by "capitalism"? Is there some intrinsic mechanism peculiar to it that necessarily exacerbates the effects of poverty and enhances those of wealth? I constantly hear references to "capitalism" which cast it as various causes of social evils, many of which have nothing to do with the capitalistic process as much as they have to do with human nature, greed, stupidity, politics--as witnessed by the oppressions of people under monarchies, dictatorships, and, yes, those blessed socialist societies in general. Perhaps, one big strike against "capitalism" is its invention by Marx, Until him, it was an age old process of market economics. He cast it as a stepping stone, with a "fatal flaw," toward a more egalitarian society. And it has suffered under that stigma ever since, especially in academic circles which in turn inform the greater outlets of information such as the "media."

Rather than a fatal flaw in capitalism, which process allows greater numbers of people to rise from poverty, there is a fatal flaw in socialistic systems(which includes all forms of government control and ownership, dictatorships, monarchies, fascism, etc.) which does not have a means to rise above a prescribed level. Rather than as fatal flaw in capitalism, its process is a marketplace for progress and freedom unknown to purely socialistic societies. Keep in mind that even socialistic societies use capitalistic methods to improve their lot.


This is ever so evident if we look at the last decade and the shrinking middle class. So when the poor get poorer, and I'm talking the working poor here.. The ones who bust their asses every day just to make ends meet.. These are the people who will be helped by obamacare.

They are already being "helped." The supposed reason for Obamacare is to give them all some form of "insurance." And, supposedly, to lower the cost of healthcare. But for that to happen in the way Obamacare prescribes, healthcare will be more expensive, and the cost will be born by the beloved "middle class."

I don't hae time to get into it more, but I feel that we are at the peak of sustainable capitalism. Houses are expensive, food is expensive.. Everything is.. All due to the falling value of the dollar.
Am I for this idealistically? No... But realistically, the average American working an average job has been priced out of the American dream. This can help so many. And who's to say that the money they save won't be spent on other goods and boost the economy somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The value of the dollar is not dictated by capitalism. A shrinking dollar is no friend of capitalism. The value of the dollar is more directly contrived by government manipulation. For capitalism, the dollar is a medium of exchange. For political purposes it is a medium of control. Government printing of more dollars than necessary for given volumes of business is a means to pay for its pet projects and means of control. It is also a means, by lowering the value, to a bit more easily pay off debt which was borrowed at a higher value. Inflationary prices have to do with too much money, which the government controls. Those who have saved a little bundle find it harder to use it for what they once thought they could. That does not help capitalism, as a whole, but it does prop up, momentarily, government.

Last edited by detbuch; 09-21-2013 at 10:40 AM..
detbuch is offline