atlantabiolab said:
Instead of simply barking this nonsense over and over, elaborate on the "mechanisms" by which Capitalism is "designed" to maintain poverty???
By giving people the illusion of freedom and the illusion of seemingly unlimmited materialistic growth through working hard you make workers more willing to work. Such workers are potentially cheaper and work harder.
The average capital needed to start a business is typically drastically unproportional to the profit margins. It takes alot of money to make money.
Spreading of crack-cocaine through poor black areas in the 60's.
There is no one main mechanism present, other than human greed, but by looking at the collective picture it's pretty clear as to what is goingo n.
Capitalism is one thing, and one thing only, a system of economics, where individuals are free from governmental interference. Nothing more, nothing less. Your concept of capitalism as a governing system is erroneous, and actually representative of socialism, the system where government determines the rules under which men may do business with one another.
The government is depended on the flow of money too grow and thrive. The government is also run by a bunch of hungry men. Capitalism may essentially be a system of economics but its grasps go beyond economics.
You point out a major fallacy that is used by leftist and other whiners that is believed to argue against the idea of capitalism, that being that EVERYONE cannot become a success or wealthy through effort. This is perfectly true, but not a failing of capitalism, it is simply a fact of reality. Capitalism does not propose that all men WILL become wealthy, only that it places less barriers in the way of those who have the drive, smarts and determination to strive for this goal. Because egalitarianism is a pipe dream, each man will individually determine his goal, and through his natural abilities he will do what he can with his life.
Maybe, but the structure of our system is preventing us from using its position in the world to do things such a powerful system should be doing. Such as feeding the hungry in Africa, or letting them manufacture their own drugs for HIV/AIDs to sell at affordable prices.
While many men have immoral motives and have the resources to manipulate others, this does not mean that all systems are equal. There are systems which allow the above mentioned to control the lives of every individual under the system, where other systems remove man from absolute control of powerful men. It is no doubt that many of our political decisions are influenced by powerful men, but how is this meaningfully preventing you from controlling your life?
Well it'd be nice to do psychadelics without the worry of being persecuted. I can thing of other things as well.
Reconsider life under say Afghanistan or Communist China and then consider how less in control of your life you are. All systems are not equivalent.
They are no role models.
[/B]Pure nonsense. Please demonstrate to us how capitalism has stagnated technological advancement. I guess Bill Gates is a multi-billionaire because he is simply a great conman, right?? Nobody really wants his products, he is just a great salesman, right? [/B]
Exactly!
Insinuating that technology would be far more advanced without a capitalist system should be supported by looking at less capitalistic societies, such as Western Europe, Russia, China, etc. I don't seem to see the evidence. By your assertion, they should be surpassing the US in technological progress. Where is the evidence?
Where is the evidence that they aren't? Russia was technologically superior to the U.S for some time when it was the USSR. China has it's own R&D companies that rival those of the United States(including R&D companies owned by the Chinese Government running with the U.S). Western Europe made the ROOR. You can't generalize technology as each country may excel in one field over another.
In what, manufacturing? The US is not a major manufacturing nation any longer, because it is cheaper to contract this work out to countries with cheaper labor. Pro-environmentalist, pro-labor, pro-socialist movements have effectively increased the cost of many industries to where it is not feasible to do it ourselves. Thus we send this work offshores, all while these same special interest groups bitch that we outsource jobs.
That may be true but that doesn't mean all or even most of the manufacturing is done for Corporations in the United States.
Then why don't you become an Aborigine and show us slaves the error in our ways? Why don't you denounce Western advances in medicine and healthcare and go eat berries and snake livers to heal your ailments? Why don't you go and perform backbreaking labor so that you can die at a long lived 42 years of age? Or die from some unheard of tropical disease?
Because I was born into this system and have grown attached to it to a certain extent. I rather try and make changes to it then abandon it.
Aboriginal man is free to live his life as he so pleases, but to claim equivalency in his existence to what Western civilization has produced for its members is lunacy. Western man does not have to have 7 children in the hopes that one may survive to adulthood. He does not have to lose his wife to childbirth. He does not believe that demons cause illnesses, nor pray to animals. Western man can increase the growth of crops to such extents that he can feed thousands of mouths instead of a few.
Obviously everything has Pros and Cons to it.
Happiness is subjective, and because it is subjective, men in all societies have acted to ensure their happiness. Our present system has merely substituted good crops and shiny coins, with good jobs and two cars. Why are our goals less worthwhile than primitive man's?
They aren't neccasarily less worthwhile, just based on very primitive drives and are prone to manipulation.
