I seem to have missed a spectacle...(crackles fingers)...let's see. From what I've read, Kiroen's argument is that the flaws are inherent to the system, while most others who posted argue that the flaws are hinged on the human factor, am I correct? Note: I'm not an economist nor a social psychologist, so don't take my words fully at heart. My arguments could (and probably will) contain flaws because of the former. (ooh boy, this is going to be a loooong post) My argument is that it's a bit of both and some other things. Kiroen, ask yourself if you care as much about a starving child thousands of miles away, as about a friend. The answer is no, and for good reason (read: don't feel too bad about it). Our empathy has bounds (if it didn't, our minds would explode pretty much, or make us incredibly depressive). If you keep that in mind, it's easy to understand why, for example, so many people are dying due to preventable conditions. It's too far away from us, so we don't care as much.* It doesn't justify the situation, but to blame such situation fully on our economic system is a flawed argument. The disparity would still be there mainly due to our nature, no matter what system you're in (even if it conflicts with that system itself. 'Animal Farm' gives a good example for the communist system). you don't even have to look that far to see such problems. For example, if you're not part of a certain minority, chances are it's woes are too far off your own life to really care that much. You then proceed to describe the inherent increase of wealth disparity, which I can get behind, to then making it out to be a propaganda/slavery producer, which I can't. You state that every person follows this logic (things you don't need, etc, etc), or is unable to think that well for themselves what they need. One, that's not the case. People can be quite aware of what they need. Two, a (little) bit of luxury isn't always bad, although you technically 'don't need it'. I admit, what you describe happens frequently, but not in general. Three, advertising isn't evil, but necessary for companies to exist. You describe that it is used to make people believe that they need things they don't need, but they also inform people of stuff they do need. Example: you have a really bad case of dandruff, and you see advertising for stuff that gets rid of it. Advertising shortens the time you need to find products, whether you need it or not is left to you to decide. The consumer behaviour you describe mostly hinges on how a person is raised. First, if someone learns how to value things properly when growing up, they will be better at judging these things. Secondly, critical thought is required for nearly everything (except religion, perhaps), so you need that skill in order to judge information better. So when you see an Axe body spray commercial, you don't (instantly) believe that spraying yourself with the expensive stench (personal opinion) causes women to flock on your pelvis. However: parenting isn't easy. You're (almost) bound to do something wrong. Sometimes you give misguided advice to your children (example: you have to do this, that...to live happily, even though not all these things are required to live a fulfilling life). Other times you might give them too much/little. And those are just two of the myriad of small things you might accidentally do wrong. Added to that, critical thought is something that you should be learnt in school, but takes a long time to master. If your education system is flawed on that aspect, you will notice the consequences. The thing is, few of this is caused by capitalism itself, but rather by the people living in the system. You can argue that commercials are sometimes/often misleading, but to be mislead without critical thought is also for some part to blame on the people. You also got some of the workings of businesses wrong. You completely left out innovation or specifying to better appease a certain niche (it's really a kind of Darwinism, Darvan nails it with that term). All of those can lead to the growth sought. On the other hand, the wrong mutation can end unsuccesfully if it doesn't fit the environment it is in. For example: if the environment is people who demand their clothes being made under humane and fair conditions, a lot of clothing brands are going to be in trouble in that said environment. (I also would recommend to be nicer to the Chinese in general, things work quite different there. I understand your worries on that, though.) Yes, some companies/people are more powerful than some governments with their affluence (cough*Philip Morris*cough*), and they can cripple those(*same cough*). However: 1. those actions can actually hurt those companies more than the countries they target if things backfire. 2. If governments would act rationally and fair (also non-corrupt or unbiased), their power would be way less. 3. An international approach would stop it dead in their tracks, even though such a thing happening is very unlikely. Still, I think it could be technically possible to gain similar effect without international support. (more about that later) How parties/candidates geit money for their campaigns is different for most countries, but banks are very rarely involved like you state. It's too much money with a high risk of not getting their money back, so banks generally have no interest themselves in such an investment. Rather, lobbying groups (made up by numerous people of interest and companies) are prime investors. How it does work varies to rather fair to rather perverted. In my country, parties get money from the state depending on their size plus membership fees. This makes them little to not dependent on sponsorship, reducing the influence of (affluent) people or companies on the parties themselves (our government in general, however, has some problems with that due to some very unique laws), and keeping campaigns fair in relative sizes. In America, things work a little bit different, especially presidency campaigns. A clear explanation of the voting system and its problems can be found on CGP Grey's channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k, in that order). As you said, presidential candidates rely on sponsors to fund their 100s of millions dollar campaigns, in exchange for favours to their sponsors when they are elected (this is not for all of the sponsors, but those still expect to profit from their supportes candidate being elected). Not only is this unfair to all other parties besides the two almost everyone knows (because they can't even dream of raising that much money for campaigns), but it makes those presidents less effective, not proposing certain necessary laws due to promises to their sponsors. This funding problem isn't only present in presidency, sadly. Again, the problems aren't caused by capitalism, but they are exploited by it. The actual problem are the humans themselves. If you can cast away the problems caused by us, the grasp of bodies in the system slips away. Jericho, about your argument concerning the 1%. I think you're using the wrong numbers: small businesses are defined as those with 500 employees or less, which doesn't define the wealth of those. (For example: some small business make tens of millions nett, while some giant companies are for years in the red). Raising taxes on the 1% based on (comparative) wealth wouldn't hurt as much as you envision it to be. This graph however (tried to find a more neutral one, but I couldn't find it) describes the problem better: http://www.shadyplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/wealth3.jpg
I will use this graph later on for one of my own arguments. Also your idea of taxing the very rich andsoforth is simply called a property tax. Although increasing it (perhaps under certain circumstances) is necessary, keep in mind that you would have to close a loophole that people put their properties in a one-man company for less taxation, while still having the 'same' control. Capitalism has basically one rule: the accumulation of money. It's biggest merit is that it is (when healthy) a huge driver for progress. On the other hand, if unhealthy, it's benefits are (severely) hampered and it creates quite the inequality. If you want to keep it running properly, then it's key to keep a certain balance. Complete equality of wealth would be unfair and counterproductive: do you really want to a heart surgeon to be paid the same as the person who hands you your burgers in a drive-through? How this fits with the graph earlier: this graph is an example of a Poisson Curve (roughly), which is a statistical graph to display a certain kind of distribution. This graph displays our (or at least America's) current situation, of which the majority agrees it is rather unfair. A graph of a perfect communist system (which hasn't existed yet) would be completely flat due to equal distribution. My theory is that between those two, somewhere there is a(n area of) graph(s) which matches a 'fairest' distribution of wealth. The beauty of it is 1. such a thing can be mathematically expressed, making it easier to measure or to work to. 2. It would match the maximal purchasing power of a populace, maximizing its economic output and welfare. The crucial thing about this theory of mine is that such a balance has to be maintained. What's key to all of this are the governments, which would have to put this into law, so they could do so. It should be a role of the government (and by that, of the people to demand it, too), to allign the interest of the capitalist system in their country with the well-being of the people they govern. But that's another story that would take at least as much time as this. These are my opinions. Feel free to argue them, or point out things I've missed. (Now, back to studying...) (P.S. as for energy, Kiroen: commercial Nuclear Fusion is expected to exist around 2050, so before we run out of oil and coal we will probably have a clean, incredibly powerful solution. Doesn't solve it for cars so much nor ecological consequences, though) #buildingthegreattextwallofchina
