Why Capitalism is the Only Ethical Economy
72
Why Capitalism is the Only Ethical Economy
People who think Capitalism is wrong believe that since it's every man for himself, people who don't make enough money to live will just die. That is totally theoretical and wrong. Look at all the charities, churches, mosques, etc. People give money to those organizations without being forced to and those organizations help out people in need.
Capitalism
What is the idea behind capitalism? It says if you have money, you can invest in capital (machines, equipment, tools, etc.) and create jobs which you’ll hire people. Suppose a person can make $10/hour working for oneself. However, if the person works for you with the capital you have, he/she can generate $12/hour worth of value. Now if you pay the person $11/hour, the person is better off working for you than working on his/her own. You now also profit $1/hour by doing nothing but owning the capital. In Capitalism is pays to be rich, medium, and poor. There are no taxes such as the Income Tax, Social Security, and Medicare. It’s pretty much every person for himself/herself. However, since so much wealth is created from Capitalism, people tend to give away to charities, churches, temples, and mosques. Everyone prospers in Capitalism.
Socialism
In Socialism, the idea is we gain together or lose together. In this economy if you make more money, you are taxed more and at a higher tax bracket in order to transfer some of the wealth you created to the less fortunate. This sounds good in theory, since we are helping one another. However, why would anyone wants to work hard if they can just be lazy and have some the wealth transferred to them (or at least not have it taken away from them)? This is the current economy we have right now in the United States and in most countries including: the countries in the European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, etc. This economy prevents people from becoming wealthy (except for the lobbyists and lucky ones) and slows down advancement. People don’t work at their maximum level of productivity in this economy. It’s also immoral to steal one person’s wealth to give to another against their will.
Communism
In Communism, everything is owned by the community or rather, government in practicality. You do not own anything yourself in a true communist economy. You work together and divide the wealth you create equally. This sounds really good in theory and it is as though you’re in Utopia, but it differs in real life. In the real world, no one wants to work in this economy. Why work when you’ll be paid the same as the person who works really hard? This economy does not work at all and is totally impractical. A true communist economy cannot exist because no one wants to work and have most of their wealth stolen. This is also a totally immoral economy. Everyone is poor in this economy and most people starve to death.
Fascism
The idea in this economy is that people from the same ancestors or bloodline should unite together, while the entire minority are kicked out or killed. Fascists believe the country is stronger as a whole if everyone in the country is from the same family and have the same blood. It also has a mix of Socialism and Communism in that if you make more money, you are forced to give back to your less fortunate brothers and sisters. This economy is terrible because it loses diversity which is a major factor in growth. Also, with all the violence it hinders productivity since people are too busy fighting than producing goods and services. In addition, it has all the bad from a Socialist/Communist country. It’s an immoral economy because of killing innocent people just because they are different. This economy is a total failure and cannot exist, which is it does not exist today.
 | Amazon Price: $15.25 List Price: $25.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $11.42 List Price: $19.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.28 List Price: $16.95 |
What is your favorite economy?
See results without votingRon Paul "Moore Is Wrong! It's Not Capitalism! It's Corporatism & The Military Industrial Complex!
Peter Schiff: Capitalism the Solution for OWS Protesters
CommentsLoading...
Josak, I don't know what era you read that from, but it is irrevalent to todays world in America! Studies show it takes 17.8 years of 80 hour weeks to become a millionaire! We have 50 million on welfare, Im my book that means they are starving! My company offers good jobs daily and not one application comes in? In Woodward Oklahoma we have 17 trucks and 9 drivers! No one wants to live in that deserted little town. Its safe, quiet, and the job includes health insurance and 401K...........again 50 million on welfare.......no takers!
The dutch had unemployment set up for 5 years and that is how long it took for people to find work, once they were force to change it to 4 years, somehow people found work! then 3 years and guess what? yep they found work! The only people out of work in this country simply don't want to work! I have lived through tough economies, I didn't blame the wealthy, I wanted to be the wealthy! Change your thinking or you and your lazy cronies will lead us to disaster!
I like this Hub because it provides insight into the roles and responsibilities for caring for the general community (or redistributing the wealth) in each form of government.
In the past, redistribution was the role of the church and not the government. It was people tithing to take care of each other, with a focus on caring for those they know, with nobody being guaranteed a share of the overall wealth. People compete in this system.
As he have grown and become more modern, redistribution has become the role of the government, and is done almost anonymously according to documented (but not always easy to validate) requests for assistance. Jobs have been created to manage the redistribution, taxes pay for those jobs, and taxes are the source for what gets redistributed. The amount redistributed is divided between those we sought to help and those who manage it, so we need to contribute more to help others. This is done because there is a perception (bordering on an elitist attitude) that we don’t know how to go about caring for others. Both government and elitism grows. In this system, someone who seeks to help others may choose not to do so since the action of helping is assigned to people who work for and are paid for by the government. Those who would like to help are taxed already to help others. This last reasoning is one I’ve actually observed and heard over the last few decades, and comes more noticeable when times are tougher. People compete in this system, with some people choosing to rely on the system to take care of them.
It looks like under Communism, the whole concept of personal wealth is gone. We all are cared for by the government. The job of distributing wealth is strictly the role of the government. If you want to help others under this system, you will not be able to since the amount of wealth you have has been distributed to you according to what you need, rather than what you’ve earned. Under this system your opportunity to do better is to become part of the government, the wealth distribution system. Elitism rules in this system.
Under fascism, Elitism not only rules, it becomes omnipotent. I can’t even begin to understand this system.
Class warefare is here. The LAZY vs The Producers
To both AR and Gusser. The fact that both of you are relying on the lazyness causes poverty argument is sad as that argument was disproved as possible allmost 300 years ago, allow me to explain. In America there are tens of millions of people genuinely looking for a job that can't find one because at the moment more people are coming into the workforce than job are being created, so assuming that by some miracle every lazy person in america was turned into a hard working driven employee the situation for most people would only be worse, there would be more competition for work, people that are laid off and want to get back to work would have very little chance of finding it with all this competition, furthermore with so many people desperate to work basic economics would come into play and the wages would be lowered (this is supply and demand) as a result none of the working class would be better off, although the rich would make more money with the cheaper employees. So as you can see it is logically impossible for lazyness to be the cause of the grand scale poverty we see at the moment. Please educate yourselves.
Educate yourself--Laziness is the Result not the cause of poverty. Nice try at the old switcheroo. Enterprising people will create new business & jobs.
Create new jobs in an economy where no one has work and bussiness are going under all over the place? Not likely my friend, especially since these people will have no experience in the running of a bussiness especially in the hardest economic climate in decades! More importantly these people are unemployed and have no money where will they get the capital to start a new Bussiness?! In this case all you had to do was think before you said something obviously wrong.
Josak--the socialistic policies of the late 1920's lead to a Depression. The socialistic policies of the early 2000's have lead to another. Thinking may not be your strong suit.
I see you didn't answer the point and changed the subject... how telling. Furthermore our crisis came about during a Republican leadership who was far from socialist. You are obviously not worth talking to, you have no discourse ability whatsoever consider this conversation over you showed yourself unworthy of it when you failed to answer the rebuttal to your own point. Farewell.
Good debate you 2.
Bush was most certainly a Progressive. Even a flaming Liberal can't make that claim. Expanded Government, expanded Socialized Healthcare for Seniors, ETC. Bush was one of yours claiming to be Conservative.
Josak Level 6 Commenter 3 months ago
I recommend you read a book called "The ragged trousered philanthropist" it will answer your questions quite well. More directly I disagree with a lot of what you say, capitalism as you envision it with limited governamental input existed for a long time in industrial age England for exampleas well as many other nations, there we had a working class which starved as soon as they were out of work (which happened often becuase there is never enough work) a working class with a life expectancy of twenty years or more less than the non working (employer) class and enormous amounts of pverty and destitution, children starved to death and so did adults every single day while the employer class went though it's most prosperous phase, the church and charity organisations were much stronger then than they are now, thats the logical conclusion of your ideology and its disgusting. People can not live off charity people with money are not in the habit of giving eneough to make that supportable and the reception of charity is demeaning and destructive to the recipient if it there only way of getting by.
The follwing qoute is an exerpt from the afore mentioned book, it was written in 1905 by a person livign what they were writing.:
There were some who were - as they thought - exceptionally lucky: the firms they worked for were busy enough to let them work two hours' overtime every night - till half past seven - without stopping for tea. Most
of these arrived home about eight, completely flattened out. Then they had some tea and a wash and before they knew where they were it was about half past nine. Then they went to sleep again till half past four or five
the next morning. They were usually so tired when they got home at night that they never had any inclination for study or any kind of self-improvement, even if they had had the time. They had plenty of time to study during the winter: and their favourite subject then was, how to preserve themselves from starving to death. This overtime, however, was the exception, for although in former years it had been the almost invariable rule
to work till half past seven in summer, most of the firms now made a practice of ceasing work at five-thirty.
The revolution which had taken place in this matter was a favourite topic of conversation amongst the men, who spoke regretfully of the glorious past, when things were busy, and they used to work fifteen, sixteen and even eighteen hours a day. But nowadays there were nearly as many chaps out of work in the summer as in winter.