Is capitalism ruining society or lifting it up? Vote now and let your voice be heard!
✍️ Share your thoughts in the comments, but remember to keep it civil, no matter how heated the debate gets! Let's hear your opinions!
Yes, capitalism is the engine of progress that has created wealth and improved lives around the globe.
No, capitalism exploits the masses, concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, and causes social and environmental destruction.
"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal" - Richard M. Nixon
‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded – and once they are suspended it is not difficult for anyone who has assumed emergency powers to see to it that the emergency will persist. - Friedrich Hayek
The Americans preach that Capitalism has lifted a billion people from poverty. The Chinese preach that Communism has lifted a billion people from poverty.
They're both liars, neither did. They are trying to steal credit. The actual thing that lifted billion-s of people from poverty is Science and Technology. Anyone who disagrees is historically and factually wrong.
@Kangal: Agree. Scientific research and technological advancement is possible in societies other than democratic/capitalist ones. Technology progressed very quickly in Nazi Germany. The Soviets were able to keep pack with the Americans in the space race and in military technology.
Communism just means that, instead of private firms doing scientific research, the research is done by the government. Co-operation rather than competition.
Communism isn't the great evil that people make out. It's just sharing, cooperation, compassion for others, and communal ownership. In contrast, capitalism is individualism, selfishness, competition, narcissism, private property, a society based on predation (you get rich by taking from others/exploiting others).
@Thaal Sinestro: Communism has never worked because someone always wants to be in charge. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, communism, in theory, sounds idyllic. In practise, it has never worked and caused untold mystery and death. Capitalism is far from perfect, but it is the best we’ve got.
@iCandy: Human beings are a corruptible animal.
What's the solution to prevent corruption of the human?
@iCandy: Surely democratic communism is implementable, which removes the corruption issue as much as it is removed in capatalism?
@iCandy: Don't worry we can just remove the human element from administration. I for one welcome our future Communist AI overlords.
@Thaal Sinestro: " individualism, selfishness, competition, narcissism, private property, a society based on predation" These are the characteristics of a human being
"sharing, cooperation, compassion for others, and communal ownership" These are also characteristics of a human being.
I suspect there is another extremely important factor here that you are missing.
@Thaal Sinestro: It is a great evil because the hard working people get the same amount of stuff as the lazy slackers in a fully communist society, usually through civil war. The lazy slackers are the ones that took from the hard working and the smart to enjoy a life that they don't deserve. However, it goes both ways, we need a certain amount of communism otherwise 99% of the population will be slaves looking after the filthy rich 1%.
We need to find the right balance to let the new hard workers at rock bottom to make their way to the top. The wealth gap can't be too large where that's impossible, otherwise there will be a great reset through civil war or some other manner to balance out the wealth gap.
@Thaal Sinestro: Communism is all about compassion for others?
Didn't the last two big communist governments kills 10's of millions of people (Mao and Stalin)?
@MementoMori: You can have a communist society that isn't authoritarian. After all, communism is underpinned by workers having all the power in the economy.
@Thaal Sinestro: You are obviously and painfully unaware of the frantic espionage conducted by the Soviets on WW2 American industry.
FDR's close confidant and adviser Harry Hopkins, who was instrumental in pushing for massive resource transfers to the Soviets on the pretext of Lend Lease, was an enthusiastic supporter of economic "cooperation" with the Soviets during the war.
Massive amounts of ostensibly sensitive material hardly necessary to fight the conventional war, but very useful for continuing nuclear research, were funneled to the Soviets before the end of the war, quite often under the cover of diplomatic protection.
As a subset of this, the nuclear secrets stolen from the Manhattan Project by Klaus Fuchs among others paved the way for a much quicker introduction of the Soviet atom bomb.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/spies-who-spilled-ato…
See also "Project Venona"
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Event…
The only way that the Soviet aviation industry was able to develop long range strategic bombers was the precise duplication of the 3 Boeing B29's that landed in Soviet territory in 1945 and subsequently developed into the Tupolev TU4.
The British foolishly "sold" Rolls Royce Nene turbojets and manufacturing blueprints to the Soviets in 1946, allowing them to develop the MiG15 jet fighter enabling them to counter the US North American F86 Sabre..
Also, many German industries that relocated eastwards in an to attempt an escape from Allied bombing raids in WW2 were captured by the Soviets when they advanced into Poland and eastern Germany, together with many German scientists who had worked in these establishments.
See "Our Germans are better than your Germans".
https://www.lynchburg.edu/new-books-tell-cold-war-stories-of….
@Leadfoot6: This is fascinating. It makes it easier to understand the reluctance of Western powers to send their top line equipment to Ukraine, fearing that the Ruzzians will capture and copy.
@Kangal: Science and technology depend on the productive capacity of the society.
Who won the space race? Where is silicon valley located?
@Scrooge McDuck: To be fair, it was Hitler's Socialism that "won" the Space Race. The USSR were lucky to harbour most of the Nazi scientists, and basically won every point of the Space Exploration, except for landing on the Moon. The Americans were also lucky to take in some key personnel from Germany, and basically lost the Space Race, except the Moon landing.
You can have a country that is styled like a Mediaeval Monarchy, and they would be superior to extreme Capitalist States and extreme Communist States, as long as they wield advanced technology. And that stems from every facet of civilisation, from agriculture, to food, and water, waste, recycling, communications, transportation, and defence capabilities, and many more.
Hypothetically, imagine if somehow Israel from 2020 was transported back in time. Let's say 40, 80, 120, and 200 years back to 1980, 1940, 1900, and 1820. You would think with their advancement they could become the next superpower, if not in 1940 but definitely in 1820. Even though we're talking about a population of 10 Million against 1 Billion.
That's why technology needs to be appreciated, and not the systems. It is a logical fallacy to say one fosters more innovation than the other, since we have never had a proper apples to apples comparison. The closest we've had was the division of Korea, where the democratic northerners are landlocked and rule in a tight-communistic way. Whilst the south enjoys big trade with the largest economies around the world, and huge support and aid helped them shift into a modern one. Their northern peers never had the same conditions, and have been stuck with their agrarian economy.
@Kangal: The USSR collapsed. The USA is the world superpower.
The DPRK has famine. Free Korea has Samsung.
Communist China leads the world in stealing intellectual property. Free China leads the world in semiconductor production.
@Scrooge McDuck: This is a lot of cherry picking. I can compare a lot of countries that are capalist in south America and worse off than Cuba. I can do the same for autocracies in Asia that are better off than capitalist countries in Asia.
The USSR collapsed
Which polls show that majority of people in most ex-Soviet countries deeply regret its illegal dissolution, say the USSR was their peak and that they were better off then.
The USA is the world superpower.
Not if you see the writing on the walls (world is turning towards a multipolar one real quick)
The DPRK has famine. Free Korea has Samsung.
That's what happens when the US draws an imaginary line to force Korea to become two, then sanctions one and heavily supports the other.
Communist China leads the world in stealing intellectual property. Free China leads the world in semiconductor production.
China lives in your head rent free I can tell lmao, must hurt when they are overtaking the US in every kind of metric left right and centre
@consume: So it looks like you like communism - if that's what you believe then party on with that.
Do you think communism would be good for Australia then?
Just looking at all the countries that have been/are communist in the last century and this, they tend to be pretty brutal towards their own people - and that's not my opinion, rather historical fact. Capitalist economies can be nasty, and have been, but have not gone down the brutality route of communist states.
@R4: The collapse of the USSR was never inevitable, it was wilful suicide. Gorbachev wanted reform and Yeltsin wanted its destruction, who managed to seize power, signed a decree against the peoples wishes and left Gorbachev the leader of a non-existent nation. Polls show that the majority of Russian and ex-soviet people (including Ukraine) regret it happened.
A communist party is not communism (which is a stateless, moneyless and classless society), communism is the eventual goal but there's speedbumbs on the way especially for unindustrialised countries, like facing the wrath of capitalist countries, natural disasters, famine and building the productive forces. Marx even says that you need capitalism as the precursor to socialism then eventually communism.
Capitalism is only going to get worse for humanity and the environment my guy, lets just cut out the parasitical middle man now so we can use a planned economy for building a sustainable future, something like what China is doing where they have complete control over capital, instead of capital controlling politics and seizing more and more power for the few.
You're gonna tell me that the US wasn't brutal… here's some of their highlights https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrociti…
@consume: How much of that might be people wishing for the 'good old days' of Russian power through rose tinted glasses?
And hard to know how much influence the closed information loops in Russia might have on swaying opinion
@Scrooge McDuck: If you look at historically, before patent laws,
people have been copying/pasting ideas since forever;
this is not an exclusively Chinese-trait.
Everyone got ahead in life, by building or taking someone else's idea.
We hear Anglo-centric news and that forms our world-view.
It's a very small window to human civilisation,
just to look at the last 50-years or 100-years,
ie. like watching -ONLY- the last 2-minutes of a 5-hour long movie.
But to know the reality of anything is quite impossible,
because our history is not necessarily 'real' and only maintained for vested interests.
Nikola Tesla's story comes to mind.
@whyisave: The last 100 years are where most of the scientific and technological innovation happened.
@whyisave: Completely agree. Copyright protection (justifiably, to a degree) rewards the inventor/innovator, but disadvantages the rest of the population. The balance of rewarding the inventor vs benefitting the entire population has swung too far in favour of the inventors.
You even hear of Western media complaining the Chinese is copying US weapons technology as an example of copyright violation - as if in the matters of war, it is natural for the weaker side to be constrained by an invisible law the stronger side created to prevent the weaker from becoming stronger, instead of doing all it can to try to win.
@Kangal: So National Socialism is worth a re-visit?
From what I know the German economy went from poverty to massive booming
That's why technology needs to be appreciated, and not the systems.
Without the environment to allow innovation to flourish, then it won't. This seems pretty obvious. Or did you think it is just pure chance that the bulk of innovation comes from capitalist economies?
Your example actually demonstrates this.
Whilst the south enjoys big trade
Free trade, which is all capitalism is. When people are free to trade (ie capitalism) they flourish.
Their northern peers never had the same conditions, and have been stuck with their agrarian economy
Which was forced on them under threat of death due to the socialist ideology they embraced. ie the opposite of free trade.
Do you see the pattern now?
The same pattern that caused mass death and suffering in USSR, China, DPRK, Vietnam, Burma, Cuba, etc etc…
@Scrooge McDuck: Hmm?
The same place that openly tolerates school room massacres as par for the course?
The price paid for (cough cough) freedom?
@Kangal: "…Capitalism has lifted a billion people from poverty…"
And global warming driven by capitalism will put a billion people back into poverty.
Well played Boomers!!
And global warming driven by capitalism will put a billion people back into poverty.
Is that what Greta told you and you automatically believed it?
We're 40 years into the Climate scam and these prophets of doom have all failed to eventuate.
In the case of global poverty, it is at the lowest time in human history and getting lower… thanks to Capitalism.
Wake me up when you can provide something more substantive than fear, uncertainty and doubt…
https://shortfall.blog/the-deep-optimism-manifesto-262f273c9…
@1st-Amendment: Come back to me when you you have at least an undergraduate degree in a scientific field & understand the hypothetico-deductive model of scientific investigation that is the foundation for peer reviewed science & hence the basis for the facts of anthropogenic global warming.
Watts Up With That & various blogs are not peer reviewed science - "opinions are like a***holes, everyone's got one"!!!
Come back to me when you you have at least an undergraduate degree in a scientific field
Is this your attempt at the argument from authority logical fallacy? Rookie error…
I have a science degree, do you? A degree doesn't make you right, it gives you less of an excuse to be wrong.
the basis for the facts of anthropogenic global warming
Ok, let's do some real science right now and test your claims.
What facts are they specifically? Please list them explicitly so we can examine them.
Or is vague hand wavy statements like this considered 'facts' to you:
global warming driven by capitalism will put a billion people back into poverty
Please show your hypothetico-deductive model of scientific investigation that supports this claim. I'll wait. 🤣
@1st-Amendment: No actually, having a science degree helps understand & elucidate the hypothetico-deductive model
When you have an opinion on anthropogenic global warming, but don't publish in peer review, your opinion is meaningless - that is, you opinion is the same as that of a toilet cleaner. Or more specifically, I couldn't care less what your opinion is, my only interest is in pertinent global warming scientists who publish research in peer review.
Hence the saying, again, "opinions are like a***holes, everyone's got one".
No
So you can't support your claim with any evidence. As expected.
having a science degree helps…
So do you have one? Because the way you talk makes it sounds like that you don't.
my only interest is in pertinent global warming scientists
So the argument from authority logical fallacy again. You should try doing less of that of you want to sound credible,
who publish research in peer review.
Well feel free to link to such a peer reviewed paper that supports your claim of "global warming driven by capitalism will put a billion people back into poverty"
Unless you are talking of your hat, which it is obviously clear that you are.
You see actual science requires you do some actual work, not just claim things then hide when asked for details. This is precisely how cults work.
@1st-Amendment: Once again, because the cognitive dissonance it causes you, the saying is “opinions are like a***holes everyone’s got one”. To which I will add my addendum “until you publish in peer review, your mouth is a sphincter & out pours shit”
because the cognitive dissonance
So you know what cognitive dissonance is, yet you cant recognise it in yourself?
We all succumb to it at some point, and the only way to ensure you are not suffering from it yourself is to interrogate your own points of view to test them against objective facts. So the fact you that you are unwilling to do this demonstrates that you are the one suffering from it.
Let do that again and see how it works out:
You claimed that "my only interest is in pertinent global warming scientists who publish research in peer review."
And you claim "global warming driven by capitalism will put a billion people back into poverty"
So where in the peer reviewed research is your claim supported?
Why do you think that 'pertinent global warming scientists' (whoever they are) are the best people to make economic forecasts?
The fact that you keep avoiding this simple question and hiding from the discussion is the most anti-science attitude there is, and all it shows is that you yourself obviously have no science education or understanding of the basic of the scientific method or even the fundamental principles of logic.
This is exactly the behaviour of cults. You just believe stuff and repeat its slogans without understanding any of it, or being able to explain it.
@1st-Amendment: Global warming science & economics are two vastly different fields
Nice attempt at conflation so as to maintain your anti-science right wing world view (they tend to go hand in hand, as evidenced by the amount of you who believe in sky fairies & deny the common ancestor of chimps & humans)
Global warming science & economics are two vastly different fields
I know, I specifically said exactly this. Good that you finally worked it out though. There is hope for you yet…
Nice attempt at conflation
Oh dear, you can't even remember your previous post: "global warming driven by capitalism will put a billion people back into poverty"
You are the one conflating the two. You literally conflated global warming, capitalism, and economic catastrophe in one sentence right there and I called you out on it. So you know that the two are a conflation, but you forgot that it was you that was doing it…
as evidenced by the amount of you who believe in sky fairies & deny the common ancestor of chimps & humans
Again what evidence do you have that I claim any of this?
to maintain your anti-science right wing world view
You seem to be part of the cult of 'sciencism' that likes to throw the word 'science' around without even understanding the very basics of how it works.
Just saying 'science' doesn't make you right. The scientific method requires data and evidence to support a claim, a concept that seems completely foreign to you.
Now if you are pro-science like me, you be more than happy to engage in some right now.
You claim that: "global warming driven by capitalism will put a billion people back into poverty". Please provide the data or evidence to support this claim.
If you can't do this, then it is you who are anti-science.
@1st-Amendment: "You seem to be part of the cult of 'sciencism'"
So, do you believe in the 2,000 old year old book of fairytales?
So, do you believe in the 2,000 old year old book of fairytales?
Aesop? There's some great tidbits of wisdom in those stories. Some people are ignorant and pass them off a children's stories but there are some great life lessons in them. The Ant and the Grasshopper is a good one, have you read it?
Now that you tried to deflect from the subject yet again, I answered your questions, why do you keep avoiding mine?
I'll ask again for the fifth time: You claim that: "global warming driven by capitalism will put a billion people back into poverty". Please provide the data or evidence to support this claim. Five times is enough, if you can't answer then this the only logical conclusion is that you don't have any, and as predicted this is just anti-science gibberish.
So do you really support actual science, or is it exactly like I expect, you're just another one of the sciencism cult that throws the word science around like some sort of logic immunity shield?
@1st-Amendment: I was referring to the 2,000 year old book of fairytales known as "The Bible" - you know with a guy called 'Jesus', 'Paul' & 'Moses' in it
I was referring to…
So avoiding the science yet again? Imagine claiming to be on the side of science, but then avoiding it at every turn just like someone from a crazy cult.
You've made your position very clear now… thanks for the demonstration.
global warming driven by capitalism will put a billion people back into poverty
Still hiding?
@1st-Amendment: You conflated. As I told you
As for 2,000 year old book of Jesus & Moses fairytales - do you believe it?
Important reminder for those reading - from the referenced poster: "We're 40 years into the Climate scam and these prophets of doom have all failed to eventuate."
global warming driven by capitalism will put a billion people back into poverty
Still hiding?
Still conflating?
One of the mental blocks you keep demonstrating over and over to great embarrassment is that simply claiming something to be true doesn't make it true. This is the scientific method 101 and your continued lack of grasping this simple concept superbly shows to all your anti-science opinions.
Nothing has been conflated, you made this dumb arse claim and then ran and hid when asked to give supporting evidence:
global warming driven by capitalism will put a billion people back into poverty
…tumbleweeds…
Enjoy your anti-science doomsday cult. Let me know the next time the sky is supposed to fall so we can all laugh at yet another failed end-is-near prediction….
@1st-Amendment: I'm not the retard being a 'skeptic' (effing LOL) of climate change science, labelling it a a doomsday cult.
Enjoy your cheerleading from the lower IQ & lower educated end of the political spectrum. Yes, peer reviewed research has repeatedly shown conservatives have lower average IQ, are more likely to have religious beliefs, & no surprise religious people tend to also have lower average IQ than atheists. Conservatives are also more likely to deny the science of climate change, suggested by peer reviewed neurobiological research as they have a larger average amygdala in their cerebrum - that is, a biological greater fear response.
In fact the term climate change was coined over 2 decades ago to compensate for conservatives who were found in focus groups to be more upset by the term 'global warming'.
Conservatives - the real snowflakes.
@Boogerman: Still avoiding your steaming dog turd of a claim?
global warming driven by capitalism will put a billion people back into poverty
Or try deflecting yet again and see how that works out. When you're in a hole, it's best to stop digging…
@Kangal: China sent adults back to school in the 70s under Deng Xiaoping. The result was moving their economy from an agrarian society to a more technologically shifted one. In less than 20 years, areas that were once barren fields are now thriving cities with millions of people.
Meanwhile America gets dumber and dumber, the rust belt gets rustier and the cities get more shooty and violent.
@Kangal: Did capitalism or communism generate the wealth the fund the science and technology (not to mention the various other standard of living factors that define being lifted from poverty)?
@Seraphin7: Neither.
To do effective research, it really doesn't cost that much. When you apply more and more redtape, and you dive deeper and deeper into the research it gets more expensive. But it really is a mischaracterisation to say that it was Capitalism that was the engine for innovation. The true engine of innovation are the people that do the research. Some of these people are utterly ripped-off whilst others are compensated heavily, there's no rhyme or reason for it.
Case in point:
For decades, Gene Therapy has been a tightly-controlled research, due to ethical concerns. Through public taxpayer funding from NHS and Oxford, it's led to some key discoveries. One of these innovations was then licensed to a Laboratory in Germany named BioNtech Research. Over there, it was adapted to a new antigen target and tested. This resulted in the creation of Tozinameran. That was then exclusively licensed (and cheaply) to an American Capitalist Corporation known as Pfizer. They then held hostage the exclusive patent to this mRNA Vaccine to target COVID-19 Pandemic. In the ensuing dealings, it lead to the abandonment of at least 3 Billion people in lower socioeconomic status. Whilst the corporation, was found to have direct links with the media and politicians, and made the highest profits in history within its field.
In this example, people think it was Capitalism that birthed the innovation, when all along it was actually Communism under the surface. It was merely Capitalism that took the credit, and the profits. Not that I'm siding with any option, I just wanted to show how these misunderstandings can come about.
To do effective research, it really doesn't cost that much.
Lol, that's why Amazon/Google/MS/Apple etc spend hundreds of billions/year on R&D… do you think before you write or just write what feels right to you?
But it really is a mischaracterisation to say that it was Capitalism that was the engine for innovation. The true engine of innovation are the people that do the research
You seemed to have missed the obvious link here. WHY are people motivated to innovate? Profit motivates far more that a gulag, the cold war showed us that. It's pretty hard to create iPhones when you are starving to death.
Case in point:
You case isn't a good one, since the Covid debacle was a direct case of authoritarian governments making everything worse.
Whilst the corporation, was found to have direct links with the media and politicians, and made the highest profits in history within its field.
Which is a great example of corruption that comes with authoritarian type regimes. If we agree that the Pfizer/Gov collusion was bad for Joe average, then how is the solution to that more government power?
@Kangal: Nope, you are wrong. Its governments. China didnt have science and tech to lift its people out of poverty. It did it by the CCP allowing the country to become the world's manufacturing hub, and then putting those funds into good use such as reinvestments and infrastructure.
Singapore also didn't have any tech to become where they are today.
It's all about governance, effective policies and minimalization of corruption.
I don't agree with CCP's interference with free market policies but you got to give credit where credit is due.
@Kangal: The Chinese never preached Communism lifted poverty. you pulled that out of your arse. It's always "Socialism with Chinese characteristics". China tried communism and it failed hard like the soviets. What the Chinese did is socialise the critical industries and let Capitalist free market have the rest.
You need a working capitalist economy to provide the funds for Science and Technology. You can have more scientist in the soviet union but they won't generate wealth for the common people.
Anyone who disagrees is historically and factually wrong.
Lol and they're also Hitler too right?
I urge everyone to read his book The Road To Serfdom.
Enlightening stuff.
Very nice. Someone who can appreciate the Viennese School of Economics.
we have skipped socialism now are communists….
I must've missed the memo on this one.
That's something a socialist communist marxist would say
Agree - Capitalism is letting people themselves freely decide how to allocate resources and the result is:
- if lots of people freely choose to buy Microsoft Windows, then Bill Gates gets rich;
- if lots of people freely choose to buy Tesla cars and power walls, then Elon Musk gets rich etc etc…
but then the rich invest their money and get richer, people get jealous about these rich people getting too rich and their greed etc, but the alternative is, those things likely didn't get invented because there was less incentive for their invention.
Rather, a bunch of public servants decided how to divide up resources - since when do politicians know better how to spend money then us ourselves!?
Ultimately there is corruption in both types of systems and people get taken advantage of in both - neither works perfectly of course.
In capitalist systems, some people know how to invest and invent and allocate resources to get ahead, some people are disadvantaged, prejudiced against, and taken advantage of as they don't have much bargaining power and that creates inequity and jealously.
So in reality we need a bit of both, which is exactly what we do have - i.e. we have family tax benefits, welfare, some medical expenses paid, some government funded initiatives for things that don't work so good with pure capitalism…. but for the most part we let people do what they want, but we also don't fully, as we tax heavily for other social programmes and have a lot of regulation in a lot of industries to limit people being taken advantage of too much (e.g. minimum wages, working conditions etc).
But we can't have entirely socialist either, where conditions are right for even higher levels of corruption in socialist states because to get ahead depends on who you know in the government - i.e. the politicians/political leaders (that's why there are still rich people in socialist countries… and they usually connected to the leader in some way), and too much socialism stifles free growth to respond to market forces that we create by dispersing decision making so widely with freer capital markets - what works, and people are willing to pay for, is what is produced with free supply and demand, that part works fairly well in a world of limited resources and for that reason I support capitalism …with appropriate regulatory controls.
Like most things, you've got to get the balance right
Inequity and jealously are not inherently bad.
Inequity serves to concentrate resources in the hands of more capable people who can advance society more.
Jealously can serve to motivate people to aspire to succeed.
But they're twisted by vested interest groups in our flawed society to garner votes and viewership by misdirecting them as a vehicle of blame directed at the higher social group. This both stokes fervour by invoking emotion and fosters a broad base of followers by distracting them from the methods of success ensuring they persist in the lower group.
It's inevitable. The system concentrates power in the hands of the most productive, but it only takes a few generations and that system breaks down.
The point of government is to ensure capitalism continues to function, too much regulation and it fails as only the established players can keep up, not enough regulation and monopolies form.
There are a number of inefficiencies in our country
The convenience store nearby is in this situation, I see them buying stock in from coles or aldi, their supplier obviously offers such poor wholesale prices that they are higher than retail.
bunnings and the chemist warehouse/my chemist group have effective monopolies in their respective industries. You can attempt to compete but it is no longer an even playing field - you will face higher costs and lower profits - it doesn't matter if you work harder or provide a better service you will be more likely to fail.
We are going to see the same play out in the real estate market, in a generation there will be a clear distinction between the children who inherited real estate, and those that did not. Prices will remain high as the landed people continue to trade amongst themselves, but climbing the ladder of wealth will be exceedingly more unlikely over time.
You're speaking nothing but facts. I'm sure you're aware this forum is left wing biased, as is Australia in general. Getting your point across will be difficult here with feeble minds not willing to listen or understand. They are too busy blaming others for their personal shortcomings. This country is basically the most equitable place in the world. Literally anyone can make it here, and they still complain it's so tough.
People say it was easier for previous generations but forget to acknowledge how frugal people were in those days. Life got too cushy and people let their guard down some time after the 90's. Then the generation of entitlement was born (my generation) 90's babies
@ben5000: This is so true
Literally anybody can make it here.
It always boggles my mind as to why people are hesitant to go out on their own, start a business or chase their dreams. As an owner of a few businesses, I realise nobody is at more risk financially than those who are my employees. If my business goes south, they are the first to go. Even massive companies at the moment are calling redundancies left right and centre. It's interesting how they feel like having a "cushy" 8-5 job is considered safe and secure
It always boggles my mind as to why people are hesitant to go out on their own, start a business or chase their dreams.
This is one of many negative side effects of socialism. Welfare breeds dependence, and so a generation of people brought up with free stuff handed to them on a plate have lost the ability to think and act for themselves.
Capable like Elon Musk who has basically been falling upwards for the last decade and has shown himself to be hugely incompetent when left to his own devices?
Capable like Elon Musk who has basically been falling upwards for the last decade and has shown himself to be hugely incompetent when left to his own devices?
What have you created so that we may compare?
Capitalism does increase quality of life. But capitalist economies are ultimately flawed.
They rely on continual economic growth to avoid disintegrating into long-term economic decline or collapse. About 3% economic growth is the accepted requirement.
The problem is that never-ending economic growth is not possible. The amount of goods/services a person can consume is limited by time, by space, and by ability to consume.
Nations like Australia seek to temporarily avoid this limit via increasing population growth. If not by fertility rate, then by immigration.
But ultimately, population growth is not a solution, because consumption will eventually be limited by raw material availability and production capacity.
So, in the end, all capitalist economies are doomed unless they find a way out of the cycle.
Japan is an example of a capitalist country declining due to lack of economic growth and lack of population growth. Japan's economy has been almost completely flat for 30 years. The minimum wage in Japan is currently AU $10, not much more than it was 30 years ago. In comparison, the Australian minimum wage has quadrupled over the same time period. The Japanese government is now the most indebted in the world, and the question of how it is going to pay the pension for the most elderly population in the world is unanswered.
Japan is a not good example as they don't allow migrants in, standard of living in Japan is actually very cheap and affordable
people can have a decent life on low wage, stuff are only expensive in big city like Tokyo, Osaka and Tourist magnet place but local know where to go to get cheap eat.
Housing is not an investment there, people don't accumulates houses over there, properties actually deprecates over time in Japan due to their tax and rebuild system. There are 11 millions empty abandon houses currently in Japan, from inheritance that the kids don't want to take ownership and people abandon them due to depreciation and upkeep cost
Australia aren't going to have population declines for many decades to come, we just let more people in
Japan is a not good example as they don't allow migrants in,
This is exactly my point. Without a means to boost population growth, capitalist economies decline or disintegrate.
standard of living in Japan is actually very cheap and affordable people can have a decent life on low wage, stuff are only expensive in big city like Tokyo, Osaka and Tourist magnet place but local know where to go to get cheap eat.
This is irrelevant. Japan is a time bomb. In a few decades, half the population will be aged over 65. The Japanese economy cannot support them. The Japanese government is desperate, although it is has partly been procrastinating dealing with the issue for decades.
The Japanese government's latest desperate strategy is a nationwide campaign encouraging Japanese people to drink more alcohol to boost tax revenue! How nice. Let's get the entire population addicted to a carcinogenic substance to raise 0.01% of the funds needed to support them in their retirement.
There are 11 millions empty abandon houses currently in Japan, from inheritance that the kids don't want to take ownership and people abandon them due to depreciation and upkeep cost
Yes, Japanese society is slowly disintegrating.
Australia aren't going to have population declines for many decades to come, we just let more people in
Yes, the Australian government is well aware that immigration is good for the economy.
@ForkSnorter: Name a country that don't have some issues they have to deal with?
America? North Korea? Russia? South American Countries? South African countries, France, UK, EU?, Germany?
Japanese issues is over stated, every country has issues they have to deal with, Japan is doing very well for a country with no natural resources and sits on a fault line with natural disaster hitting it all the time
if Japanese is dying why is Warren Buffett (the big capitalist) pumping massive investment into that country 2 years ago and over the weekend he quietly dropped into Tokyo and meet up with Japanese trading houses to see if he can increase investment there?
If Japan really feel the pinch they just open their migrations gate and the fact they haven't done it that mean they dont really have a big issues it just get blowed up on the news
@Hearthstone: Agree - it's propaganda to support opening the immigration floodgates… like the 650,000 Australia will take in this year.
@ForkSnorter: Yes, but in 20 years Japan will still be Japanese.
If people funded their own retirement (and taxed less so they could do so), instead of relying on the government, this would be much better.
The whole 'young tax servants need to pay for the old people's healthcare costs' thing is flawed.
Pay for yourself.
If people funded their own retirement (and taxed less so they could do so), instead of relying on the government, this would be much better.
Not everyone is capable of funding their entire retirement without running out of money. In fact, if everyone could do that, the majority of the wealth in the world would by hoarded by retirees for their retirement.
Savings in the long run are worth less because they can't keep up with inflation. It makes more sense for the government to fund people's retirement as much as possible because it can raise funds in real time.
It makes more sense for the government to fund people's retirement as much as possible because it can raise funds in real time.
The 1950's called, they want their crazy ideas back.
Let me help you out. The government has no money of its own. Any funding comes from taxes ie you and me, so to fund an increasing older population's super would require increasing taxes year on year. Are you willing to pay more for someone else?
We've been through this, we tried it and it almost bankrupted the country, hence why now have self funded super.
savings in the long run are worth less because they can't keep up with inflation
Which is why you don't just 'save' you 'invest'. If inflation averages 3% and your super fund averages 8% then your super grows at 5% per year compounding over multiple decades. I can't think of a better way to deal with retirement funding than this.
@1st-Amendment: May be 8% on paper but does that account for all the fees? Pretty sure it's less than that after they take out fees and taxes . My super didn't grow 8% last year and yet inflation was at least 7%.
In 2020-2021, house prices in some areas doubled. How can super keep up with that? Anyway, in the end, a lot of people run out of super or don't have enough. Pension is not really a waste of the government's money because pensioners have to spend it all. It all comes back into the economy, supporting jobs and raising tax revenue.
May be 8% on paper but does that account for all the fees?
Yes.
My super didn't grow 8% last year and yet inflation was at least 7%.
Which is why I use the word 'average'. Some years it's up, some it's down, but over the long term those are the averages.
In 2020-2021
Super is a long term investment, so it needs to be viewed over decades, not cherry pick one good or bad year.
Pension is not really a waste of the government's money
It's not the government's money.
If the cost of funding retirement is more than tax revenue then the country goes bankrupt. We already tried this and that is exactly what was going to happen, hence why self funded super and the Future Fund was created.
because pensioners have to spend it all. It all comes back into the economy, supporting jobs and raising tax revenue.
Show you working.
To give you an idea, Super funds grew by $300B last year (9.5%) and it cost the taxpayer nothing. Under your plan, this $300B would have to be raised by taxes. That is an EXTRA $30k per household each year.
Would you like to pay $30k MORE tax than you did last year?
And this number grows each year, so next year your tax bill might be $33k EXTRA, then the next year $36k. etc
We know this doesn't work because it is exactly how super used to work and the country almost ran out of money.
@1st-Amendment: I don't think Superannuation lives up to the 8% average growth long term. I hear about it, but I don't see it. I'm in a good Super fund. I've been in my current job for 15 years. Salary has grown from $60k-$90k over that period. My Super from that job is $140k total, including the alleged 8% growth per year. I think if you had put that money in a high interest savings account it would have achieved about the same return.
Anyway, where did you get the idea that I don't think Super is a good idea.
What I said was that people run out of savings (including Super) in their retirement. And some people don't have enough Super. This is where the pension makes sense. Do you think they don't deserve the pension?
And the pension doesn't cost the government or the economy that much money. In fact, it all comes back into the economy. Poor people are always good for the economy because they have to spend every cent they make. Rich people are both good and bad for the economy. They're good for the economy when they invest in a way that supports jobs. They're bad for the economy when they lock their wealth away where it doesn't do the economy any good.
I don't think Superannuation lives up to the 8% average growth long term. I hear about it, but I don't see it.
Are you with an industry super fund?
https://www.investmentmagazine.com.au/2023/01/super-performa…
Do you think they don't deserve the pension?
I think that people should get out what they put in. The idea that you can contribute nothing, or you can fritter away your life's income on cigarettes and pokies and then bludge off the taxpayers is not an idea I support.
And the pension doesn't cost the government or the economy that much money
It actually does, and it gets more expensive every year. We used to have this exact system so we know how it turns out
I think that people should get out what they put in. The idea that you can contribute nothing, or you can fritter away your life's income on cigarettes and pokies and then bludge off the taxpayers is not an idea I support.
This is a real black-and-white view of the world. You know it's not that black and white in reality. Some people are just unlucky. Some people have a slow start due to family circumstances or other situations. Some people lose a lot of money in divorces, in lawsuits, in scams, in unlucky investments, in failed businesses, in bad health, in dead-end careers (industries where jobs are replaced with technology, or decimated by a change in government).
You can't expect everyone to live up to your ideal of having a huge Super balance when they retire. And even if they do, some of them will run out of money. It's just a fact.
If you are 100% against pensions, then you are against most of the democratic nations across the Earth.
Some people lose a lot of money in divorces, in lawsuits, in scams, in unlucky investments, in failed businesses, in bad health, in dead-end careers
Sure but why do you think that a person should be FORCED to pay for another person's bad choices or bad luck?
What you are implying here is a preference for equal outcome over equal opportunity (equality vs equity) which is a terrible idea. If you are interested in learning why this is bad, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WYi-64MejU
@1st-Amendment: But you are coming up against a contradiction. The contradiction is "total capitalism" vs "total socialism".
I put you in the "total capitalism" camp.
You are arguing that everyone must save up enough (money, investmentments, super) to fund their own retirement. So you are essentially arguing we should all be equal.
But capitalism is essentially competition. In a competition, there will always be losers.
There will be a large range between the losers and winners.
There is no equality here. The reality is a far cry from your ideal of everyone funding their own retirement.
This is where socialism comes in. We help the losers in this competition so they don't fester in the street.
When we let the losers starve to death, society breaks down, like during the Great Depression.
Capitalism always requires a healthy mix of socialism to prosper. We need poor people to survive and contribute to society.
Similarly, 100% socialism does not lead to great outcomes, because everyone is worse off overall. A healthy mix of capitalism and socialism is required.
But you are coming up against a contradiction. The contradiction is "total capitalism" vs "total socialism".
Nope, that's you making a strawman…
So you are essentially arguing we should all be equal.
Nope, you didn't even watch the video I posted did you? It explains this…
When we let the losers starve to death, society breaks down, like during the Great Depression.
The most broken societies have all been socialist and the most prosperous are capitalist. Nothing you are claiming actually matches reality.
The most broken societies have all been socialist and the most prosperous are capitalist. Nothing you are claiming actually matches reality.
Please name me a capitalist country that is 100% capitalist and does not provide some kind of support/welfare for poor/underprivileged people.
Please name me a capitalist country that is 100%
You're continuing with this logical fallacy…
@1st-Amendment: But you are the one continuing with this "capitalism =prosperous", "socialism = broken society" dichotomy.
I'm arguing that capitalism and socialism go well together, which they do. And most democracies are a mix of both.
But you are the one continuing with this "capitalism =prosperous", "socialism = broken society" dichotomy.
You still going to flog that strawman?
Looks like we're done here…
Capitalism works better than it sounds, while socialism sounds better than it works. - Richard M. Nixon