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.
There you go with your dumb cherry picked links again.
The blog is ridiculous and the heritage foundation… well…
The Heritage Foundation (abbreviated to Heritage) is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. that is primarily geared toward public policy.
Let's take a look at their highlight reel:
The Heritage Foundation rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.
Following the 2020 presidential election—in which President Donald Trump made baseless claims of fraud after he was defeated for reelection—the Heritage Foundation launched a campaign in support of Republican efforts to make state voting laws more restrictive.
n 2021, the Heritage Foundation said that one of its two priorities (along with tightening voting laws) was to push Republican-controlled states to ban or restrict critical race theory instruction.
The Heritage Foundation has engaged in several activities in opposition to transgender rights, including hosting several anti-transgender rights events,
Heritage Action opposed the $40 billion military aid package for Ukraine passed in May 2022 after the Russian invasion of Ukraine
And who pays for this think tank?
Heritage is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization as well as a BBB Wise Giving Alliance accredited charity funded by donations from private individuals, corporations and charitable foundations. As a 501(c)(3), Heritage is not required to disclose its donors and donations to the foundation are tax-deductible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation
Don't link this deplorable, evil, vile, anti-human garbage here with a straight face you hack.
and the heritage foundation
Look like we're in for a fun ride of explaining basic concepts to children again…
The data is cited, which part of it do you disagree with?
Or is your entire shtick going to be a demonstration of the argument from authority logical fallacy… because that would be embarrassing if that's all you have…
I'm not voting on this as the poll is a bit to simplistic. I think most countries are mostly Social market economies, with varying degrees of government intervention.
Communism doesn't work as the power structure required distorts the intent and you end up with a select group with all the perks (Leadership) and no incentive for the general population to anything but the bare minimum in most cases.
Capitalism also doesn't work as those who are ahead will start using the positions of power gained from cornering the market to become a monopoly and stifle competition and not advance, just resting on its plum position to keep ahead.
I'm a bit of a fan of Georgism too, as I think things of limited number like land and resources should be more or less considered belonging to all and the use of these limited resources should be taxed and regulated according.
China is not really a communist country and the USA is not fully a capitalist country.
The fact that this vote is even close is quite a scary prospect for current and future generations… it seems history is doomed to repeat itself. Capitalism has its flaws, like all systems, but it's by far the most successful structure put forward to date.
Does anyone else not see the irony of the people voting NO on a site almost entirely dedicated to the outcome of a capitalist system?!
Maybe it should be renamed OzCommunist :D
Did you confuse Democracy and Capitalism?
The fact that "bargain hunters" can have a conflicting view on the capitalist model just highlights the core attributes of a large slab of modern humans.
Self and greed.
If your are surprised at that observation, you need to get out more.
Judging by the posts here a lot of people seem to have a very limited understanding of what the word 'capitalism' actually means.
imho it reflects ignorance rather than an implicit advocacy of communism.
but it's by far the most successful structure put forward to date
Successful for whom?
Whom? The people you will never hear on forums like this. They are happily wallowing in our ignorance and apathy and paying someone to absolve them.
The people people fawn over, are aspired to be, are influenced by. Can't you hear them laughing….?
Successful for whom?
More people than anything else in human history:
https://shortfall.blog/the-deep-optimism-manifesto-262f273c9…
Does anyone else not see the irony of the people voting NO on a site almost entirely dedicated to the outcome of a capitalist system?!
The ones that aren't doing it as a goof would probably tell you that "there is no moral consumption under capitalism".
(I'm not even kidding, I've heard people say that. Many redditors, but also some actual people too.)
We have a co-dependent relationship with capitalism that borders on Stockholm syndrome. I'm not a trained psychologist, merely an avid fan of Frasier so take that as you will. Can I have more blue pills now?
It's all about balance. Capitalism and Socialism only work when they are being kept on check by each other. Too much of either results in corruption.
I cannot decide, let's wait for another 100 years 🙄
We have capitalistic system moderated by a democratic system. The democratic system seems to make some awful decisions about where to rein it in and to let it run loose, resulting in some market failures (e.g. housing, gas policy).
Capitalism taking over democracy is America where it has been hijacked and become a Plutocracy.
Come down to Victoria if you want a taste of communism. Dan’s the national secretary for Vic!
Yeah, so bad he got re-elected. Or maybe people in Victoria just have more sense than you think.
Or maybe people in Victoria just have more sense than you think.
If you asked a sheep to vote for a leader they would vote for the guy that feeds them even though he is the same guy that will lead them to slaughter. This is democracy in a nutshell.
I hear Victoria has borders, airports AND elections!
Free Market Capitalism, is a natural system that mirrors how nature has optimised progress (evolution). Governments should guide this natural process (with caution and only where necessary), not try and fight against the laws of nature (you can't)
Socialism causes environmental damage. This is because you need to keep people all employed even though there are no jobs. This means more paperwork and more trees chopped down.
No, it doesn't work as many probably want (that's a whole other thread isn't it) but it's the best we've managed to come up with.
The Matrix paints the picture well where things need to be reset every now and then. I think this best describes where we are with the current system. You can see if you are late to the party, younger etc, the music is playing faster and there are fewer chairs to sit on.
I've said it elsewhere but we need a world war to fix things. Maybe that is the best solution we have or will ever come up with. Capitalism with reoccurring world wars.
Like most systems, it works well when you've got a tribe or village. People grow their own stuff, they trade it with each other, what is most in demand winds up getting grown the most and in order to make it all work there it is based around the concept of private property. Good stuff.
Once you start growing though, the flaws come out. It moves towards concentration of wealth, serfdom/slavery (since the goal is the most property, that includes people), monopolies and all the bad stuff of capitalism. Things that work best as shared resources (roads, power, water, etc) don't have the same benefit of private ownership and are natural monopolies, so it becomes a drain on society to have those privately owned.
That's why any form of government won't be natural socialism or communism or capitalism, it'll be a regulated version. Regulated capitalism provides state owned goods, safety nets and caps on accumulation of wealth and power, thus why we tax the rich who make the most out of society and give it to the poor who don't see the benefits of capitalism. It makes for a better country all up.
Much like socialism/communism works when you have a small tribe/village who co-own stuff and work together, like a commune. However it has the side effect that once it goes wrong it goes horribly wrong, it doesn't scale (because it's impossible to divide the work between millions or billions of people, nor have a small group making decisions across groups that large) and there becomes no incentive to actually do anything well or innovate so the capitalist society next door will eventually eat you.
Australia is a socialist democracy that has free capltalism.
So we have social services, health care and education. All good.
We elect those to represent us in Parliament and have free and transparent elections. All good.
And we are a society that our business is based on capitlism. But it is not like other nations like the USA, where business is free to do pretty much as they want. We have regulations that limit what business can do, government bodies to regulate and monitor business, and laws to make sure that they function fairly. Sure things could be improved, but its a good system.
Regulated capitalism is good. Just like some socialism is good. And proper representaive deomocacy is good (the US is not the same as ours).
USA is a gunocracy.
As long as you can say 'fake news'., grab (profanity) and are surrounded by opportunistic,money grubbing obsequious sycophants.
Anyone can be a republican. (and president) You just need to have more guns than the democrat you are running against, and can misquote the Bible and misinterpret (misrepresent) the constitution.
( It helps if you are a walking moral vacuum with Mafia,Russian and Arab partners)
YeeeHa, 3,85%
Those who want socialism can start practicing right now should they desire. They won't because they will have less possessions and/or don't think others are deserving of their hard work.
The nations that consistently come up tops for happiness etc are those who all have some form of socialism, including Australia. They all have socialised healthcare, education and social services.
Here's a site socialists would like, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/charted-the-happiest-…
The US still places 15th, not too bad. I assume Australia places somewhere from 11th-14th based on quick google from other sites..
Not saying every socialised service is bad, but we're lucky to be better off than other countries that we can afford our it.
The nations that consistently come up tops for happiness etc are those who all have some form of socialism
Paid for by their vast capitalist economies. It's easy to steal from people when they are wealthy, but try it on the poor and see how it works out.
The only thing that is certain - capitalism is not the answer.
America is a purely capitalist society and we all know it doesn’t work well
It’s so funny that people enjoy the socialism in Australia with free healthcare, NDIS but then speak of their lust for capitalism.
Double standards at its best, and yet they pretend …….
It isn't binary. A capitalist country can provide welfare for the least fortunate.
checks USA
nah cooked
capitalism is not the answer.
It works better than anything else proposed so far:
https://shortfall.blog/the-deep-optimism-manifesto-262f273c9…
America is a purely capitalist society
No it isn't, and just saying stuff doesn't make it true. The bank bailouts are a great example of how it is isn't.
American politics is relatively corrupt compared to here, which is also anti capitalist.
It’s so funny that people enjoy the socialism in Australia with free healthcare, NDIS
None of it is free. I pay for it with my taxes. And I pay enough taxes for someone else to freeload from me…
but then speak of their lust for capitalism
Lust is an interesting word. I recognise the benefits it has given me and billions of others, maybe you should too?
Double standards at its best
You mean like how you live in the most peaceful and prosperous country in the most peaceful and prosperous time in human history thanks to free markets, but you refuse to acknowledge it? That sort of double standard?
Capitalism is the least worst system so far invented by man-kind
Want to explain it?
Not best, but the best we've got.
What I don't like about current capitalism is how it socializes losses and privates profits. E.g., Qantas received a lot of money during COVID-19, and it is again very profitable and is paying its shareholders, but the gov is not getting its money back.
Capitalism requires growth to survive. I am very curious about what will happen the moment we experience a population decline. I cannot see how capitalism can survive that, but I might be wrong.
Qantas as a whole is a case study in what a company shouldn’t be able to get away with, subcontracting out every facet
Just make a new airline if you aren't happy with it. Tough! That's capitalism
Just make a new airline if you aren't happy with it.
Were not allowed because the government is artificially restricting supply. This is actually great example of how socialism makes things worse for everyone.
Singapore Airlines actually tried to offer some competition here and the gov blocked them.
Tough! That's capitalism
Actually it is 100% socialism.
Licences to operate in Australian airspace are controlled by the government and they artificially restrict other operators to protect Qantas. This is a fantastic example of a centrally controlled product or service (socialist) providing worse outcomes for consumers.
But I'm sure this won't change your mind…
Licences to operate in Australian airspace are controlled by the government and they artificially restrict other operators to protect Qantas.
Does that mean driver licenses are socialism?
Singapore Airlines actually tried to offer some competition here and the gov blocked them.
https://www.singaporeair.com/flightsearch/searchFlight.form#…
Let's fact check your claim:
| One-stop ⢠22hrs 40mins | One-stop ⢠23hrs 55mins | One-stop ⢠25hrs 45mins | One-stop ⢠26hrs 20mins | One-stop ⢠27hrs 55mins | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Departure | Sydney (SYD) | Sydney (SYD) | Sydney (SYD) | Sydney (SYD) | Sydney (SYD) |
| Departure Time | 18:05 | 15:00 | 15:00 | 12:35 | 11:00 |
| Departure Date | 19 May 2023 (Fri) | 19 May 2023 (Fri) | 19 May 2023 (Fri) | 19 May 2023 (Fri) | 19 May 2023 (Fri) |
| Arrival | Singapore (SIN) | Singapore (SIN) | Singapore (SIN) | Singapore (SIN) | Singapore (SIN) |
| Arrival Time | 00:20 | 05:55 | 07:45 | 05:55 | 05:55 |
| Arrival Date | 20 May 2023 (Sat) | 20 May 2023 (Sat) | 20 May 2023 (Sat) | 20 May 2023 (Sat) | 20 May 2023 (Sat) |
| Airline | Singapore Airlines | Singapore Airlines | Singapore Airlines | Scoot | Singapore Airlines |
| Flight Numbers | SQ 242, SQ 306 | SQ 222, SQ 322 | SQ 222, SQ 306 | SQ 8599, SQ 322 | SQ 232, SQ 322 |
| Layover Time | 50 mins | 2 hrs 10 mins | 3 hrs 50 mins | 4 hrs 35 mins | 6 hrs |
| Layover Airport | Singapore (SIN) | Singapore (SIN) | Singapore (SIN) | Singapore (SIN) | Singapore (SIN) |
| Departure Terminal | Kingsford Smith Terminal 1 | Kingsford Smith Terminal 1 | Kingsford Smith Terminal 1 | Kingsford Smith Terminal 1 | Kingsford Smith Terminal 1 |
| Arrival Terminal | Changi Terminal 3 | Heathrow Terminal 2 | Heathrow Terminal 2 | Heathrow Terminal 2 | Heathrow Terminal 2 |
| Layover Terminal | Changi | N/A | Changi | Terminal 1 | Terminal 3 |
| Aircraft | Airbus A350-900, Boeing 777-300ER | Airbus A380-800, Airbus A380-800 | Airbus A380-800, Boeing 777-300ER | Boeing 787-9, Airbus A380-800 | Airbus A380-800, Airbus A380-800 |
| Economy Fare (per adult) | AUD 3,591.22 | AUD 3,395.22 | AUD 3,464.22 | AUD 3,933.41 | AUD 3,395.22 |
Doesn't look blocked to me
Does that mean driver licenses are socialism?
Do you know what the word 'socialism' means? This question makes it sound like you have no idea…
Short answer is yes.
Quick primer: if it requires some sort of centralised control or authority or interference then it is not a free market. The word free gives you a hint here.
I am free to swim in the ocean or walk in the bush without government permission, I am not free to drive a car.
Let's fact check your claim
That isn't a fact check. Just because they fly some routes, doesn't mean they are flying all of the routes that they would like to.
Doesn't look blocked to me
Just because don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c…
Airline operations are heavily regulated and controlled by the government, and government artificially restricts competition to protect Qantas. So the problem with the lack of competition here is nothing to do with a free market.
Do you know what the word 'socialism' means? This question makes it sound like you have no idea…
Short answer is yes.
Quick primer: if it requires some sort of centralised control or authority or interference then it is not a free market. The word free gives you a hint here.
Are you saying Capitalism is the lack of any regulation and socialism is any regulation?
Are you saying Capitalism is the lack of any regulation and socialism is any regulation?
Nope, where did I say that Cathy Newman?
Back to the topic, can you tell us how artificially restricting operator licences in Australian airspace to limit competition is the fault of capitalism?
where did I say that
here?
Do you know what the word 'socialism' means? This question makes it sound like you have no idea…
Short answer is yes.
Quick primer: if it requires some sort of centralised control or authority or interference then it is not a free market. The word free gives you a hint here.
@deme: You should try adding some words of your own so you don't look like a Cathy Newman.
And I see you avoided the question about Qantas again…
@1st-Amendment: Who is "a Cathy Newman" ?
question about Qantas
This would mean capitalism hasn't existed for a long time since air traffic is regulated around the world.
Your link gives an error
can you tell us how artificially restricting operator licences in Australian airspace to limit competition is the fault of capitalism?
Where did I say that?
This would mean capitalism hasn't existed for a long time since air traffic is regulated around the world.
That's right. So when you say it's capitalism, it's not. This is my entire point.
Your link gives an error
some sort of APH magic happening there. Try this: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.…
It is an example of the market being artificially constrained, ie not capitalism.
Where did I say that?
Here https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/13697213/redir you implied that you could just start your own airline because that what capitalism would suggest. My response is that if it was capitalism I would, but it's not, so I can't.
Can you define capitalism then?
Let me Google that for you:
"An economic system characterised by private ownership in which the free market alone controls the production of goods and services."
"Should there be no regulations?"
I'm yet to hear anyone make this claim. Reductio ad absurdum…
In the context of this thread, The government should not be artificially constraining competition simply to protect Qantas profits. That is NOT capitalism.
Do you agree or disagree?
and Why do we have the ACCC if fuel cartels get away with clear market manipulation?
QANTAS is a luxury to most people. Fuelling their cars isn't. The flow on costs to food and other essential logistics is also impacted by this clear anti competitive (collusion) behaviour.
Why are we exporting the basics (resources) to other western nations to value add?
The pillaging of our offshore gas is criminal. We would never need fracking if our govt had not flogged off our energy independence to big energy America etc.
Now that the greedy leprechaun has lined his pockets, QANTAS has a chance to secure a social license. I bet they don't even try
The flow on costs to food and other essential logistics is also impacted by this clear anti competitive (collusion) behaviour.
So you regonise that anti-competitive behaviour (ie not a free market) is bad, but your solution to this is less competition? Just think about that for a moment before responding.
Monopolies and cartels only exist in artificially controlled markets, not free ones. They exist because some central body, almost always the government, creates artificial barriers to entry into the markets to protect the current players. The energy sector is a heavily controlled industry, and a great example how anti-capitalist behaviour makes everything worse.
What I don't like about current capitalism is how it socializes losses
Er, 'socialising losses' isn't capitalism, it's socialism. The clue here is in the words you actually used…
but the gov is not getting its money back.
So you recognise that the gov is dumb with our money, and your solution is to give the gov more power?
Capitalism requires growth to survive.
No it doesn't. Capitalism is merely private means of production and free trade without interference. It can grow or shrink, but the reason it usually grows is because of how effective it is.
I am very curious about what will happen the moment we experience a population decline.
Any market is made up of supply and demand, when one thing changes, another adapts to that change and automatically adjusts.
When that balance is interfered with, any change causes havoc (as we saw with Covid)
I cannot see how capitalism can survive that, but I might be wrong.
You are wrong because people will always trade with other people. That's all capitalism is.
So you recognise that the gov is dumb with our money, and your solution is to give the gov more power?
I didn't propose any solution. I only stated what I don't like about current capitalism.
Any market is made up of supply and demand, when one thing changes, another adapts to that change and automatically adjusts.
When that balance is interfered with, any change causes havoc (as we saw with Covid)
As stated above, shrinking in demand during Covid-19 forced govs to step in and "socialize" losses, so if it was already collapsing during Covid-19 I cannot imagine how it can thrive once we experience demographic decline.
You are wrong because people will always trade with other people. That's all capitalism is.
Capitalism is more than just trading.
I didn't propose any solution. I only stated what I don't like about current capitalism.
You stated that the thing you don't like about capitalism is socialism. So if you recognise that the thing you don't like is actually socialism (ie socialised losses) then we're on the same page.
shrinking in demand during Covid-19 forced govs to step in and "socialize" losses,
The shrinking demand was CAUSED by the government interference, ie more socialism. Had the Government stepped back and not got as involved, the economy would've coped much, much better. Sweden is a good example of how the lighter touch produced better outcomes.
so if it was already collapsing during Covid-19 I cannot imagine how it can thrive once we experience demographic decline
Failure is part of the model. Let it fail and the market will auto correct. When Netflix replaced VHS, the gov didn't step in and it sorted itself out. Some people went out of business, some got rich, that is the nature of things.
The problem with lefties is that they see failure and feel the need to interfere to make things 'fairer', but this almost always results in making things worse.
Capitalism is more than just trading.
Nope, that's all it is. Private means of production and the ability to trade without interference. Once you learn this you don't have to fear it. When you buy or sell something with another person on terms you both agree to, that is capitalism. When the government gets involved and forces you to trade on their terms, it is socialism. The difference boils down to choice versus force.
You stated that the thing you don't like about capitalism is socialism. So if you recognise that the thing you don't like is actually socialism (ie socialised losses) then we're on the same page.
In traditional socialism you would save Qantas and once it becomes profitable money would go back to the goverment, but that didn't happen. We have a weird mix of capitalism and socialism where we get a lot of negatives from both.
The shrinking demand was CAUSED by the government interference, ie more socialism. Had the Government stepped back and not got as involved, the economy would've coped much, much better. Sweden is a good example of how the lighter touch produced better outcomes.
The system would collapse without the gov stepping in. Too many people would get sick causing dozens of different problems.
Failure is part of the model. Let it fail and the market will auto correct. When Netflix replaced VHS, the gov didn't step in and it sorted itself out. Some people went out of business, some got rich, that is the nature of things.
Except now we have a system where we have companies that are too big to fail. Qantas is a good example. Banks are other example and there are many other. Govs are forced to save them if they have problems. In traditional capitalism you would haven't this. Qantas would be sold to the highest bidder or cease to exist.
We have a weird mix of capitalism and socialism where we get a lot of negatives from both.
The only negatives you've raised so far are all from too much gov interference. That is not both, that is only one.
The system would collapse without the gov stepping in.
Would it? What evidence is there of this?
Too many people would get sick causing dozens of different problems.
We had those problems anyway plus more. What evidence is there that if we had just stepped back and let it run it's course like we do with other diseases that we would've been worse off? Which is worse, people getting sick, or people getting sick and being locked down, and civil rights being eroded, and the economy being destroyed?
Except now we have a system where we have companies that are too big to fail. Qantas is a good example.
An example of a heavily protected non-free market operator.
Banks are other example and there are many other.
Also heavily protected in a non-free market. Do you see the pattern now?
Govs are forced to save them if they have problems. In traditional capitalism you would haven't this.
Which is why Capitalism works better. Rather than protected monopolies which the government spends an awful lot of money creating protecting and saving, if they got out of the way the market would sort it all out on it's own at much lower cost to the taxpayers.
Qantas would be sold to the highest bidder or cease to exist
If they are uncompetitive then they deserve to fail. Let someone else have a go who can offer better and more competitive services. They win, the consumer wins, the taxpayers win. I'm still struggling to see a down side.
No, and I have a degree in why not
Which one?
ECOP
Early Career Ocean Professional?
what do you call when you take the best policies from both capitalism and communism and discard the bad policies? Is such a thing possible?
What are the good and what are the bad?
It’s centrism and it’s (profanity) garbage, just look at the state of the US democrats - they have no idea what they stand for. Labor in AU at least has unions affiliated to it. The Greens are full of half wits who when given the opportunity for some unions to affiliate, they said no
It would still be called capitalism cause nothing from communism is worth saving. We should remember communism as it was .. a dark time in our past and for all of those people that had to live through it,
Some things such as healthcare should be socialized and other things should be based on the free market and not this crony capitalism we have today. I'm more interested to see what economic system will be dominant (in terms of global influence) in the next 50 years. For all it's faults, China has shown the world that having strong government control over their economy can be successful for long term planning in the interests of it's country as opposed to the crony capitalists who only care about their company growing in the next quarter and who pretend they operate in a free market but is actually more like crony capitalism. One thing I know for sure though is that it will always be corporations or governments controlling the economy for their own interests, the interests of the people come second, or it at least ends up the way anyway.
For all it's faults, China has shown the world that having strong government control over their
economy
people
West good China bad.
I mean the MSM wouldn't manipulate reality would they……. Only China does that.
Pox News says no. (More to come on that front. )
I wonder if the USA will plagiarise old school Chinese terminology and label it the Great Awakening? I'm kidding. They will vote or shoot themselves deeper into the shit of their self fulfilling prophecy. They LIVE and pray to use the 2nd amendment on each other. Trump is their destiny FFWD button.
West good China bad
So why are you living in the West and not in China?
@1st-Amendment: Have I touched a raw red/white/blue nerve?
China 'bad', old bean.
. So bad they won't even let our illustrious shadow minister for war mongering and national champion dog whistler in.
Have I touched a raw red/white/blue nerve?
You keep avoiding questions…. it says a lot…
@1st-Amendment: I can't help it if you don't like the answers. You think the outside world is going swimmingly. I know it's not.
You think climate change is bullshit, and pointing it out or supporting action is 'religiously devotion. It's the same old infantile denial crap that has halted and delayed mitigation against literally unthinkable bushfire catastrophe. Real time real life imapcts. Right on cue as per the science. Landscape scale at intensities never experienced on earth before .In locations across the globe where they have never seen them, or even needed a fire fighting industry.
Thank god for the hide button
Amen
I know it's not.
Well you knowing is how all science works.
So much for science eh? This is ans anti-science as you can get. ' I said it's true so it is!'
Right on cue as per the science.
Post this science so we can make sure it is actual science and not just you cultish opinion being passed off as science…
And once again you avoided the question. Why aren't you living in China?
consumerism
Capitalism is oxygen.
It's not a question of whether it is wrong or right. It won't change.
Just breath it in and make sure you have enough to survive.
So don't question it just suck it up?
Do you question the oxygen you breathe?
I would if it was making me sick.
@deme: Channel the planet. It's oxygen IS 'actual' oxygen. How's that going?
Sick? Not sick?
This is the arrogance of humans. Thinking (denial) that their massive destructive footprint is justified .
To the point of exponentially expanding it and defying reality/physics to protect a system (capitalism).
Someone sold you Coolaid bruh. (Not oxygen.)
You'd seriously die without capitalism?
These days probably - if it were gone tomorrow - who is going to bring me my food at Aldi/Woolies and swipe my card to pay everyone in the supply chain who did that!?
It would take an almost impossible task of unravelling….
'The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.' Winston Churchill
"Capitalism" is not a real thing - the term was invented by Karl Marx to denigrate the concept of "economic freedom".
But that's really what it comes down to - in Socialism, the people do not have any economic freedom. In a laissez-faire market economy, the people do have economic freedom.
How could lack of economic freedom be a net good in any conceivable way?
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security won't have either in the long run."
Benjamin Franklin
It wasn’t invented, it’s the evolution of servitude
We are all subject to market forces
I believe that a country with running on 100% capitalism is not sustainable. Neither is 100% socialism. They are both great in theory but the corrupt, selfish and greedy parts of human nature will not allow either system to function as intended. A bit of both - or mixed economy strikes the balance for allowing innovation and growth through technology and sciences, rewarding people for their work and contribution that they deserve. But capitalism can also tilt the balance in wealth distribution. Socialism on the other hand should provide a safety net for everyone especially to those who really need them - social housing for the homeless, NDIS benefits for the disabled, free education, Medicare benefits, etc. but an ever-growing population, socialism will eventually collapse if demands outweigh the limited supply of resources. This is where government intervention should step in to strike the balance. But every government is not perfect. I think at some point, we need to take the decision making out of politicians’ hands and design an algorithmic decision-making system that will bring fairness to everyone regardless of who they are in the society.
Nope. Socialism please
Capitalism and the invisible hand vs central control which is detached from the individual's wants and needs.
A big negative is you can't separate the economics and political control of socialism.
Just look at migration stats - how many people are rushing to migrate to China, Russia and North Korea? How many are, want to (but can't) migrating out of those countries?
Read up on the Berlin Wall - it wasn't to keep the West out but the East in!
I'll be honest. This thread makes me sad. Because it's evident how many people's thinking is flawed. And I don't mean that they have to be one opinion or the other, but how their thought process is structured. We really need to reform education globally…
The whole argument is explained like this. Capitalism is based on meritocracy. That is, the resources are distributed based on merit. This meas that the individuals in society that are most productive get the most resources.
In socialism (before corruption) everyone gets the same. So alot of the resources are wasted because they go to non productive people.
The logic is mega simple and doesn't need to be abstracted any further thantthat.
The end.
Are you saying non-productive people aren't entitled to support their methamphetamine habit and play the pokies with money given to them by productive people?
Why should i give money to the homeless people across the street when all they will do is spend it on drugs and alcohol? . atleast i could spend that money on drugs and alcohol :)
It is defiantly a problem. We need to spend our resources on figuring out how to assist the dispossessed. I don't know what the solution is, but is definitely not giving them resources. They need to be rought how to become productive. Thomas Sowel was on to something…
both statements are true.
capitalism is the engine of progress that has created wealth and improved lives around the globe.
capitalism exploits the masses, concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, and causes social and environmental destruction.
Coming from a country who's socialist and moving slowly in the direction of free market capitalism. All I can say is if I get a choice to be born in a country, I would choose a capitalist one.
I been on both sides of the fence and I embrace democracy and capitalism 100% even if it has its flaw, the other side flaws is even worse
Stuff that we went through under communism I don't think most Australian would ever believe or experience in their life time
if you want to have a taste of it, read this article
https://www.afr.com/world/asia/inside-my-escape-from-china-2…
The 'trickle down effect' isn't even a real thing. It's used by lefties as a strawman because they don't understand supply side economics.
A gap on it's own doesn't give us enough info to say one way or another, and this is a trap that many 'anti-captislists' fall into.
Let me give you an example:
Scenario A: We both win the lottery. You win $20M and I only win $1M. The gap is huge at $19M. Lefties would cry 'inequality and oppression!', just look at the gap!
Scenario B: We are both in the gulag. We are equals in the gulag, no gap. Lefties are happy that equality has been achieved.
Do you prefer scenario A or B?
Capitalism has been a thing for about 200 years and in that time has lifted billions of people out of poverty and oppression. That fact that you can only afford a house 20kms from the CBD instead of 10km out makes you sound like the standard entitled rich kid.
https://shortfall.blog/the-deep-optimism-manifesto-262f273c9…
Both in the top eleven most capitalist nations on earth:
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Go Capitalism!