1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Capitalism: pros and cons

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by lofhay, Jun 3, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lofhay

    lofhay New Member

    Location:
    Mt. Pleasant, SC
    Capitalism is frequently referred to in a derogatory manner—like a disease or poison—by those who may have some legitimate complaints. Too often, however, the complainers give no indication that they appreciate, or understand, the role that capitalism has played in the creation of a nation with one of the world’s highest living standards. As others have pointed out, our debate today should not be over capitalism vs. socialism, but over what kind of capitalism—one which includes a “social market” vs. an “anti-social market” (per E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post).
    The debate should begin with the recognition of the role of capitalism in the U. S. up to now. Here are some concepts on which we should agree:
    1) Capitalism is a form of commerce—a system for doing business.
    2) The alternatives to capitalism are socialism, communism, or barter.
    3) When someone sees a need, or the possibility of a demand, for a product or service, and begins an effort to supply that need or demand in return for a fee, then a business enterprise is created and capitalism is born.
    4) This business enterprise can take the form of a sole proprietor, a partnership or a corporation.
    5) The incentive for devoting time and assets to create and maintain a business enterprise is the potential for profit--the receipt of money in exchange for goods and services. Without this incentive there would be no suppliers and no capitalism. We would be only hunter-gatherers or government slaves.
    6) Man’s first inclination for commerce—making a living—is capitalism; and this is what he does unless interrupted by government. Government can pass legislation which may (a) make the enterprise so unprofitable that the entrepreneurs close shop, or (b) confiscate the enterprise and have the government run it, or (c) place limits on the enterprise’s conduct in an effort to prevent capitalist abuses of the populace. This latter move (c) requires great discretion in order to avoid the catastrophe (a).
    With this understanding of the importance of some sort of capitalist economy, we can proceed to correct any abuses without destroying the incentive which has enabled the U. S., and other prosperous countries, to achieve the standard of living which we have. Yes, even a prosperous country has a portion of its population which lives at what we call the poverty level; but, under any system of commerce other than capitalism, their plight would likely be worse. Yes, a rising tide does lift all boats no matter what the size. Can we do better so that there are not so many destitute? Probably, and we must continue to try.
    On the other hand, we must not let greed dominate the incentive to make a profit or to earn a living.
     
  2. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto


    -+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+-
    This thread is closed until the OP is reframed as a thread for discussion. It currently has no discussion points, and it reads like a sidebar or a blog post. lofhay, when you've decided on some changes to the initial post, please PM a moderator/admin with it if you want to reopen the thread.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.