Are you a capitalist?
Yes, I want as much Laissez Faire as possible!
9.8% (13)
9.8% (13)
Yes
21.1% (28)
21.1% (28)
Yes, combined with a welfare state
38.3% (51)
38.3% (51)
No
22.6% (30)
22.6% (30)
Other
5.3% (7)
5.3% (7)
Undecided
2.3% (3)
2.3% (3)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Are You a Capitalist?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I've often seen people blaming or opposing "capitalism" - on television, here, and in real life. I, personally, have opposed capitalism for years. But...

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.[1] Other elements central to capitalism include competitive markets, wage labor and capital accumulation.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

I think Valve or Google should be able to buy and own servers. I think they should be able to create products and sell them for profit. I think companies should compete - resulting in the best products and lowest price for me, the consumer. Etcetera, etcetera. I'm a capitalist. Now, you might oppose certain aspects of how capitalism is implemented today, and you probably oppose full reliance on the free market for everything from infrastructure to the military. But I wonder whether you oppose even the basic essence of capitalism. So - are you a capitalist?

Uh, yes. Government intervention in a market can be desirable in some cases, but it works best as a contingency measure, not the primary guidance.

I believe that anything and everything can be beneficial if applied or used with its appropriate measure,everything has its own limits.

I think the same holds true for capitalism too. Its ideas can be used in a good way,and in a bad way too. I see capitalism only as a tool. The way each one uses the tool is up to each different entity.

I believe that capitalism is a very useful thing in society when it is well-regulated, and when monopolies are not allowed to form. I'd also say that essential services such as transport, healthcare, education, and energy/water should be largely in the hands of the state, as these are important enough that we shouldn't be cutting corners on them for the sake of money.

As long as there are strong unions, good wealth redistribution, regulations to protect people from unchecked capitalism, and all vital industries (such as healthcare and electricity) are nationalised, I see no problem with allowing the existence of a private sector. It's not possible for the government to run everything, after all.

Well, we are ALL Capitalists right now, since we live and use the Capitalist system. But ideally?
I guess so, yes.
I was a Communist when I grew up, but I'm disillusioned now. I think I prefer a heavy left-leaning welfare-state of the Scandinavian model. Maybe even some Socialist ownership-policies, if it would work out (but I doubt it).

I think most people here are going to agree that we need a balance between public and private ownership of services and industries, the only question is what do we privatise or nationalise? Unregulated capitalism is a bad thing, as the recent financial crisis shows, but so is a Socialist government. We need some capitalism in society, the question is just how much?

Yes, I play EVE Online. Pretty much have to be.

No. This allows the strong to bully the weak, I don't accept Laizes Faire or unregulated and unchecked Capitalism. The state is the tool of the people to prevent itself from being exploited. The state can then act as its guardian with rules and regulations stopping the strong from exploiting the weak.

Private ownership through employee stock ownership, ESOP. Voting stock limited to employees, one vote for each year on the job.

TheIronRuler:
No. This allows the strong to bully the weak, I don't accept Laizes Faire or unregulated and unchecked Capitalism. The state is the tool of the people to prevent itself from being exploited. The state can then act as its guardian with rules and regulations stopping the strong from exploiting the weak.

Regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and frankly, even among capitalists, very few people want complete market freedom.

Heronblade:

TheIronRuler:
No. This allows the strong to bully the weak, I don't accept Laizes Faire or unregulated and unchecked Capitalism. The state is the tool of the people to prevent itself from being exploited. The state can then act as its guardian with rules and regulations stopping the strong from exploiting the weak.

Regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and frankly, even among capitalists, very few people want complete market freedom.

.
Today's form of a worker's union is the anti-christ of Capitalism. Its safe to say that there are other ways than Capitalism, even if you regulate and tax those who deliver funds heavily.

TheIronRuler:

Heronblade:

TheIronRuler:
No. This allows the strong to bully the weak, I don't accept Laizes Faire or unregulated and unchecked Capitalism. The state is the tool of the people to prevent itself from being exploited. The state can then act as its guardian with rules and regulations stopping the strong from exploiting the weak.

Regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and frankly, even among capitalists, very few people want complete market freedom.

.
Today's form of a worker's union is the anti-christ of Capitalism. Its safe to say that there are other ways than Capitalism, even if you regulate and tax those who deliver funds heavily.

I'm rather interested to hear what definition of capitalism you're coming from here.

Free market principles do not demand fair treatment of workers, but they do not prohibit or discourage it either. In fact, a hardcore capitalist taking the long view would promote fair wages and job security (up to a point), since it significantly improves the market overall.

Heronblade:

TheIronRuler:

Heronblade:
Regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and frankly, even among capitalists, very few people want complete market freedom.

.
Today's form of a worker's union is the anti-christ of Capitalism. Its safe to say that there are other ways than Capitalism, even if you regulate and tax those who deliver funds heavily.

I'm rather interested to hear what definition of capitalism you're coming from here.

Free market principles do not demand fair treatment of workers, but they do not prohibit or discourage it either. In fact, a hardcore capitalist taking the long view would promote fair wages and job security (up to a point), since it significantly improves the market overall.

.
Exactly - these socialist ideas that came as a result of the mistreatment of workers were the Antichrist of Capitalism. Then again, you may recall dear 'ol Ford - But I SERIOUSLY doubt that in this day and age the same would be done voluntarily.

I am against the domination of anyone's rights to property or trade by any power for any reason outside of the defense of other rights. That makes me a capitalist. However, I think the best way to protect these rights is a free market, which actually means that certain things must be regulated to account for outside influences such as monopolies. And I also think that a person's other rights are pretty important, and am willing to make compromises where necessary.

TheIronRuler:
.
Exactly - these socialist ideas that came as a result of the mistreatment of workers were the Antichrist of Capitalism. Then again, you may recall dear 'ol Ford - But I SERIOUSLY doubt that in this day and age the same would be done voluntarily.

That's an interesting way to win an argument. Claim that an integral principle of a system is really a memetic "infection" by its opposite number. Like I said, I really want to hear what definition of capitalism you are using here, because it definitely does not match with the official one.

Heronblade:

TheIronRuler:
.
Exactly - these socialist ideas that came as a result of the mistreatment of workers were the Antichrist of Capitalism. Then again, you may recall dear 'ol Ford - But I SERIOUSLY doubt that in this day and age the same would be done voluntarily.

That's an interesting way to win an argument. Claim that an integral principle of a system is really a memetic "infection" by its opposite number. Like I said, I really want to hear what definition of capitalism you are using here, because it definitely does not match with the official one.

.
At its basic core - it's Free Trade. State or Crown has no power to grant monopolies or interfere with the market (like taxing customs, restricting trade, etc.) while all men (and women) reserve the right to hold property and do with it as they see fit as long as it does not go against the law. (Hire goons to beat some sense into your organizing factory workers).
This does not require any responsibility from the owners to care for their laborers, their safety, etc.
The state intervening and demanding the employer to give a minimal amount of X, Y, Z can be considered as a a perversion of Capitalism but I think that this is a way for the people to fight for their rights other than socialist worker's unions (Having the state draw its power and wealth from the people). Some come from morality - See the laws prohibiting child labor in Britain that were caused due to some nasty incidents with Mines, little girls and Death. This later turned to the people pursuing better social programs and a higher life rating for themselves, thus forcing their will on the money-holders via laws. Now, this I might call breaking Capitalism... It's a different "brand" of Capitalism that restricts the freedoms of the sources of wealth to do as they please with their money. Hell, this might just be Communism light - the stage where you slowly bring the wealth of every person to about the same size as the others. My Danish friend brags that they only have one billionaire in Denmark and that he's American... All of the others are Millionaires- but there are Plenty of them!

Well, I don't own a factory. So no, I guess I'm not a capitalist.

..oh wait, you meant do I support capitalism as an economic system?

Well, what's good about it?

No, seriously, I don't mean what's necessary, I mean what about this system is actually positive? What makes it worth supporting, rather than merely tolerating? Because we all have to tolerate it, the alternative is unthinkable for most us at this point.

But yeah.. a society where it's possible earn millions of dollars in a single day without having to lift a finger simply through theoretical "ownership" other people's labour, and yet any attempt to redistribute that wealth is regarded as some incredibly unfair intrusion.

How do you get to this being a good thing?

I'm a Social Democrat.

So essentially it's like Democratic Socialism within a capitalist framework.

Businesses would be regulated, taxes would be higher, and business would have less of a sway in government. I have no problem with people pursuing business ventures... So long as A) Those business ventures don't get special "privileges" that puts them above the people in the eyes of the government and B) Everyone has an equal chance to start and succeed/fail in a business venture.

A good example would be Sweden's free colleges. When money is factored out of the equation (due to education mostly being funded by the government) and education is good, then people can succeed and go to good schools based purely on merit rather than finance.

I absolutely applaud entrepreneurs who worked hard in school, got a good education, then started a successful business. We need to open up more chances for people who are truly hard working to be able to get decent education, it allows for easier social mobility that way. I have a serious problem with how things are done here in America where Degrees become very "tricky" things since a lot of college students stay in debt for years because of them. Sure people like to point to scholarships and financial aid but even then you could still end up paying a lot. Plus, with most scholarship's giving money to the "best of the best", that means only 1% of the hard working students actually can go on to get educated, while the rest of the students (who could be equally smart/studious as the one who "won" the scholarship) are either left without a higher education, or may have to give up on going to their "dream school".

TheIronRuler:

Heronblade:

TheIronRuler:
.
Exactly - these socialist ideas that came as a result of the mistreatment of workers were the Antichrist of Capitalism. Then again, you may recall dear 'ol Ford - But I SERIOUSLY doubt that in this day and age the same would be done voluntarily.

That's an interesting way to win an argument. Claim that an integral principle of a system is really a memetic "infection" by its opposite number. Like I said, I really want to hear what definition of capitalism you are using here, because it definitely does not match with the official one.

.
At its basic core - it's Free Trade. State or Crown has no power to grant monopolies or interfere with the market (like taxing customs, restricting trade, etc.) while all men (and women) reserve the right to hold property and do with it as they see fit as long as it does not go against the law. (Hire goons to beat some sense into your organizing factory workers).
This does not require any responsibility from the owners to care for their laborers, their safety, etc.
The state intervening and demanding the employer to give a minimal amount of X, Y, Z can be considered as a a perversion of Capitalism but I think that this is a way for the people to fight for their rights other than socialist worker's unions (Having the state draw its power and wealth from the people). Some come from morality - See the laws prohibiting child labor in Britain that were caused due to some nasty incidents with Mines, little girls and Death. This later turned to the people pursuing better social programs and a higher life rating for themselves, thus forcing their will on the money-holders via laws. Now, this I might call breaking Capitalism... It's a different "brand" of Capitalism that restricts the freedoms of the sources of wealth to do as they please with their money. Hell, this might just be Communism light - the stage where you slowly bring the wealth of every person to about the same size as the others. My Danish friend brags that they only have one billionaire in Denmark and that he's American... All of the others are Millionaires- but there are Plenty of them!

You just described the "money talks, everything else walks" version of capitalism, a radical position that is neither the norm nor the ideal.

The core of capitalism follows a few ideals, lets take a look at them:
A.) The right of an individual to control their life, proffesion, and property.
B.) The government's role is limited to protecting principle A
C.) Private ownership of lands, materials, and goods is preferable to a public or state owned condition
D.) Fair treatment for all individuals, including equal justice under the law.
E.) Subsidiarity of government (basically the principle that authority over any particular matter should be vested on the lowest and most local possible level)

The government stepping in to ensure workers are treated fairly in no way violates those principles.

Heronblade:

TheIronRuler:

Heronblade:
That's an interesting way to win an argument. Claim that an integral principle of a system is really a memetic "infection" by its opposite number. Like I said, I really want to hear what definition of capitalism you are using here, because it definitely does not match with the official one.

.
At its basic core - it's Free Trade. State or Crown has no power to grant monopolies or interfere with the market (like taxing customs, restricting trade, etc.) while all men (and women) reserve the right to hold property and do with it as they see fit as long as it does not go against the law. (Hire goons to beat some sense into your organizing factory workers).
This does not require any responsibility from the owners to care for their laborers, their safety, etc.
The state intervening and demanding the employer to give a minimal amount of X, Y, Z can be considered as a a perversion of Capitalism but I think that this is a way for the people to fight for their rights other than socialist worker's unions (Having the state draw its power and wealth from the people). Some come from morality - See the laws prohibiting child labor in Britain that were caused due to some nasty incidents with Mines, little girls and Death. This later turned to the people pursuing better social programs and a higher life rating for themselves, thus forcing their will on the money-holders via laws. Now, this I might call breaking Capitalism... It's a different "brand" of Capitalism that restricts the freedoms of the sources of wealth to do as they please with their money. Hell, this might just be Communism light - the stage where you slowly bring the wealth of every person to about the same size as the others. My Danish friend brags that they only have one billionaire in Denmark and that he's American... All of the others are Millionaires- but there are Plenty of them!

You just described the "money talks, everything else walks" version of capitalism, a radical position that is neither the norm nor the ideal.

The core of capitalism follows a few ideals, lets take a look at them:
A.) The right of an individual to control their life, proffesion, and property.
B.) The government's role is limited to protecting principle A
C.) Private ownership of lands, materials, and goods is preferable to a public or state owned condition
D.) Fair treatment for all individuals, including equal justice under the law.
E.) Subsidiarity of government (basically the principle that authority over any particular matter should be vested on the lowest and most local possible level)

The government stepping in to ensure workers are treated fairly in no way violates those principles.

.
Does Capitalism really has the fair treatment of all individual including equal justice under the law as one of its core values?

evilthecat:
Well, I don't own a factory. So no, I guess I'm not a capitalist.

..oh wait, you meant do I support capitalism as an economic system?

Well, what's good about it?

No, seriously, I don't mean what's necessary, I mean what about this system is actually positive? What makes it worth supporting, rather than merely tolerating? Because we all have to tolerate it, the alternative is unthinkable for most us at this point.

But yeah.. a society where it's possible earn millions of dollars in a single day without having to lift a finger simply through theoretical "ownership" other people's labour, and yet any attempt to redistribute that wealth is regarded as some incredibly unfair intrusion.

How do you get to this being a good thing?

Lets see:
-Capitalism always trends towards efficiency, without the wastage inherent to certain other systems. While this does not necessarily improve the fair distribution of products, it does ensure significantly higher abundance of nearly any product, and significantly lower production costs.
-Tends to be fairly idiot proof, with the market auto-correcting for personal error.
-Tends to avoid government oversight causing massive deficiencies at local levels. Take the former USSR for instance. A very large chunk of Russia's farmland is utterly useless, and likely will remain that way for years yet to come. The farmers were expected to produce the maximum amount possible year after year, destroying their own productivity in the process.

Does the system have its downsides? Definitely, but the upsides of the alternatives don't matter for an instant if they fail to provide the structure their citizens need.

TheIronRuler:

Does Capitalism really has the fair treatment of all individual including equal justice under the law as one of its core values?

As of today? Overwhelmingly yes
In the past? depends on when and where you ask, but still generally yes. Capitalism as a concept grew out of the same political movements that led to various freedom based revolutions around the world, including America. It shouldn't be surprising that similar ideals popped up.

And before you mention it, yes I am aware that the principle in question has been poorly applied in the past.

Heronblade:

TheIronRuler:

Does Capitalism really has the fair treatment of all individual including equal justice under the law as one of its core values?

As of today? Overwhelmingly yes
In the past? depends on when and where you ask, but still generally yes. Capitalism as a concept grew out of the same political movements that led to various freedom based revolutions around the world, including America. It shouldn't be surprising that similar ideals popped up.

And before you mention it, yes I am aware that the principle in question has been poorly applied in the past.

.
I can't agree much with this. At the beginning it wasn't much liberal as it was plain trying to grab power from the aristocrats. When you make laws breaking down their power using the easily swayed people, and then violently break socialist unions half a century later I would argue that you're not so right in your assumption. Perhaps today the two are infused in your opinion but Capitalism doesn't inherently entail equality.

Yes, they say that in the land of opportunity you can make yourself and become rich, but in reality those who are really rich were born that way and would do everything in their power to keep it that way.

Heronblade:
Lets see:
-Capitalism always trends towards efficiency, without the wastage inherent to certain other systems.

I think that a certain Activision CEO would argue differently.

Capitalism trends towards what makes a profit more than what's "efficient" in my opinion. If it was all based off of efficiency then I don't think we would have things like DRM, the random Netflix Price Increase, or that lovely time that auto makers bought out a bunch of tram rails in California and utterly destroyed them so more people would have to purchase cars for city travel. To think that California could have become a state known for it's tram culture (which would mean less smog, an overall cleaner environment, etc.) rather than it's car culture is an interesting thing to mull over.

TheIronRuler:

Heronblade:
As of today? Overwhelmingly yes
In the past? depends on when and where you ask, but still generally yes. Capitalism as a concept grew out of the same political movements that led to various freedom based revolutions around the world, including America. It shouldn't be surprising that similar ideals popped up.

And before you mention it, yes I am aware that the principle in question has been poorly applied in the past.

.
I can't agree much with this. At the beginning it wasn't much liberal as it was plain trying to grab power from the aristocrats. When you make laws breaking down their power using the easily swayed people, and then violently break socialist unions half a century later I would argue that you're not so right in your assumption. Perhaps today the two are infused in your opinion but Capitalism doesn't inherently entail equality.

Yes, they say that in the land of opportunity you can make yourself and become rich, but in reality those who are really rich were born that way and would do everything in their power to keep it that way.

I said and meant fair treatment, not equality. Capitalism guarantees a reasonable opportunity to make something of yourself, but not much more. I'd argue that equality is damn near impossible to legislate in any event.

Also, you should be aware that only about 30% of the rich over here inherited their fortune. Just something to think about.

Heronblade:

TheIronRuler:

Heronblade:
As of today? Overwhelmingly yes
In the past? depends on when and where you ask, but still generally yes. Capitalism as a concept grew out of the same political movements that led to various freedom based revolutions around the world, including America. It shouldn't be surprising that similar ideals popped up.

And before you mention it, yes I am aware that the principle in question has been poorly applied in the past.

.
I can't agree much with this. At the beginning it wasn't much liberal as it was plain trying to grab power from the aristocrats. When you make laws breaking down their power using the easily swayed people, and then violently break socialist unions half a century later I would argue that you're not so right in your assumption. Perhaps today the two are infused in your opinion but Capitalism doesn't inherently entail equality.

Yes, they say that in the land of opportunity you can make yourself and become rich, but in reality those who are really rich were born that way and would do everything in their power to keep it that way.

I said and meant fair treatment, not equality. Capitalism guarantees a reasonable opportunity to make something of yourself, but not much more. I'd argue that equality is damn near impossible to legislate in any event.

Also, you should be aware that only about 30% of the rich over here inherited their fortune. Just something to think about.

.
Factory conditions would only barely let you keep yourself alive, let alone allow you to move up the social ladder.

Where is here? How do you define "rich" in your little survey research with the 30% stat?

Witty Name Here:

Heronblade:
Lets see:
-Capitalism always trends towards efficiency, without the wastage inherent to certain other systems.

I think that a certain Activision CEO would argue differently.

Capitalism trends towards what makes a profit more than what's "efficient" in my opinion. If it was all based off of efficiency then I don't think we would have things like DRM, the random Netflix Price Increase, or that lovely time that auto makers bought out a bunch of tram rails in California and utterly destroyed them so more people would have to purchase cars for city travel. To think that California could have become a state known for it's tram culture (which would mean less smog, an overall cleaner environment, etc.) rather than it's car culture is an interesting thing to mull over.

Actually, most of those actions are a perfect example of what I was talking about with the market correcting mistakes. No economic system will prevent stupidity, free market just happens to be far better at reacting to it. Netflix attempted to pull a fast one on its customers and are losing a hell of a lot of money as a result. Software companies are likewise losing sales thanks to DRM, even the most stubborn have backed off at least a little on that front as a result. We'll need to find a way to deal with the piracy issue before that is fully resolved.

The tram system in California does represent an aberration, a case where the government stepping in would have been preferable, but as I mentioned before, nearly every capitalist wants some governmental oversight, just not for it to interfere with day to day operations.

TheIronRuler:

Heronblade:
I said and meant fair treatment, not equality. Capitalism guarantees a reasonable opportunity to make something of yourself, but not much more. I'd argue that equality is damn near impossible to legislate in any event.

Also, you should be aware that only about 30% of the rich over here inherited their fortune. Just something to think about.

.
Factory conditions would only barely let you keep yourself alive, let alone allow you to move up the social ladder.

Where is here? How do you define "rich" in your little survey research with the 30% stat?

United States citizens that currently have more than one billion in personal assets. The thirty percent includes those that inherited more than one million in combined assets from family (and yes, that was adjusted for inflation) Interestingly enough, the percentage of those with inherited wealth grows as you go DOWN that particular rung. Those born into oodles of money aren't necessarily all that good at making more of it, go figure.

Also, like I said, the principle of fair treatment has not always been followed. The ideal is often left by the wayside in favor of short term gains, a lamentable state of affairs common to all ideologies throughout history.

You could call me a capitalist if your criteria is supporting capitalism, although I would reserve that term for business owners and investors. Yes, Capitalism allows for the most flexible and adaptive system of allocating available resources, whether human, capital, or raw material. Yet that's what it is, an imperfect economic system, just as democracy is an imperfect political system. Regulation, welfare (all forms of social investment), and infrastructure building are just as essential, as the free market is not a guarantor of stability, law, liberty, or fairness.

evilthecat:
Well, what's good about it?

No, seriously, I don't mean what's necessary, I mean what about this system is actually positive? What makes it worth supporting, rather than merely tolerating? Because we all have to tolerate it, the alternative is unthinkable for most us at this point.

If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man's individual rights; if one upholds man's individual rights, one must uphold his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness-which means: one must uphold a political system that guarantees and protects these rights-which means: the politico-economic system of capitalism.

-Ayn Rand

evilthecat:
But yeah.. a society where it's possible earn millions of dollars in a single day without having to lift a finger simply through theoretical "ownership" other people's labour, and yet any attempt to redistribute that wealth is regarded as some incredibly unfair intrusion.

How do you get to this being a good thing?

"Theoretical" ownership is often very practical. You own it, you are responsible for it, you will also have to pay for it. Google probably earns way more than a million dollars per day, but they also have to pay a lot of money for energy/servers/wages/etcetera, etcetera.

Sure I'm a Capitalist. Within reason. I also think that there need to be strong consumer protections against abuse, regulations and governmental oversight. Mixed economy is the term, I believe.

Heronblade:

TheIronRuler:
No. This allows the strong to bully the weak, I don't accept Laizes Faire or unregulated and unchecked Capitalism. The state is the tool of the people to prevent itself from being exploited. The state can then act as its guardian with rules and regulations stopping the strong from exploiting the weak.

Regulated capitalism is still capitalism, and frankly, even among capitalists, very few people want complete market freedom.

While I agree that very few people want complete market freedom, that's still the message pushed on us by right-wing talking heads. Many of their acolytes will profess wanting complete market freedom without actually understanding what it is.

Not Capitalist since I do not own or control the means of production. Do i support Capitalism? No again.

"The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!"

the institutional investiture of Capitalist was the greatest trick ever pulled off in the interests of "the people".

now we all live in Capitalist countries.
every country in the world has a "mixed economy" to some degree.
every. one.

from the likes of North Korea (which has foreign companies involved in its natural resource industries) to the supposedly "Uber Capitalist" US (that spends 5% of total GDP and 20% of total government spending on a single and largely "closed" industry sector that being "the MIC").

but imo it's in danger of dying and being warped and twisted into something else...

and what people often refer to as "socialism" is just us holding the reigns (again to varying degrees).
to make sure we get to where we want to go.

in fact to take that metaphor further i think one of the core things you have to understand about Capitalism is that the final destination for the journey if we let go of the reigns has been known for a very long time.

the final destination is how we existed for virtually all of prior human history before we "invented Capitalism" and that is a small group of rich people accumulating the vast majority of the wealth, it becomes a chain where wealth and power accumulates and everyone else with less political power ends up living literally at the beck and call of a few.

that's the inevitable result of the "free reign" of human "greed" which in turn imo is a conceptualization of part of our "survival instincts" that we usually morally judge as "bad".

some people think we should go for that.
some people thought absolute monarchies and aristocracies were great things too.
"*mumble mumble*...preserves the order of things...spiffing, top hat, what'o'..."

sorry but i'm still of a mind that says that idea...is actually "bad"...

"Capitalism" has ALWAYS been about "managing" human "greed".

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked