{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Mad Max:
9/27/2013 8:24:23 PM
21
Can we talk about economic philosophies and politics?
[spoiler]Fair warning - I am by no means an economist, nor have I taken any economic classes outside of the intro classes I had to take in undergrad[/spoiler]
What benefit is it to society to let true capitalism run its course? No government assistance programs, no "hand-outs", not "entitlements." Should we really support the "every man for himself" philosophy?
Isn't it in our best interests, both as a country and as a society, to help those who cannot help themselves? We're only as strong as our weakest link, so don't we all benefit when we help each other?
I understand that a great many don't enjoy paying taxes [or even go so far as to call it "theft"], but doesn't it help us all when we help each other; when we can provide for those who cannot provide for themselves?
-
15 RepliesCapitalism doesn't = "doesn't want to help the sick and needy". We just believe in charity, and that helping the poor should be done voluntarily, instead of thru govt coercion. That's why philosophically morality is important, if not essential, in a free society. The price of liberty is vigilance and being virtuous, and learning to take responsibility of our community ourselves. Not to mention money in in the hands of the person who earned it, will usually spend it more wisely and efficiently than some third party elitists like the govt. The economy will boom as well if we take off all the shackles and regulations restraining it.
-
4 RepliesNo one advocates for a true no government involvement capitalist society and anyone who says people do advocate for that are completely ill informed and have no idea what they're talking about. OF COURSE we need to have SOME government regulation, but there's a key word there: SOME. Big Government is WRONG, VERY WRONG. We need little government regulation with the market creating competition to lower prices. In a perfect society, you worry about yourself, your family, and then your community. In a society where the government isn't involved in your life, you have this thing called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. It's NOT the governments job to take care of you, it's YOUR job to take care of the government. Remember: [i]The bigger the government, the smaller the people.[/i]
-
4 RepliesThere isn't one, capitalism has been cannibalizing itself since the start of neoliberalism. We should smash capitalism as soon as possible. Transition to a scientifically planned economy where the means of production are socially owned. In short, Marxist Socialism.
-
6 RepliesOpens with obviously universally accepted opinion on how stupidly capitalism works. Comments on how everyone's conception of socialism, fascism, communism, and/or miscellaneous hipster economy is absolutely false. Concludes with a bait statement so someone will give me attention.
-
2 RepliesThe benefits? Progress and fairness to consumers. Sure, that's what charity is for, and people should be able to help themselves in most cases. Should it be FORCED? Absolutely not. I imagine no one is OK with being stolen from. Why do you assume we need taxes to help people? You do realize taxes only harm us all, correct? That money is consumed.
-
since i don't feel like explaining everything in detail, i'll just let this [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty]youtube channel do it for me[/url] but to quickly summarize, capitalism isnt dog-eat-dog or everybody fending for themselves, its more just letting everybody do whats best for them and not impeding them from doing so.
-
6 RepliesI have very little understanding of economics. All I know is my understanding is better then the Republican party's.
-
1 ReplyEven a guy like Milton Friedman, the leading intellectual in neoliberal economics, supported a negative income tax that gave low income people direct cash transfers. The reality is there needs to be some degree of a stabilization mechanism in place to prevent the booms and busts from being too wild.
-
10 RepliesTheoretically, capitalism in its current form has a very limited lifespan already. I have read before (and cannot find the infographic I'm thinking of for the life of me) a very convincing scenario where capitalism causes a race to its destruction. I'll do my best to summarize. Capitalism drives creativity (not necessarily exclusively but to deny this point is silly), therefore eventually technology will advance to the point where every job you could possibly have is done by a machine. This results in "labor" being nonexistent in the traditional sense and since the central driving force of capitalism is labor, the system will cease to exist. The result is a place where you either must be paid for non-productive labor, or you must be handed what you need to live or perhaps thrive. This creates an interesting dynamic where full power lies entirely in the hands of those who controlled the means of production before labor went extinct, and the final result is more or less Huxley's Brave New World, only with corporations (that is, operators of the new labor force that doesn't require wages) being in complete control of society.
-
12 RepliesObamanomics: If you have a an education and a high-paying job, you are filthy pig and deserve nothing, you should have to give your money to poor people. A gangster who dropped out of high-school however deserves all your money and a great life. Also, if you're in debt, borrow more money to fix it.
-
1 ReplyEdited by Ad Hoc: 9/28/2013 5:10:06 AMVery little can be gained from Laissez Faire Capitalism in an industrialized society. We tried it in the 1800's, and everything went to hell. There was a HUGE gap between the rich and the poor, and the poor lived like pigs. Sure, there was an initial jump in the economy, but it was followed by extremely unstable growth, tons of corruption, monopolies, poor wages, dangerous working conditions, and multiple depressions. A similar trend can also be seen after the Reagan years, although not quite as severe. You might not believe it if you listened to a lot of people today, but government regulation and intervention is a [i]crucial[/i] part of the economy. A lot of things that actually worked well in the 1800's, like the railroads, were heavily influenced by the government. It also got us out of the great depression. And yet, a lot of politicians are [i]still[/i] promoting Laissez Faire capitalism(or close) as the cure to all our economic woes. Some will even go as far as to say that it's unconstitutional, but Section 8, and other areas of the Constitution cover regulation specifically. How so many people can forget the past is beyond me. I guess they just get swept up in all the bull. What can we actually gain? A very short; albeit massive, economic boost, followed by crushing depressions and revolution.
-
8 RepliesI hate you all so much. Thought you should know.
-
"Man is forever cursed to repeat his mistakes because he only learns from experience."
-
Not necessarily. It's the whole teach a man to fish concept. Sure, it's good to help people, but you can't really hold their hand in life. It's best to keep those who can't progress at the bottom so society can keep moving without having people hold us back.
-
Too much capitalism = bad. It should be regulated, and not just a little, it should be regulated very heavily, more then it is now.
-
Unregulated capitalism will just result in corporations replacing government, but worse. Government should regulate capitalism, and people should regulate the government.
-
18 RepliesLaissez Faire capitalism has got to be one of the most retarded economic philosophies out there. You'll never get a free market, libertardians. Cry some more.
-
4 RepliesA truly free society would require more work on part of consumers. Take a simple example. Buying meat at the grocery store. Today, the FDA imposes regulation and inspection, so the assumption is the meat is of a good quality. Obviously FDA is occasionally wrong and accidents happen, but for the most part you feel safe purchasing. The price you pay for this is higher meat cost (cost to producer for following regulation) and higher taxes (you pay for the FDA and enforcement). In a world with no FDA, businesses and people regulate. A meat producer would go to Wal-Mart and propose to be sold there. Free markets dictate that it is in Wal-Mart's best interest to not sell bad meat. If they do, they almost assuredly lose long term customers. Likewise, it is in a producer'a best interest to sell good meat for the same reason. The meat industry has a high cost of entry so there would be large risk to risking the entire business by cutting corners for short term gains. In this day and age, people are more informed about the products they buy and controversy surrounding them - it wouldn't take long for news to spread. The questions you ask yourself then are: 1. What quality difference is there between what the FDA sets and what Wal-Mart on its own would accept? 2. How much money is saved by allowing producers and distributors to regulate rather than the FDA? Like any decision, you end up with a cost/benefit analysis.
-
6 RepliesEdited by Yvonne: 9/28/2013 7:10:47 PMNo, because I'm not letting anyone take my hard-earned money to redistribute it to people I don't know. That's called having a welfare state, and does [i]not[/i] work in the real world, no matter how much you'd like it to. If I want to help people, I'll give to charity or volunteer (which I do), but it is [i]not[/i] the government's place--or anyone else's, for that matter--to decide how much I need to give to anyone.
-
No, because there are very few people here that have any idea what they're talking about.
-
My education is not advanced enough for me to discuss these subjects. Someone help ;_;
