Why Capitalism is way better than any other economic system!

[enderpotato00]

While it can be brutal and unfair, life is unfair folks! Capitalism increases the standard the living, can respond to change faster, is way more efficient, and allows for a free market. Who doesn't want that! Socialism and Communism has been proven to fail and continues to. So please I would like to see some discussion.

 

[Helioform]

Not sure if this is a troll post but - there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are subject to manipulation by those who have the most capital. Just like freedom is an illusion, because men are always dominated by stronger than themselves, capitalism can create big inequalities. Capitalism is simply the law of the jungle and humans should know better by now. We don't need corporations that put profit above workers' welfare with unfair laws and tax evasion. I think a balance between Socialism and Capitalism is the way to go.

 

[enderpotato00]

Not sure if this is a troll post but - there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are subject to manipulation by those who have the most capital. Just like freedom is an illusion, because men are always dominated by stronger than themselves, capitalism can create big inequalities. Capitalism is simply the law of the jungle and humans should know better by now. We don't need corporations that put profit above workers' welfare with unfair laws and tax evasion. I think a balance between Socialism and Capitalism is the way to go.

Its kind of a yes and no. Maybe not a true "free market", plus Socialism has never worked well.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Not sure if this is a troll post but - there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are subject to manipulation by those who have the most capital. Just like freedom is an illusion, because men are always dominated by stronger than themselves, capitalism can create big inequalities. Capitalism is simply the law of the jungle and humans should know better by now. We don't need corporations that put profit above workers' welfare with unfair laws and tax evasion. I think a balance between Socialism and Capitalism is the way to go.

I'm not chasing you we just happen to read the same threads.

What unfair laws are we talking about here and how does tax evasion affect the workers?

 

[Helioform]

I'm not chasing you we just happen to read the same threads.

What unfair laws are we talking about here and how does tax evasion affect the workers?

Laws with loopholes that permit corporations to avoid paying taxes. As you can see on the chart below, personal income taxes have risen while corporate tax % are at rock bottom lows.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Your graph doesn't show that income tax rates have risen and corporate tax rates have decreased. It shows the total federal revenue from these taxes, which isn't the same thing. Corporate tax rate in the US is still 35%. Most businesses (small and medium) simply aren't corporations and don't pay at corporate tax rates but at individual income tax rates. That's why the graph for individual tax revenue is so high, because small and medium business account for approximately 85 million jobs.

Neither does the graph answer my question about an unfair legal system or tax evasion.

 

[Helioform]

Your graph doesn't show that income tax rates have risen and corporate tax rates have decreased. It shows the total federal revenue from these taxes, which isn't the same thing.

It is basically the same thing, stop splitting hairs will you. Also 20% of the biggest US corporations pay 0% taxes.

"Prior to 2012, the GAO estimated that 24% of profitable large corporations owed no income tax in 2011, 22% owed nothing in 2010 and 21% owed nothing in 2009."

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/pf/taxes/gao-corporate-taxes/index.html

Neither does the graph answer my question about an unfair legal system or tax evasion.

Read the page linked above. (oh but no CNN, is "fake news" I guess you will say. )

 

[Helioform]

Corporate tax rate stats here, steady decline:

 

[rainerann]

While it can be brutal and unfair, life is unfair folks! Capitalism increases the standard the living, can respond to change faster, is way more efficient, and allows for a free market. Who doesn't want that! Socialism and Communism has been proven to fail and continues to. So please I would like to see some discussion.

Capitalism is way better because it exists as a blank canvas that can be shaped any way a person wants. Corporations do not define capitalism. They may use it to their advantage, but everyone is capable of doing the same thing. New opportunities are created when a system is not predefined the way socialism and communism are. A system functions better when it permits creativity that will allow it to change and improve.

This is why socialism and communism will not work because the system has to be predefined. Therefore, it has to have mechanisms to create change predefined as well. Unless someone is capable of predicting the future, this is difficult to accomplish completely, and some choice will be lost because of this as a consequence.

 

[mecca]

New opportunities are created when a system is not predefined the way socialism and communism are. A system functions better when it permits creativity that will allow it to change and improve.
This is why socialism and communism will not work because the system has to be predefined. Therefore, it has to have mechanisms to create change predefined as well. Unless someone is capable of predicting the future, this is difficult to accomplish completely, and some choice will be lost because of this as a consequence.

What do you mean predefined?

A system functions better when it permits creativity that will allow it to change and improve.

Capitalism and socialism / communism both have room to change and improve. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production where things are produced for profit. And communism is communal ownership of the means of production where things are produced based on need. I don't see how creativity factors in... but both can be improved and advanced within those contexts because they are so broad.

 

[rainerann]

Corporate tax rate stats here, steady decline:

Right, but is a tax rate inherant to a system of capitalism; or, is the tax rate a function within a socialist or communist system?

Therefore, does a graph like this actually demonstrate that socialism and communism would be an unfair system of government where some people would be able to avoid paying their fair share for the benefits they share within a community.

I personally believe don't believe taxes reflect capitalism. They are a nessecity of a socialist or communist system. Capitalism does not depend on taxes to function. So it is the merging of capitalism and socialism that is creating the problem.

 

[mecca]

I personally believe don't believe taxes reflect capitalism. They are a nessecity of a socialist or communist system.

There would be no taxes in a communist society... it's a stateless and moneyless system. If there is no state, where would the taxes even go? And if there is no money... how will there even be taxes?

 

[Helioform]

Therefore, does a graph like this actually demonstrate that socialism and communism would be an unfair system of government where some people would be able to avoid paying their fair share for the benefits they share within a community.

Taxes are a necessity in any "civilized" environment since individuals do not live inside a bubble where only their own selves matter.

I truly think that a truly fair world would be without money at all though, pretty much like in Star Trek. If our technology advances fast enough to make replicators and other nanotech devices, there would be no need for any kind of economic system because we could replicate anything we want.

 

[rainerann]

Taxes are a necessity in any "civilized" environment since individuals do not live inside a bubble where only their own selves matter.

I truly think that a truly fair world would be without money at all though, pretty much like in Star Trek. If our technology advances fast enough to make replicators and other nanotech devices, there would be no need for any kind of economic system because we could replicate anything we want.

Not really, because everything could be privatized. Take the department of motor vehicles for example. They receive tax payer money to provide a service. In addition to this, they charge registration and have other fees. However, the only thing we really need the DMV to do is issue licenses. Car registration and everything else they do is an unnessecary waste of money. We could have give driver's license the same way we give any type of certification.

Same thing with roads. There are private companies that do road repair. Same thing with healthcare. We have continued seeing our healthcare coverage decline that was provided through our employer over the past couple years since Obamacare began. Healthcare was better before Obamacare and if people paid less in taxes, they would have more money to buy insurance policies for their employees.

So taxes within a society that is otherwise defined as capitalist, is a merging of socialism with capitalism, and it does not work. It will not be able to work and it will continue to cause problems in society the way it has done ever since they implemented tax law at the turn of the century. This country existed for over a hundred years without a tax system. It is not a requirement of a society that permits private ownership of homes and business. It is a requirement of socialism or communist government systems.

However, you illustration of progressing to a Star Trek-like world is interesting.

 

[rainerann]

There would be no taxes in a communist society... it's a stateless and moneyless system. If there is no state, where would the taxes even go? And if there is no money... how will there even be taxes?

Mecca, that is not how communism is defined to begin with. Nevertheless, how would explain how we would ever have a moneyless society? Money is a replication of something that is scientific and seen throughout nature. In chemistry, molecules are formed by the exchange of electrons. In an economy, money is exchanged for a similar reason. However, you have to keep the way we use money in line with the way the process of exchange works in nature. Money simulates this feature. Economics is a science that can be measured in many ways the same way we work with any other sort of science. An action produces an effect.

Even without money, communism still centralizes the decision making process. What can and cannot be produced is decided by the state. What you describe is not communism. It is capitalism where there is a free system of exchange and people are free to create what they want. That is not communism. In communism, there is a specific amount of resources. There is someone who decides how much of what each person can have with or without money. If they didn't have money, someone would still decide how many couches you could have and how many books you could own. Capitalism is where you can buy as many books as you want and have as many couches as you can afford. You have the freedom to do this.

China is communist. I have been looking into this and it has been changing my opinion towards the subject of outsourcing recently. As a communist country, it is the government that permits these companies to build factories that pay very little to their people. It is the government that does not require a higher standard because they use communism as a system of government. Their whole country suffers because of this and larger companies take advantage of the reality that this country is using a system that does not give the people the freedom to protect themselves the way our country is able to do. I think if you would take a little more time to study the subject of communism, it would help you have a much clearer argument, because I understand what you are trying to say. I know this is because you are sweet girl with a vision that you think is going to be fair for others. It is just not called communism. Your vision, needs its own name.

 

[rainerann]

@mecca

What you describe is really more of a form of libertarianism called mutualism. What you say is much closer to something like this because I agree with you, but this is because I would identify myself as a libertarian too and this is much closer to what I believe in terms of politics.

TMT introduced this so I'm sure you have seen, but here is a link with information on it. http://technostism.wikia.com/wiki/Libertarian_Mutualism

Libertarianism I support. I support something like this and I think politics should turn more to libertarian discussions rather than capitalist versus communist the way we usually do because these are terms that have been used longer. Libertarianism is not as widely recognized in political discussions still. This is something I could see you really being able to advocate.

The communism stuff, it is too much a stretch from the beliefs you are trying to communicate.

 

[mecca]

Mecca, that is not how communism is defined to begin with.

Yes it is... it's the exact definition.

Nevertheless, how would explain how we would ever have a moneyless society?

Gift economy... that's what communism proposes. Since the means of production are owned by the community, the people themselves produce necessities and goods based on what's needed for everyone in the community.

Money is a replication of something that is scientific and seen throughout nature. In chemistry, molecules are formed by the exchange of electrons. In an economy, money is exchanged for a similar reason. However, you have to keep the way we use money in line with the way the process of exchange works in nature. Money simulates this feature. Economics is a science that can be measured in many ways the same way we work with any other sort of science. An action produces an effect.

Not every society has used money in the past... money is not necessary and it is a hindrance to equality. Money creates inequality which leads to different classes, the rich will have control over the poor. A moneyless system is the goal of communism and a requirement to fulfill communism. A moneyless society is a lofty goal but it is achievable and it would be more beneficial to everyone.

communism still centralizes the decision making process. What can and cannot be produced is decided by the state.

Why can't you accept the definition of communism? It's a very simple concept, communism necessitates the destruction of the state. Small decentralized communities make decisions democratically... that's what communism is. Communism requires the means of production to be owned by the people (the community, that's why it's called communism) not the state or a private owner. There cannot be a state, the point of communism is to give the people the control.

If they didn't have money, someone would still decide how many couches you could have and how many books you could own. Capitalism is where you can buy as many books as you want and have as many couches as you can afford. You have the freedom to do this.

Actually in communism things are produced by the people so if you want a book you can get one just the same as now... except you won't be limited by how much money you have because you will be able to get it for free. Going to a book store would be like going to the library.

China is communist.

Not at all... the state has control in China, not the workers. The people don't have a decentralized society where they own the means of production communally, therefore they are not communist. China does have a lot of capitalistic practices though. In fact they could be referred to as state capitalist since the state owns the means of production.

I think if you would take a little more time to study the subject of communism, it would help you have a much clearer argument, because I understand what you are trying to say. I know this is because you are sweet girl with a vision that you think is going to be fair for others. It is just not called communism. Your vision, needs its own name.

I have studied. If you actually read Marx or even a wikipedia page then you could see that he advocated exactly what I'm saying. The definition you have of communism is inaccurate and based on propaganda. The basic definition of communism is the communal ownership of the means of production where goods are produced based on need. That's the literal definition that Marx and Engels wrote about and that's what people who call themselves communist support. You should be doing research because you keep telling me that a communist society would have a state... but communism's goal is to actually get rid of the state completely.

 

[mecca]

What you describe is really more of a form of libertarianism called mutualism.

Nope, I'm talking directly about communism. You should look up anarcho-communism because it focuses even more on the libertarian aspect of communsim and libertarian/anarchist ways of achieving communism. Communism is directly in line with left libertarianism because it is decentralized and requires the removal of the state and capitalism.

http://technostism.wikia.com/wiki/Libertarian_Mutualism

I know about mutualism and it is a form of anarchism or left-libertarianism but communism goes further than mutualism does because it eliminates the need for money, which creates a more equal society. Mutualism is similar to communism except communism's goal is to get rid of money. They are both based on decentralized and democratic management though. A lot of anarchists propose mutualism as a transition period between capitalism and communism.

 

[rainerann]

Mecca said "Communism requires the means of production to be owned by the people (the community)"

^^^^^THIS IS HOW COMMUNISM CREATES A "STATE."

In additions to this, in a community where the production is owned by the people, there will emerge a leader. This will turn into something similar to what happens in a monarchy where the people are dependent on the disposition of the person who is in the leadership of a community that does not independently own anything.

The community will be unable to defend themselves if the leader's disposition is poor and chooses to exploit the fact that these people own nothing and will be able to take advantage of them. This is because communism leaves them with no way to defend themselves the way private ownership and individual rights do.

Marx complained about the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie are defined as "the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes."

He pretends to defend the perspective of the proletariat, but really he is just manipulating vulnerable people without ever explaining how they can escape hardship. His argument is that it would be better if everyone were poor rather than some people be identified as poor and some people as middle class. His argument never suggests that his philosophy will equate to a better standard of living for the proletariat.

Communism does not equal a better standard of living. It just doesn't work. If you are hard-pressed to identify yourself as a communist, then, by all means, feel free. However, Marx only created communism as a means of recruiting people to follow him, not because communism was a good idea. He was taking advantage of vulnerable people and millions of people have suffered because of following him ever since.

The Chinese are still suffering, but somehow you think this is a good idea. Corporations can't take advantage of business in any other country the way they can in China. That is entirely because a communist system does not protect its people from people who will try to take advantage of them. It does not create a defense and it cannot work unless you were to create a potion that made everyone become a different person. In Brave New World communism worked because they were all taking Soma all day long. That is the only way to make communism work. It is a naive system of government that does not have the ability to protect itself from wolves.

But, if it is important for you to identify yourself with a system that has already been proven a failure and destroyed millions of lives already, go right on ahead. Although it is like trying to buy a used car that has 300,000 miles on it. It is a waste of time and money and it will break down as soon as you drive off the car lot.

 

[rainerann]

Nope, I'm talking directly about communism. You should look up anarcho-communism because it focuses even more on the libertarian aspect of communsim and libertarian/anarchist ways of achieving communism. Communism is directly in line with left libertarianism because it is decentralized and requires the removal of the state and capitalism.

I know about mutualism and it is a form of anarchism or left-libertarianism but communism goes further than mutualism does because it eliminates the need for money, which creates a more equal society. Mutualism is similar to communism except communism's goal is to get rid of money. They are both based on decentralized and democratic management though. A lot of anarchists propose mutualism as a transition period between capitalism and communism.

and Libertarianism is the best route of all.

"Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment and self-ownership.[not in citation given][2][3][4][5][6]

Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions.[7]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism