And check this out!!! This is the real issue - wealth inequality! And what is this based on???
What country you are born in, what family your are born in, how much educational opportunity you are afforded.
Imagine if the richest 1% had to share 90% of their wealth with the rest of the world.
Most of them would still be filthy rich.
Trickle-down my a-ss.
Representation of geographical groups of people doesnât work well either.
Yup 
However, good luck on rebalancing this. I personally wouldnât support laws to âtake and re-distributeâ.
Higher taxes? Sure. For those with personal incomes over a million a year. But then again, they can funnel through trusts, funds, off shore accounts -They are also more international and can set up shop in cheaper taxing countries. I donât favour an inheritance tax. Taxes have been paid on that property or wealth so why tax again?
Taxing all corporations would be a good start but good luck convincing Religious adherents that this isnât persecution.
There are no easy answers. Itâs a process. And moving towards less extreme property is a good step. Moving towards corporate pollution responsibility and cleaning after themselves has also been a good step forward. Where we (as a whole) spend our money (into churches, types of charities, what we buy and support) all speak volumes and the market pursues our dollars.
1 Like
The core of capitalism is perpetual growth. It is simply an economic system and is morally neutral.
Imo any belief or philosophy based on an idea of âhuman natureâ and how people
should behave is unfounded romantic drivel.
Human beings as a species have always behaved as they ought as have all animals. It is my perception that human beings are innately self serving, always protecting themselves and their family group ,always experiencing xenophobia. I suspect that has an evolutionary advantage.
I have never seen deep and abiding concern for anonymous others from human beings en masse.
We have no idea the direction social evolution will take. I have seen no empirical evidence which supports any argument. Be happy to see yours.
Yes, capitalism may have limits, given that China does not open up for another 50 years of economic expansion and we find no way to move out into the rest of the universe. Capitalism needs new markets and cheap labor to survive.
A more socialist America is a necessity. Especially with regards to Medical Care. And socialism can run along side capitalism. The two systems are not mutually exclusive. I donât think we will ever see an end to a Capitalist Economy; however, there will be an increase of governmental controls and more of a lean towards socialistic ideals.
2 Likes
The notion of perpetual growth is a dangerous fantasy, imo.
Absolutely; finite resources. Capitalism may simply collapse eventually. However, we humans are very resourceful, especially when it comes to our survival .So who knows?
I can drive 2 miles from my house and see maybe 500 âcriminalsâ in a bread line, RIGHT NOW (being homeless here is a crime). Crony capitalism (is there any other kind?) failed a long time ago, imo.
1 Like
Woah!!! Fuck. That is too sad 
. Seriously.
And there is no reason to have that type of situation.
Bread lines in the USSR⌠remember? God.
That tends to be a major criticism.
Capitalism has a very poor record on sustainable resources and the environment.
Yes⌠but is that a consequence of Capitalism? (Could capitalism exist in a form where the environment came first?) I think it could. Itâs merely about holding companies responsible. Yes prices will be higher but they will be higher all around. When everyone plays by the same rules, it all evens out. I think capitalist ideas can still survive.
1 Like
As compared with what?
Imo itâs probably fairer to say that human beings have such a poor record. You can begin with the fantasy of the noble savage protecting the environment.
1 Like
Agree⌠Human beings turn the wheels than make the system go.
I donât know if âsoberingâ is the right word for the thought that we are a pretty new species, and as far as I can see probably quite a temporary one. We have not yet learned not to foul our own nest. This may well lead to our extinction within a relatively short time.
Argument from ignorance perhaps, but I have seen no evidence which convinces me that we will become a truly successful species
AGREE. And we are also a very new country, a modern day Rome. Success is fleeting. We certainly can not endure as we are or have been.
I had a sociology professor who was convinced the entire world was headed towards a 70% / 30% split. The 30% being the 'Haves" and the 70% the âHave nots.â This was how he kept capitalism alive. 70 percent of the population must belong to the workforce for the other 30% to continue enjoying the American life style.
Ah, the argument which claims great wealth cannot exist without great poverty. Iâve always thought that is intuitively correct.
Having a quick search shows there is no consensus. To come to an informed conclusion I guess Iâd need to ask cui bono? and go from there.
Perhaps before great technology.
Before you might need 100 men to dig a ditch with shovels. Now one guy and a backhoe. Before youâd need a field of harvesters- now we got John Deere.
Personally, we have the technology to do many good things - just the âwillâ âpoliticsâ and âpower/money/controlâ seems to get in the way. Trying to balance the changes that we could bring to people earth wide.
Today we posses the technology and ability to place large solar collectors in space, harvest that energy, and beam it down to earth. Basically unlimited cheap renewable power. But to get all the nations to cooperate on this major undertaking? That is where political will becomes the main factor.