EDHS Contemporary World Affairs

DaisyVo1212 · Senior Member

Econ. theories and religion's influence on economics

DaisyVo1212 · Senior Member

personally, i support capitalism, but i do think that some government regulation is good for industries as long as they don't totally take control of the economy.

so in my personal opinion, a mixed economy works best

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

Problem with communism is it controlled by humans and by nature humans are power hungery whether it benifits them or everyone they always want to control their surroundings.

Problem with capitalism is it allows for those with the power to take to take more then would benefit everyone.

Both of these are prone to become the subjects of greed and power but over all capitalism allows for those with extreme power and wealth to fail unlike communism and socialism.

Pure capitalism in my mind is best for all.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

pure capitalism is too extreme. because when people become greedy it leads us to periods of suffering such as now, and the great depression. the highs are higher, but the lows are lower. so i think a sprinkle of government regulation is wise because it keeps the economy in more of a moderate state and the country and world are more stable. what do you think about that idea chris?

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

geriatric1991 wrote:

pure capitalism is too extreme. because when people become greedy it leads us to periods of suffering such as now, and the great depression. the highs are higher, but the lows are lower. so i think a sprinkle of government regulation is wise because it keeps the economy in more of a moderate state and the country and world are more stable. what do you think about that idea chris?

I would agree except your example is flawed. We do not have a purely capitalistic system so that touch of government regulation has not done anything you suggest it might. When people get greedy in a capitalisitc system they will take higher risks and will eventually fall in on themselves but if a buisness is prudent and plays it right then they will succeed in the longer term while the other will just be a flash in the pan stock. Comments?

-- Edited by Bonemail-(Christophe K) on Wednesday 29th of April 2009 10:24:33 PM

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

yes. ok so you are right, we do not have a purely capitalistic society but look, even with the government regulations we do have it still got this out of control. by no means am i saying lets just leave ourselves to the discretion of the government but we need them to regulate business. look again at the current economy, even with the government trying to regulate it has spun out of control and not only are the people that were foolish paying the price, but even the innocent people that have been saving and living with in their means are losing jobs and homes. your ideas are flawed because everyone suffers from the actions of a few and that is simply not right. extremism has never ever ever worked in the history of the world. but what does work is compromise.

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

A pure capitalistic society has never been tried so you can not right it off at failed when it has never been tried. The econ failed because the government interfered with it's natural cycle or balancing itself. The idea that the many will fall because of the few is such a false idea that has only been applied by our version of capitalism. Governments don't let the few fail but will let the masses die if it keeps them in power. Think about it: Less people to make happy, more power gained, less exspanesive, less risk, all they have to do is pass a few laws securing them or bailing out their companies.

If people buy stock in a company but they go under then yes that sucks but stocks are a risky market and we all know that. If a buisness goes under it can be sold off in parts to other companies to try and pay off it's debts. Those companies would hopfully proper and give rise to new ideas and chances to make money. Even in the midst of a huge problem the market will regulate itself but government is to busy worrying if it's fair to the guy not taking any of the risks. Such is life that the bold win and the government pretends to be on the side of the scared. Without the bold we would be no where.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

in a pure capitalistic society, the rich get richer quicker and the poor get poorer quicker. without some-kind of government intervening to slow the process and give the majority of the poor people a chance to get on their feet, it doesn't seem like the government would have the best interest of the masses, which is what a democracy is. a pure capitalistic society would lent to massive amount of corruption because it would be in the peoples hands whether or not they cheat and con people. people cannot be trusted to do what is right and honest when money and power are involved. we have never tried out a pure capitalistic society and to that i say, "thank god" because it would be social and economic anarchy!

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

Your reasons against capitalism is my reasons for being antigovernment. What have we seen except that the government has grown greedy with wealth and power? You say the rich get richer and the poor get poorer but how can you prove that? I mean in our version of capitalism what part of government intervention has gotten someone rich? None. Only the markets have given people their wealth and life style and the idea of a completely free market is to allow everyone to tap into the benefits we can all bring to the table. If a business does well, goes public, increases income, makes new products etc we all do better because we all benefit directly or indirectly from their gains.

The government does not help people they make them dependent on them. Dependance leads to control and for a simple example look at your parents. They love you to death and want the best for you but you can not deny that if you did one thing wrong when you were young you had to give in cause they controlled everything in your life. Such is the same way with government trying to help people. They take that dependance they create through programs like welfare, social security, medicare etc to control people and keep them in a victim mindset. Guess what you are free to make your choices and stop blaming the rich who give you your job for all your troubles. There is plenty of money to go around without having to rip up the bold in the process.

Think of it this way: Government is run by humans just like a business. If humans are to corrupt to run a business for the benefit of the masses then wouldn't it be simply unreasonable to give over that same power if not more to other humans who show almost no regard for how we think and feel? Governments should create a fair playing field for all to play and your success should grow forth from your talents and market savvy. Any other way would be corrupt and unfair treatment to the masses because to give to one is to take form others where as a free market offers to all and you must gain for yourself.

-- Edited by Bonemail-(Christophe K) on Friday 1st of May 2009 03:45:12 PM

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

what is a tax but to take from some to give to other? pure capitalism is idealism chris. its something that you would like to see happen but isnt really possible in this world. at least not at the moment. i think we will all have died from nuclear war before people will fight their greedy instincts and do what is right and what will really make them happy. and ps. its your turn to start the controversial topic for the week.

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

Your right it would be ideal but to say it is impossible is lacking in proof. Socialism was tried in many forms and we found that it does not work. Why not try out the other extreme since it has show the most proof to work best for the people. Taxes should not be used to social programs which is where you get the idea of one person forced to give to another. Governments are put in place to protect your property but nothing comes for free so to protect your other goods you surrender up some to protect the rest.

I think after a nuclear war they would be even worse because when resources are sparce people will revert to their survival instincts to live. Companionship is not needed to survive until after you get food, water, shelter etc. The process of deregulation things in our economy would at first harm us yes. Price floors and ceilings would then allow the market to flux to it's proper median. Some prices will go up and some will go down the and changes could be vast but we will not know until we try.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

taking from some to give to other. tax dollars pay government employees. you might say thats a dumb example but it is true. peoples instincts are to protect the self, but when you live in a society, those instincts just dont work or make sense anymore

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

We are the most developed country in the world and one that you claim is to selfish and selfcentered. It seems like caring for yourself has gotten us pretty far and yet we donate the most money compared to any other country. Like I keep saying if everyone were to care for themselves then we would have no need to care for others. Compassion manifests itself in people who have more or in some that feel they have enough.

Government employees should be cut back upon in my oppinion and the ones that remain should be focuesed on keep secure our rights and property. That could mean all the way from military to corruption lawyers. Also if caring for the society as a whole is the best way to go explain the collapse of socialism.

geriatric1991 · Senior Member

i have one question for you about the american people? are we happy? and the answer is... no. because we are selfish.

Bonemail-(Christophe K) · Senior Member

Happiness depends on perspective and if we were all able to strive for our happiness then we would be better off then having the government tell me what happiness is.