seventwofour
Well-known member
Can a system that looks to push labor toward the lowest wage poles generate enough consumption to keep itself going?
I will take the OP doesn't understand economics for $200, Alex
Can a system that looks to push labor toward the lowest wage poles generate enough consumption to keep itself going?
Sailor, "pure" anything will never work until man has evolved much greater maturity and business morals.
Sailor, "pure" anything will never work until man has evolved much greater maturity and business morals.
Capitalism has evoloved. At the dawn of the industrial revelution through the early twentieth century, owners of businesss had all the power. They still have most of it, but it has evolved.
As to not being an alternative, the reality is we are living with alternatives at this time. A hybrid of capitalism and socialism exists in almost every industrialized nation.
Whether it's OSHA, the FDA and the EPA in the US or employee rules, environmental legislation and other statutes in the EU, what the world has now and will continue to have is this hybrid.
You are talking semantics with a predisposed point of view.
Your buddy bkf may say what we have is socialism with capitalism as a support.
The truth is they will be forever comingled.
You are talking semantics with a predisposed point of view.
Your buddy bkf may say what we have is socialism with capitalism as a support.
The truth is they will be forever comingled.
I didn't accuse you of being prejudiced.
I made a reasonable argument:
First I stated that "prue" capitalism was impossible to exist until man evolved.
Fine, no quibbles with this statement. But why address it to me? I have said nothing to elicit this statement. You seem to be confused. If it was just a general statement, then leave it at that and leave me out of it.
Then I showed examples of how modern industrialized societies had a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
That is true, there are socialist elements in modern capitalist societies. But the system is capitalist, and the socialist elements are secondary. Simply saying mixture and commingling is misleading because the system is based on capitalism and it is capitalism that dominates. The socialist elements are subservient.
My last statement is that the most successful countries will have a "hybrid" or "commingling" of capitalism and socialism.
The system is capitalist. Whatever other elements exist, they do so because capitalism makes it possible for them to exist. Capitalism provides the economic basis for them to exist. There is no equality between them and capitalism.
Capitalism doesn't "allow" socialism. It fights things like logical regulations.
Those elements of socialism have survived that have proven to be compatible with capitalism. Consequently, socialism exists to the extent that capitalism allows it to exist.
At no point did I say either theory was better than the other. All I've done is is put forth examples which reinforce my position.
I am not aware that anyone claimed that you did. You have provided examples but none of them have successfully challenged the reality that the system is capitalist, the other elements are secondary and subordinate. If you agree with that, why don't you just say so?
You are the one using pejorative terms like "meaningless".