@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:
Capitalism affects everyone on the planet. And the cold fact is that in terms of numbers, capitalism hurts more people than it helps.
I think this is too subjective to discuss, we dont even have an viable alternative to compare to. Its like saying that the human incapacity of breathing underwater hurts more people than it helps (Assuming that being able to breath underwater would incur in biologic costs, such as maybe less overall pulmonar capacity).
Cyracuz wrote:
Actually I think that the only people who could make communism work would be capitalists. The only goal they need to change is "make profit for yourself" to "make profit for everyone", and capitalism would be flawless communism.
If being selfless was that easy wars and povery would be a thing of the past. Actually, they would probaly never have existed =)
cicerone imposter wrote:
A good education and working hard are necessary components for economic success. Our educational system is now failing us, because they teach to pass standardized tests at the sacrifice of creativity and innovation. It's a fact that not all children learn at the same pace nor have the same interests. Standardized tests fails them all.
I agree. Except for the part of the hard work, I think you can avoid hard work with a sufficiently good idea. But, off course, hard work will multiply the results of the sufficiently good idea.
Cyracuz wrote:
Capitalism is as merciless as nature itself, and for it to succeed as a fair system it has to be used with responsibility and integrity. As it is now capitalism is a means to bypass every moral obligation nature has bred into us and behave like predators among our own kind without rebuke.
I wouldnt go that far, its regulated quite a lot as far as I can tell. At least, in my country, there are so many and incovenient larbor laws that you fell sorry for the employer, not the employee =)
Cyracuz wrote:
Can we conclude that in sheer scale capitalism rapes more people than communism ever has?
To argue against communism that it has too much liability to be abused by a ruling elite to ever function and then point to capitalism as the better alternative is an inconsistency I have problems rationalizing.
Communism didnt have as much opportunities. Besides, at least in capitalism everyone sees the ruling elite is there. In communism they try to hide it.
Thinking about it, it feels as though that the problem behind capitalism may be that there is little to none regulation on how much a single person may own. I mean, in order to be considered a successful system capitalism must spare to all human beings enough resources to at least live. However, that means that each human being must have a maximum limit based on how many resources are avaible and human beings are present. Nowadays there are almost no such limits, or they are set too high. I mean, it probaly wouldnt take too many Bill Gates to starve the rest of the world to death.
I think strategy games are a good analogy for this. In then, defeating your enemy usually translates into conquering more resources and thus gaining more resources to defeat your enemy even more. This eventually leads to the game's end where one side wins. But, in real life, we dont want the game to "end". We want it to last forever, so there must be a system that prevent any team from conquering too many resources.
I think the simplest solution is to simply put heavy taxes on the rich, what is already done, but maybe not enough =)
Or maybe that money, which goes to the government, is not properly spent afterwards.
