DarthSkywalker0
The Insane Jedi Master
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Common sense? You're highlighting one side of capitalism and contrasting with one side of Marxism. Yes, capitalism allows for people to do better, but without any checks, those who succeed would simply perform what would continue to make them most money which would inevitably involve reducing the quality of life and destroying any opportunity for betterment for the masses that would be forced to be subservient.We don't know what a full blown free market would like because we've never had one, likely because such a form of government isn't remotely viable. What we have are examples of where there was little regulation, and those examples featured a massive working class systematically confined to perpetually suffer in terrible conditions. In a full blown capitalist society the only thing buisnesses, who would wield all the instutional power would be motivated to do is pay workers enough money that they can survive and continue working for them in the worst of conditions. There would be no choice for workers as this would be the only available means of survival. In a sense, it would be legal slavery. The people would lives short lives and die leaving their children to do the same. It's still genocide, but carried over a very sustained period of time.
Herein lies a level of ignorance that is worth debunking. I think the first point that you said that I found fallacious was the idea that a capitalist society results in a worse standard of living. I think the best metric to assess the standard of living is purchasing power of one's dollar. For those who don't know what purchasing power is let me explain. Purchasing power is the amount you can buy for an individual dollar. So a high purchasing power means you can buy more objects with less cost to the individual. So let's analyze purchasing power during the industrial revolution. Throughout the United States during the 20th century, the purchasing power of the poorest increased by about 1,900% LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN: 1,900%. I thought capitalism made it more difficult for the poorest to live. Perhaps another metric which is worth mentioning is the average income generated by the free market. Between 1900 and 1990, the growth in real (inflation-adjusted) income-generated by the free market—was enormous: Real income in 1990 was 15 times greater than it was in 1900. Actual per capita income was over four and one-half times greater in 1990 than in 1900.
Real earnings were almost four times greater in 1990 than in 1900. But statistics on actual earnings mask significant changes in work hours, and the way workers are compensated. In 1900 nonfarm workers toiled 60 hours a week; by 1990 they worked 39.3 hours a week, a decrease of over one-third. Moreover, in 1900 workers received almost all of their compensation in wages; by 1990 workers received nonwage benefits accounting for almost 40 percent of their total compensation. That means an hour of work in 1990 paid well over eight times what it did in 1900.
Another metric we can use to assess the standard of living is poverty rates and income mobility. In 1900, the poverty rate was 56%. This number was rapidly falling due to capitalism. By the time it was 1967 this percentage had dropped to 13%. 56% of Americans at one time or another are in the top 10% of income owners at one time in their lives. The bottom 20% from the years of 1996 to 2005 had nearly doubled their income, and the top 20% saw their profits fall by 26%. The bottom 10% in the least capitalistic countries are earning about a 1000 dollars per annum. Where in the most capitalist countries the bottom 10% of 11,000 dollars a year. If you measure income inequality using the genie coefficient, there is less inequality in the most economically free then the least economically free. In 1800 the world income was about 3 dollars a day now 33 dollars a day. There are many many more statistics we can look at including the cost of product juxtaposed to income and comparative figures when looking at countries, but I think this should suffice to counter your first claim. You also said we have never seen a full-blown free market society. This is half-true in the sense that there have been no anarcho-capitalist societies. I would say the industrial revolution is a decent example of a nigh full free market society. Liechtenstein, UAE, and Hong Kong are each quite free market. I also think it's worth noting that each of those countries has an incredibly high GDP per capita. Another claim you made was that the working class suffered terrible conditions. I think you are a great example of someone utterly brainwashed by the school system. Let us look at life expectancy in capitalist societies and compare it to non-capitalist societies and see if your logic stands strong. According to the James C. Riley (2005) – Estimates of Regional and Global Life Expectancy, 1800–2001. Issue Population and Development Review. Population and Development Review. Volume 31, Issue 3, pages 537–543, September 2005., the global average life expectancy in 1870 was 29.7 years. The life expectancy in Europe was 36.2, in Oceana it was 34.7, in Soviet Russia it was below 30, and in the United States, it was 40. I picked 1870 as this was a year of rampant capitalism and while it is not fair to say the United States's results are due to capitalism it certainly does show that capitalism is not to blame. Let's look at a more recent example, shall we? So many like to criticize the United States, healthcare system due to our abysmal life expectancy results. What this does not take into is the fact that we have extraordinarily high accident rates which result in a skewed metric. When we account for fatal injuries the United States has the highest life expectancy out of all of the OCED countries.
At this point specifically, we had a more capitalist healthcare system. I also could look at less economically free countries and analyze the life expectancies, but I hope you realize the error of your ways so I do not have to do that. To call capitalism genocide is a claim that is backed by ZERO evidence.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Actually, we have seen capitalism taken to the absolute extreme:Slavery
Slavery is as capitalist as a society can possibly go.
Kbro why do you have to say such retarded things. The idea that capitalism is responsible for slavery is clinical proof that you need a brain transplant. Let us analyze this claim, shall we? The great economist Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent book where he discusses the history of slavery. The book is called Intellectuals and Race I recommend you check it out. Millions of people around the world were slaves. There were more slaves in India than in the entire Western Hemisphere. India at this point was a far cry from a capitalist country. China, which was also was not capitalist, had far more slaves the United States. In fact, the word slave comes from slave because many of the Slavic people were captured during the medieval times. I am saying this to illustrate that slavery is not something unique to capitalist societies. The reason that slavery continued to thrive in the old world was that very few people pre the 1800's viewed it as morally objectionable. In fact, the only reason that slavery thrived in the America's for so long, was due to laws that prohibited slave owners from teaching their slaves to read and write. This kept the slaves docile so they would not revolt. Government intervention does not seem like capitalism to me. What I also find funny is that North was more capitalist than the South yet they had next to no slavery. The real reason that slavery existed so long was due to societal condonation and laws preventing slaves from reading and writing. Another thing that is worth noting is the lack of economic value in slavery. I think most people would agree that people work better with incentives rather than negative consequences. This is why the standard of living grew faster without slavery then with it. To conclude, the main reason that slavery lasted for so long was due to people condoning it, laws interposed to prevent freedom, and lack of understanding of economic theory. I do not think amazon would have a boost in profits if people found out that they whipped their workers and enslaved their workers. So Kbro for the love of God please do not keep talking about politics.