What exactly do you think 'capitalism' means? The word is undefined except as Karl Marx used it as a strawman so he could compare his theory of socialism to it. The only sensible definition is "the way we do things in the west."
Some people thing 'capitalism' is a synonym for 'free market', but there is nothing free about capitalism, and free market is banned every time it is discovered.
Capitalism typically refers to an economic system that advocates (to some degree) these ideas:
1) private or collective ownership as opposed to government ownership
2) laissez faire or limiting the regulations governments apply to businesses, letting the market determine how large business grow, to what extent they consume natural resources, and how much pollution they generate
3) caveat emptor or limiting consumer protections by letting the market determine which products are safe and which are merchantable.
It assumes that consumers will make wise purchasing decisions based on product quality, that they will consider manufactures behavior toward its employees and the environment, and will naturally shy away from products that are harmful and merchants who exhibit poor citizenship. (Hint: they don't).
For the math of capitalism to work a substantial percentage of the population must remain below the poverty level and merchants must prioritize profits over people.
I would just like to add that it also assumes consumers have access to the data needed to make informed purchasing decisions. When left to their own devices, industries have concealed and/or obfuscated the dangers of their products in order to sell them. For instance, millions of children were chronically or acutely exposed to lead.. decades after the industry knew of the health risks.
Without regulation, this is how we should expect corporations to behave. For them to behave otherwise would be counter to our exalted profit motive.
Vic, I spent a long time looking up definitions of capitalism. They are all made up by somebody. Eventually you get back to Karl Marx. He did not invent the word, he was the one who spread it around a lot, and even he never bothered to explain what he thought it should mean.
Capital is defined in economics as "tools of production". Since westerners borrow to buy tools, the loan came to be called a capital loan. Eventually the word was extended to mean any available funds. The "ism" form was never defined, everybody just assumed everybody knew what it meant.
Does not really matter what the real definition is. Every one knows it means the government is supposed to stay out of the way and that it means decisions are made to optimize profit in the short term.
That's exactly what our financial system amounts to and it's precisely why we shouldn't impose economic policies to "protect" society... It only eliminates their true competition: payday loans, title loads and other businesses that provide immediate access to cash.
And there is a real push to destroy such businesses and by extension, eliminate any access to immediate cash-flow for those at the bottom of society.
But at least people know what they're getting with predatory capitalists, the same cannot be said for politicians claiming they want to protect society from economic vultures when all they're really doing is destroying the ability of the lowest earners to get guaranteed cash when they need it the most.
Some economic policies protect folks from working in unsafe conditions, living alongside industrial waste, prevent corporations from using cheap child labor, etc..
Are these some of the protections you believe should be lessened?
There is a difference between criminal negligence (which is itself an act of force) and competition. A great many regulations serve one purpose only, to weed out competitors who can't afford a six digit licensing / permitting fee and an army of lawyers. Just ask Uber.
VicZinc loves communism!! That's okay...VZ...we'll still love you....
Good points but I am not ardent about anything other than that capitalism puts profit over people - not a judgement just an observation.
Communism limits success to what is allowed by government.
Who's talking about communism?
Me! I just mentioned it in my comment.
Okey dokey smokey.
Capitalism encourages human progress and technological advancements (which permit the people with good intentions and ambition to attempt to succeed) Socialism/Communism limits human progress to equality for everyone to the same low standard (except for the technology they copy from capitalists)
Does not change the truth value of this post.
Tell that to the person whose transmission goes out and needs an immediate grand so they can continue to pay their bills and live their life by commuting to work. To them a payday loan or title loan place is a godsend.
Legislators who claim they're "protecting" these people from hawkish practices by forcing the person to go to a bank that will ultimately deny them are really just insuring their subservience to the govt. when they lose their job and can no longer provide for their family.
Loan smoan. Everyone chip in and fix the damn tranny
Yes, every person has the parts to fix a transmission, every person (like a single mom with one vehicle) has the knowledge to do the job correctly, the time to take off work, the guarantee the job is done safely, or that they'll have a job to commute to when the vehicle is repaired, or the ability to rent a vehicle to use to work, take their kids back and forth to school and continue on with their life in the absence of their own.
Frankly I'm disappointed at you Vic, you're usually more compassionate that this. There are a great many people who depend on the very practices you deride even at their most predatory. For many, this is the only option they have. They don't choose it because they're stupid or naive, but because it's preferable or in some cases their only option.
That's the perk of voluntary exchange - all parties benefit in some way, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
To deny the lowest earners in society the prospect of immediate cash-flow because you think they're incapable of making their own sound business decisions or because you want to protect them from having access to cash when they need it most is to support the very position you purport to oppose.
I am disappointed in you. I am rolling up my sleeves to fix this lady's car and you're trying to convince her that a predatory loan is better than you working the jack and handing me that spanner.
I was that lady, believe me, I wish I'd had someone to help out. It's yet another platitude Vic, to suggest that everyone has that luxury is beyond shortsighted. And if I were to submit the same to you as it respects health-care, you'd be rightly appalled.
I borrowed only what I needed and paid it all off as soon as possible. Does everyone do that? Probably not. Is that sufficient reason for eliminating it, no indeed.
No one is forced to take out a loan of any kind, but I personally am in favor of expanding the options of low income earners, not limiting them.
Fair enough but I am not sure how you got here from this post?
"subordinate... to profitable conditions"
One person's profitable conditions are another person's golden opportunity.
We are individuals in uniquely individual situations with individual needs and no "one size fits all" set of economic protections will ever come even remotely close to providing the far-reaching opportunities that a free market can, no matter how well intended. Those opportunities are the only thing standing between us and overt slavery.
Profit before people.
Like it or not, that's what it is. Not a judgement just an observation.
Resources are required in order to do for anyone. That isn't an economic observation, it's a fact.
I can't feed, clothe, house or provide care of any sort to anyone without first accumulating the resources to do so. You call that profit, I call it a means to an end.
Why, are you feeling judged?
Profit is very useful. And if you put it ahead of people you can prosper in a free market economy, and if you don't - you can't. Period.
No, I'm not feeling judged, what you're suggesting is pure nonsense. Some become immensely wealthy purely by accident Vic. Some through inheritance. Some hit the lottery. Some, believe it or not, actually earn wealth.
You're ignoring outcomes that conflict with your ideological position.
don't know what you mean but vic always wants a lazy person to get something for nothing so i dissagree on that basis.
No idea what you are talking about.