Is Capitalism Good or Bad?

[DeletedUser2765]

Well is it?

In todays world, we can clearly see the long-term effects of little/no government intervention on capitalism, atleast in the US.

Yes, I know. Everyone had a fair chance, when it was first created. But not now. Only a few will succeed to the levels of richness that are envied by so many, but a lot will fall and never succeed. Oh yes, its everyone's own fault that they didn't get that level of success. Such as being born in a very poor household and going to school and getting a very poor education. An education I might remind, that could be completely paid for by the rich if they cared even a little -- but they don't.

Capitalism was meant to raise all boats. Today, we see only a few boats rise and so many drop. Basically, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I think a level of government intervention is needed in order to prevent the rich from getting too rich.

Thoughts?

 

[DeletedUser]

I do not like this view.
No offense, but you are taking up the, punish the rich because they are rich point of view.

I know people who go to crap schools and do very well in life, it is down to each person. If you try hard enough you can do well in life.

 

[DeletedUser]

True, but it has a point. It is harder being poorer and having a small education whereas rich'er' people could help others go to good school and get a good education helping the younger education/generation in advancing for only a little bit.. :icon_confused:

 

[DeletedUser]

I think what the world needs right now is a giant revolution, a fresh start.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with this a lot. Back in the late 1800's and early 1900's it was true capitalism. Companies could do whatever, and business was so monopolistic, new companies had no chance. Examples would be how Carnegie and Rockefeller dominated their industry. The government had to come in and intervene, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Today, there's even more rules and restrictions. But truthfully, it doesn't help. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It's not only an expression, it's true. Although, I believe the ones most affected are the middle class, since you're not poor enough to get help, and not rich enough to help yourself much.

I agree, a level of government is needed, but too much and we sway away from capitalism.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmm this is a very risky subject in my opinion... Because both sides have up and downs

But ok this is my point of view:

I think there is nothing wrong with capitalism.. but there should be a limit.

I do agree on taxes and I even can imagine the rich have to pay more tax in % then the poor. But I don't agree that the difference should be huge. Because I think alot of poor people did screw up for themselfs

That's why I think the state should finance and support all studies till like 20/21 Everyone did have the chance then to get a good eduacation and everyone should be able to life a decent life then. If people then still screw up and doing nothing it is their own fault. No big help just let them be poor. I know I sounds hard but the world is hard.. No exceptions. The hard working class shouldn't suffer from the doing nothing class.

Rypsterbull

 

[DeletedUser3667]

No. You're wrong.

In the US, we see the effects of long-term government intervention.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government organizations. They were supported by legislation. The mortgages were made purposefully and legally available to people the market would not have provided.

The economy's crash was completely based upon government intervention. It's hard to believe that anyone could actually say that "little or no government intervention" was involved in the mortgage crash with a straight face.

 

[DeletedUser]

No. You're wrong.

In the US, we see the effects of long-term government intervention.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government organizations. They were supported by legislation. The mortgages were made purposefully and legally available to people the market would not have provided.

The economy's crash was completely based upon government intervention. It's hard to believe that anyone could actually say that "little or no government intervention" was involved in the mortgage crash with a straight face.

I disagree, it wasn't because of intervention, but rather the lack of it. Major companies were allowed to do what they wanted, and end up in scandals and bankruptcy. After all, Republicans are against government intervention.

Without the government to step in, business is strictly monopolistic. There will eventually be one big bad wolf in their work. We'll end up with trusts ruling the industry, and even bribing senators and such as it was in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

 

[DeletedUser2765]

No. You're wrong.

In the US, we see the effects of long-term government intervention.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government organizations. They were supported by legislation. The mortgages were made purposefully and legally available to people the market would not have provided.

The economy's crash was completely based upon government intervention. It's hard to believe that anyone could actually say that "little or no government intervention" was involved in the mortgage crash with a straight face.

Actually, buddy. What you see today is a direct result from the government withdrawing the acts that prevented Banks from giving high interest loans out to people who could not afford them. Less government intervention is what caused this.

 

[DeletedUser3667]

Actually, buddy. What you see today is a direct result from the government withdrawing the acts that prevented Banks from giving high interest loans out to people who could not afford them. Less government intervention is what caused this.

Actually, Kriegsland, as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were government sponsored and under government oversight, and their policy of buying the extra mortgages to those low-income people who were unable to afford them, it is a direct result of government intervention. The bonds that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made out of the mortgages took away all the risk from banks from lending to low-income, high risk borrowers.

They made the costs artificially low when compared to the benefits, with the organizations they originally formed and helped to sponsor and legislate.

So, "buddy", it's more government intervention.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think a level of government intervention is needed in order to prevent the rich from getting too rich.

And then the rich ones go away and live in Dubai, Switzerland or other states with small taxes for rich people, so they would get richer and richer and we don't get theyre taxes.

I think Capitalism is good, but it must be more social. But as I say, no extra-taxes for rich people.