<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Mockingbird</b></i>
Okay, the capitalist system is primarily based on Adam's Smith's theory of economics developed around 1775. He believed freedom was vital to the survival of any economy, especially the freedom to own land or property or the freedom to keep profits from a business. He believed people will work hard as long as they have incentives fro doing so; incentives such as higher pay or promotion. Adam Smith believed when business owners are free to work for their own prosperity and growth, they will also inadvertently help society around them. For example, when a business works hard to expand in order to create more profit, it will also create more jobs. Additionally, people have the freedoms to choose where they want to work and what they want to buy. Therefore, a business which is corrupt will be rejected by the people and will ultimately fail on its own. </end quote></div>
I know about Adam Smith, and yes, you are right, people do have the choice to work, but like at Wal-mart, people complain all the time, and I hear, "Yea but walmart didn't come to you for the job, you came to walmart." That is very true, but there are many circumstances where people really have no other choice due to location, (If they don't drive, and walmarts the only place that pays a livable wage within walking distance or a bus route) so if they would choose not to work there, which they can, but this economy is in shambles and its very hard to find a decent job nowadays, so there really is no choice IF they have a family to support. Capitalism is an atrocious, hoarding semi system. The USA is the wealthiest country in the world, right? The richest 2% combined net worth is equal to the other 98%'s net worth. Appalling poverty exists alongside concentrated wealth. Now the FED can print billions of dollars, as seen by the bailout, so how hard would it be to lift the countries poor out of poverty? We can spend billions on a misguided war, but cannot lift a finger to eliminate hunger and disease. Why do you think that is? What's goin on? Surely, it is not beyond the capabilities of the world's largest superpower to eradicate all poverty, as food surely exists to feed everyone. Ahh, the beauty of a system which you seem to champion. Do you think people like John McCain deserves better healthcare or a life saving treatment more than you? Capitalism encompasses a small amount of people that employ an even larger amount of people who actually do the work which makes the small amount rich. The fact is the riches of the small amount would not exist if not for the labor of the many. Now those who choose to work get paid a wage, but usually drastically less then the work they do. The small amount of people get to pocket whats left over after they pay their employees. We are told time and time again that this is fair, but the truth is, there's nothing fair about it. The fact is that the small amount who employ people take all the fruits from the large majority's labor. For instance, the employers have a plethora of ways to stifle wages, but there's no cap on their profits. Capitalism is based on structured theft, and the rape of the working class. You might say that people like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates are lucky, and sure there are a few exceptions, but most wealthy elite rely on a system that is designed to act as a reverse robin-hood; stealing from the poor, while giving to the rich. Now on paper, the capitalist system sounds pretty strong, you know the law of supply and demand. I think Smith's basic theory entails that capitalists control what and how everything is made, but they decide these things based on what and how much people buy. So in turn, us shoppers use our money as kind of a "vote" if you will, and capitalists contest eachother to provide the goods that shoppers vote for. But what if one doesn't have any money, what then? Why then you lose your right to "vote" and capitalists won't make anything that you want. Now in order for the free market to work fairly, there would have to be an equal distribution of money to "vote" with, which is basically what Obama proposes. But in this system, the wealthy have more money than anyone else, so capitalists put a stronger priority on making goods that those people like, since money is the driving factor.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>These are the fundamentals of our economy which we believe are strong. You can disagree if you want, but you've got over 200 years of history proving you wrong.</end quote></div>
History of bloodshed, depression, and war. Throughout history we have always had wealthy people and poor people, but the only difference now is that we have the resources to eradicate all poverty. IMO redistribution of wealth will go a long way to rectifying the economic crisis we are in. Now I'm not talking total socialist redistribution, just giving a little more bread crumbs to the working class.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Also, the things you listed, <div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The dollar is low, more and more jobs are being shipped overseas, more homes are foreclosing, and some college-educated are finding their having to settle for jobs at Burger King.</end quote></div> are not fundamentals of the economy. These things do not cause the economy to fall, but rather they are the result of the <b>natural</b> rise and fall of the economy. These rises and falls which happen in <b>every</b> economy are called business cycles. Economist Joeseph Schumpeter identified four phases of long-term business cycles:
1. An economic boom in which business is booming
2. A recession, which is two or more consecutive quarters of decline in the gross domestic product (total value of goods and services) (This results in devaluing of the dollar, failure of businesses, high unemployment rates, etc. Not caused by-- results in)
3. A depression, which is a severe recession usually accompanied by deflation (Business cycles rarely go through a depression phase)
4. A recovery, in which the economy stabilizes and starts to grow, eventually leading to an economic boom again.
So, that's why McCain and Bush say the fundamentals of our economy are strong. They never said we wouldn't have recessions or crises, because every economy has recession no matter how strong its fundamentals are. As McCain might say, "Senator Obama clearly doesn't understand the US economy."</end quote></div>
Logic and rational only dictate that if you place money into the hands of people that otherwise wouldn't have money, (wealth redistribution) that they are going to spend it, ergo aid the economy. Now I listed what I think are the basic fundamentals (How many Americans are in debt, how many are employed, how much is their capital worth, and can they secure food and shelter) I am brutally disenfranchised and utterly shocked that you disagree with those principals I laid out.
Okay, the capitalist system is primarily based on Adam's Smith's theory of economics developed around 1775. He believed freedom was vital to the survival of any economy, especially the freedom to own land or property or the freedom to keep profits from a business. He believed people will work hard as long as they have incentives fro doing so; incentives such as higher pay or promotion. Adam Smith believed when business owners are free to work for their own prosperity and growth, they will also inadvertently help society around them. For example, when a business works hard to expand in order to create more profit, it will also create more jobs. Additionally, people have the freedoms to choose where they want to work and what they want to buy. Therefore, a business which is corrupt will be rejected by the people and will ultimately fail on its own. </end quote></div>
I know about Adam Smith, and yes, you are right, people do have the choice to work, but like at Wal-mart, people complain all the time, and I hear, "Yea but walmart didn't come to you for the job, you came to walmart." That is very true, but there are many circumstances where people really have no other choice due to location, (If they don't drive, and walmarts the only place that pays a livable wage within walking distance or a bus route) so if they would choose not to work there, which they can, but this economy is in shambles and its very hard to find a decent job nowadays, so there really is no choice IF they have a family to support. Capitalism is an atrocious, hoarding semi system. The USA is the wealthiest country in the world, right? The richest 2% combined net worth is equal to the other 98%'s net worth. Appalling poverty exists alongside concentrated wealth. Now the FED can print billions of dollars, as seen by the bailout, so how hard would it be to lift the countries poor out of poverty? We can spend billions on a misguided war, but cannot lift a finger to eliminate hunger and disease. Why do you think that is? What's goin on? Surely, it is not beyond the capabilities of the world's largest superpower to eradicate all poverty, as food surely exists to feed everyone. Ahh, the beauty of a system which you seem to champion. Do you think people like John McCain deserves better healthcare or a life saving treatment more than you? Capitalism encompasses a small amount of people that employ an even larger amount of people who actually do the work which makes the small amount rich. The fact is the riches of the small amount would not exist if not for the labor of the many. Now those who choose to work get paid a wage, but usually drastically less then the work they do. The small amount of people get to pocket whats left over after they pay their employees. We are told time and time again that this is fair, but the truth is, there's nothing fair about it. The fact is that the small amount who employ people take all the fruits from the large majority's labor. For instance, the employers have a plethora of ways to stifle wages, but there's no cap on their profits. Capitalism is based on structured theft, and the rape of the working class. You might say that people like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates are lucky, and sure there are a few exceptions, but most wealthy elite rely on a system that is designed to act as a reverse robin-hood; stealing from the poor, while giving to the rich. Now on paper, the capitalist system sounds pretty strong, you know the law of supply and demand. I think Smith's basic theory entails that capitalists control what and how everything is made, but they decide these things based on what and how much people buy. So in turn, us shoppers use our money as kind of a "vote" if you will, and capitalists contest eachother to provide the goods that shoppers vote for. But what if one doesn't have any money, what then? Why then you lose your right to "vote" and capitalists won't make anything that you want. Now in order for the free market to work fairly, there would have to be an equal distribution of money to "vote" with, which is basically what Obama proposes. But in this system, the wealthy have more money than anyone else, so capitalists put a stronger priority on making goods that those people like, since money is the driving factor.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>These are the fundamentals of our economy which we believe are strong. You can disagree if you want, but you've got over 200 years of history proving you wrong.</end quote></div>
History of bloodshed, depression, and war. Throughout history we have always had wealthy people and poor people, but the only difference now is that we have the resources to eradicate all poverty. IMO redistribution of wealth will go a long way to rectifying the economic crisis we are in. Now I'm not talking total socialist redistribution, just giving a little more bread crumbs to the working class.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Also, the things you listed, <div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The dollar is low, more and more jobs are being shipped overseas, more homes are foreclosing, and some college-educated are finding their having to settle for jobs at Burger King.</end quote></div> are not fundamentals of the economy. These things do not cause the economy to fall, but rather they are the result of the <b>natural</b> rise and fall of the economy. These rises and falls which happen in <b>every</b> economy are called business cycles. Economist Joeseph Schumpeter identified four phases of long-term business cycles:
1. An economic boom in which business is booming
2. A recession, which is two or more consecutive quarters of decline in the gross domestic product (total value of goods and services) (This results in devaluing of the dollar, failure of businesses, high unemployment rates, etc. Not caused by-- results in)
3. A depression, which is a severe recession usually accompanied by deflation (Business cycles rarely go through a depression phase)
4. A recovery, in which the economy stabilizes and starts to grow, eventually leading to an economic boom again.
So, that's why McCain and Bush say the fundamentals of our economy are strong. They never said we wouldn't have recessions or crises, because every economy has recession no matter how strong its fundamentals are. As McCain might say, "Senator Obama clearly doesn't understand the US economy."</end quote></div>
Logic and rational only dictate that if you place money into the hands of people that otherwise wouldn't have money, (wealth redistribution) that they are going to spend it, ergo aid the economy. Now I listed what I think are the basic fundamentals (How many Americans are in debt, how many are employed, how much is their capital worth, and can they secure food and shelter) I am brutally disenfranchised and utterly shocked that you disagree with those principals I laid out.