quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But capitalism requires a large proportion of people to remain in the lowest bracket of society - what is your answer to that?

Nonsense. It does not "require" anything. Capitalism is nothing more than freedom from force.

The capitalist system requires a certain proportion of the population to do the jobs at the bottom of society, otherwise it would not be able to opporate. You seem to suggest that everyone can achieve a good job/education but that is not true. Our societies are pyramid shaped because there is not enough high jobs for everyone to do, not only that, it is a requirement that there are enough people doing the low paid jobs.

Take MacDonalds for example. How could that company operate if it had 1000s of managers but no burger flippers?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But capitalism requires a large proportion of people to remain in the lowest bracket of society - what is your answer to that?

Thats a focked up question cause neither side of your's or his point can claim that it does not cause that "bracket"..

That's life, no one gets rewarded for being ordinary, doing an ordinary job and if the majority of people actually spent the same amount of energy and dedication they normally spend being lazy, ignorant, shirking, putting nothing back into their community and getting themselves into debt rather than earning what they want.
Instead if they actually went out of their way to set down clear life goals of what they want and working towards it, then a great many of societies ills wouldn't need the huge amount of charity and tolerance we have for life's losers that can't be bothered.

I mean by your arse backwards logic that capitalism (or rather, democracy, capitalism isn't a political party) has people at the bottom because its supposed to work that way (why?), then socialism must also have everyone at the bottom because there's nothing really to gain by doing anything above a subsistence level.
Gee, that'd be just dandy wouldn't it... everyone's equally in the crap regardless of how well or poorly they run their lives, but hey, you're the smart one with 2 pol-sci degrees so you must know what you're talking about and I'm just a dumb high school dropkick.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The capitalist system requires a certain proportion of the population to do the jobs at the bottom of society, otherwise it would not be able to opporate. You seem to suggest that everyone can achieve a good job/education but that is not true. Our societies are pyramid shaped because there is not enough high jobs for everyone to do, not only that, it is a requirement that there are enough people doing the low paid jobs. Take MacDonalds for example. How could that company operate if it had 1000s of managers but no burger flippers?

Well you said one thing correct smiley..."Our societies are pyramid-shaped". If you are referring "our" as in...the human race...then YES. Most people in the world aren't going to have the talent of Albert Einstein/Bill Gates, but this is not the fault of any system or any person (except God perhaps)

The fact that everyone can't be on "top" can hardly be used as a criticism of capitalism. It's closer to a law of physics.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Thats a focked up question cause neither side of your's or his point can claim that it does not cause that "bracket"..

If I were arguing from a communist position you'd be correct to say that, but I'm not. Capitalist is, however, arguing from a pure capitalist (libertarian) position.

My point is that elements of socislism are needed to offset the side effects capitalism has on a society. Because the capitalist system needs those people to remain in the bottom bracket (or the "lazy, ignorant, shirking" as certain members of this forum would describe them) in order to opperate, then there needs to be some kind of safety net in society to stop it falling apart. Free health care, social security, different levels of taxation etc, all help the poor (which there will always be). Without these policies, society would just fall apart because those in the bottom bracket would not stand for it and there'd just be anarchy

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith That's life, no one gets rewarded for being ordinary, doing an ordinary job and if the majority of people actually spent the same amount of energy and dedication they normally spend being lazy, ignorant, shirking, putting nothing back into their community and getting themselves into debt rather than earning what they want. Instead if they actually went out of their way to set down clear life goals of what they want and working towards it, then a great many of societies ills wouldn't need the huge amount of charity and tolerance we have for life's losers that can't be bothered.

Been reading the Daily Mail again eh?!

quote:

I mean by your arse backwards logic that capitalism (or rather, democracy, capitalism isn't a political party) has people at the bottom because its supposed to work that way (why?), then socialism must also have everyone at the bottom because there's nothing really to gain by doing anything above a subsistence level.

But I'm not arguing from a communist position. I believe the best kind of economic system is Keynesian. And don't fall into the trap of equating "capitalism" with "democracy" because the two are not only mutually exclusive, they are contradict each other

quote:

Gee, that'd be just dandy wouldn't it... everyone's equally in the crap regardless of how well or poorly they run their lives, but hey, you're the smart one with 2 pol-sci degrees so you must know what you're talking about and I'm just a dumb high school dropkick.

Erm, riiiiiight...not sure why you said that but oh well

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Well you said one thing correct smiley..."Our societies are pyramid-shaped". If you are referring "our" as in...the human race...then YES. Most people in the world aren't going to have the talent of Albert Einstein/Bill Gates, but this is not the fault of any system or any person (except God perhaps) The fact that everyone can't be on "top" can hardly be used as a criticism of capitalism. It's closer to a law of physics.

It can when you offer no security to those at the bottom. If, for whatever reason, there needs to be a huge proportion of people in the bottom bracket of society, then they need the support of the state otherwise society collapses - and that's not a good thing for you at the top...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley and that's not a good thing for you at the top...

I like how you assume I'm at the top

I actually don't make much $$. You'd probably consider me one of those poor folks who needs your help.

I live 17,000km away, haven't lived in the UK for close to 15 years and don't subscribe to any of the local rags over there or read them on the internet, so I really don't care what your tabloid press says. What I dislike is that people who have no idea outside of their own country making these wonderful assumptions that nationalisation of private property is ever a good thing when they've never seen the repercussions of such an activity by a government and it's something I feel very strongly about.

No, they bounce out of their schooling, see the 'easy' way for everyone to be happy by simply levelling the infrastructure to the point where you've got the government running everything.
It simply does not work.
It never works!
The only people who lose out in the end are still those down on the lower rungs of society anyway and this is being done by a guy who couldn't get into power legitimately in the first place and tried to do it by a military coup! Everything points to this from histories examples alone that once prosperous or at least stable countries end up being turned into nothing more than barren holes overnight.

I've got a lot of time for people who life's dealt them a bad hand and need help, but the vast majority of people who end up on that bottom rung of the economic ladder are there either just passing through gaining employment experience, making ends meet or there because that's their lot in life. It's always been like this, it's not always fair but it doesn't matter what type of government is in charge, there's always someone at the bottom.
We don't pick them up and stick them in charge of anything important 'just because' they're human beings because they simply cannot do anything more complicated. You can't blame 'Capitalism' for everything, the vast majority of people out there in developed countries in some kind of economic distress are there from their own fault. They want a big tv, an expensive car, nice house, trendy clothes, crap-ton of 12carat nasty bling jewelry and they want it now and buy it through loans they cannot afford, living beyond their means.
And when the repo comes, they blame it all on... capitalism, the bank, the government?
Capitalism, banks and governments didn't make them spend money they didn't have on depreciating junk they couldn't afford! In fact, it's most of the reason for the markets bouncing up and down like a yoyo for the last few weeks

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I like how you assume I'm at the top I actually don't make much $$. You'd probably consider me one of those poor folks who needs your help.

How does capitalism help combat crime?