Capitalism, can it work?

Tools    





Personally,I don't think that capitalism or communism or any other ideology can ever work.As time passes,ideologies change as well as art,human values,priorities etc. Humanity just doesn't stay still.
__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."



It also has nothing to do with capitalism, because that has to do with the role of government influencing the system.
Yeah. Isn't this what I just said?

Democracy and capitalism are separate, but democracy is how reforms were introduced into the free market system that prevented the potential workers revolution Marx predicted. It was in autocratic societies like Russia, which did not allow reform, where revolutions happened.
Possibly, but that's a separate matter. What I said was that capitalism increases all standards of living. Whether or not there is some kind of social upheaval or resentment (though I notice the people who make this case are always the ones stirring up this resentment, making it self-fulfilling) is a completely separate question. That link is interesting, and about many things, but most of it has nothing to do with capitalism, and to the degree that it does it shows average worker wages more than doubling, anyway.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
Haven't read the entire thread, but Capitalism does work. is working. Whats the debate about exactly?

Cliffs please.
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.



Whether Communism would work or not. Different views on whether it wouldn't or would. I think it would if not corrupt, but that is how authoritarianism starts. Communism.

Sorry Capitalism....wrong thread :S



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
Whether Communism would work or not. Different views on whether it wouldn't or would. I think it would if not corrupt, but that is how authoritarianism starts. Communism.
oh. i went by the title.

anyways, Communism can never be sustained. Not in a huge country anyway, In a small community, sure, for a time. Greed will kick in eventually though.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Haven't read the entire thread, but Capitalism does work. is working. Whats the debate about exactly?

Cliffs please.
We don't have pure capitalism here or in Canada.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Even if wages went up it doesn't follow necessarily the standard of living improved, if costs went up as well. Conditons for workers were pretty terrible in the 19th century and they were still far below what was defined than as an acceptable standard of living.



Even if wages went up it doesn't follow necessarily the standard of living improved, if costs went up as well.
The chart in question depicted real wages, which take inflation into account and is generally considered a very good barometer of increased wealth.

You also might remember that this discussion started with me asking you for evidence. Now we've negotiated that all the way down to you saying your own link doesn't necessarily prove the opposite of what you initially said. True enough, but that still leaves you with a claim and me asking for evidence of it. The only evidence you've provided so far points the other way.

Conditons for workers were pretty terrible in the 19th century and they were still far below what was defined than as an acceptable standard of living.
Based on what? You can just assume I'm going to say those three words any time something like this is asserted.

Also, the question is not whether or not they were "pretty terrible" compared to today (they were) or whether or not people found them "acceptable" at the time (quantified how?). The question is--and has been this entire time--whether or not they were better than they were in 1800.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Based on what I already posted;

As late as the year 1900, most industrial workers in the United States still worked a 10-hour day (12 hours in the steel industry), yet earned from 20 to 40 percent less than the minimum deemed necessary for a decent life.



And based on what I already posted in response to that:

The source (I checked it; it's just the same text, verbatim, with no source beyond that) doesn't describe what a "decent life" is, but I'll bet it's ultimately a modern reference, not an historical one. Which would be irrelevant: the question is whether the standard of living improved from 1800 to 1900, not whether or not that standard is way better today than it was then. Naturally, it is.
You offer no point of comparison whatsoever. The only one you did offer implied the opposite of what you were saying.

It's pretty goofy that you've now posted seven times since I asked you for evidence and you still haven't provided any. Particularly given that you interjected the claim into something I said to someone else. Enough running around in circles; if you can't be bothered to substantiate things, don't say 'em.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
paints him as a man with a deep-seated hatred of trade unions.



In 1883, Standiford claims Carnegie used a drop in steel prices to argue with the Knights of Labour and the Amalgamated Iron and Steel Workers at his Edgar Thompson Works in Braddock, Pennsylvania, for a 20% cut in wages.



The alternative was that the plant would be shut down and the men locked out. The workers capitulated. But three years later the plant was shut down by Carnegie 10 days before Christmas when he discovered one of his rivals had achieved a cut in wages of between 15% and 20%.



Standiford said: "Carnegie had his plant manager post a notice that the works would close for an indefinite period and that 1,600 men would be put out of work with the stated reason being plant renovation. But Carnegie had resolved that the real purpose was to drive out the unions, only non-union men would be rehired when they reopened the plant.



"By February of 1885, with the men facing starvation and freezing temperatures and no money to buy food or coal, they agreed to come back in under individual contracts, their wages decreased by up to 33%. The union was crushed forever at the plant."



paints him as a man with a deep-seated hatred of trade unions.



In 1883, Standiford claims Carnegie used a drop in steel prices to argue with the Knights of Labour and the Amalgamated Iron and Steel Workers at his Edgar Thompson Works in Braddock, Pennsylvania, for a 20% cut in wages.



The alternative was that the plant would be shut down and the men locked out. The workers capitulated. But three years later the plant was shut down by Carnegie 10 days before Christmas when he discovered one of his rivals had achieved a cut in wages of between 15% and 20%.



Standiford said: "Carnegie had his plant manager post a notice that the works would close for an indefinite period and that 1,600 men would be put out of work with the stated reason being plant renovation. But Carnegie had resolved that the real purpose was to drive out the unions, only non-union men would be rehired when they reopened the plant.



"By February of 1885, with the men facing starvation and freezing temperatures and no money to buy food or coal, they agreed to come back in under individual contracts, their wages decreased by up to 33%. The union was crushed forever at the plant."
Yeah, I live in Braddock, Pennsylvania, so I'm aware of this. People were fired and some became destitute. Why you think it has anything to do with what you said, I have no idea.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Pure capitalism doesn't work, what the right wingers yell about is not a realistic model. Or the libertarian model. You need government regulation.



Nobody has ever had "pure" capitalism, and I wasn't arguing for it.

You've now posted nine times without substantiating your claim. Time to stop talking, chief.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Yeah, I live in Braddock, Pennsylvania, so I'm aware of this. People were fired and some became destitute. Why you think it has anything to do with what you said, I have no idea.
Well, the standard of living certainly didn't keep going up for those steel workers. A one-third pay cut isn't chump change.



And the standard of living doesn't go up for lots of sub-groups and specific people even with substantial regulation. Citing this as evidence makes as much sense as me pointing to some other random group of workers that thrived.

By this ridiculous logic, nothing ever makes the standard of living go up, because there's always been someone for who it hasn't been true, for a variety of reasons. And this is without even getting into the relationship between income and costs, which you invoke in one direction and ignore in the other.

This is some straight up terrible arguing.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
We are talking about all power being in the hands of management to dictate terms. So do you think when steel prices went up Carnegie automatically raised worker's wages? Legislation created a more balanced playing field.