This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
swirlie · 31-35, F
Capitalism is a theory. It is not a true state of affairs. The problem with Capitalism is that the premise that someone must lose in order for someone else to gain is what lies at the heart of the Capitalistic theory. That is why 'true Capitalism' does not work. It doesn't work because it's own theory of evolution runs contrary to how the universe itself actually functions.
In the universe, there is plenty for everyone. No one ever loses for the benefit of others. All players benefit equally because there is SO much to go around. Hoarding assets therefore, is purely an act of ego in a Capitalistic society.
In the universe, there is plenty for everyone. No one ever loses for the benefit of others. All players benefit equally because there is SO much to go around. Hoarding assets therefore, is purely an act of ego in a Capitalistic society.
cultofaction · 26-30, M
@swirlie [quote]the premise that someone must lose in order for someone else to gain is what lies at the heart of the Capitalistic theory[/quote]
No. Free markets are all about benefitting everyone through commerce. It's socialism that is zero-sum. They believe that the poor are poor because the wealthy have stolen from them.
No. Free markets are all about benefitting everyone through commerce. It's socialism that is zero-sum. They believe that the poor are poor because the wealthy have stolen from them.
swirlie · 31-35, F
@cultofaction
Capitalism cannot benefit everyone through commerce. That is not how the Stock Market functions. That is not how Mutual Funds function. We are not talking about zero-sum here... we are talking about nobody losing, which Capitalism does not support nor does it guarantee.
Capitalism cannot benefit everyone through commerce. That is not how the Stock Market functions. That is not how Mutual Funds function. We are not talking about zero-sum here... we are talking about nobody losing, which Capitalism does not support nor does it guarantee.
cultofaction · 26-30, M
@swirlie No, it does, and I'll give you an example!
Let's say we have two countries, A and B. Country A can produce five units of lumber per capita and B can only produce two. Country A can produce ten units of wheat per capita and B can only produce two.
Country A seems like they have nothing to gain from B, yes? Here's the beauty of free trade: even though A does everything better than B, they can still both benefit through trade.
Let's say that each country has ten people, so each year if they both split their population equally among the two resources (five generating wheat and five generating lumber in each country). Country A would end up with 5*5=25 units of lumber and 5*10=50 units of wheat. Country B would end up with 5*2=10 units of lumber and 5*2=10 units of wheat.
Country A
5*5=25 lumber
5*10=50 wheat
Country B
5*2=10 lumber
5*2=10 wheat
But what if country A did more of what they're good at, and country B did more of the opposite? Let's say country A has six people generate wheat and four people generate lumber, and country B has nine people generate lumber and one generate wheat. This gives us:
Country A
4*5=20 lumber
6*10=60 wheat
Country B
9*2=18 lumber
1*2=2 wheat
And suppose that they exchange 3 wheat for 2 lumber. At the end, you might have country A with 26 lumber and 51 wheat and country B with 12 lumber and 11 wheat.
[b]Notice how everyone stood to gain.[/b] This is the benefit of capitalism. Genuine free trade brings everyone up. We don't see that in the real world anymore, unfortunately.
Let's say we have two countries, A and B. Country A can produce five units of lumber per capita and B can only produce two. Country A can produce ten units of wheat per capita and B can only produce two.
Country A seems like they have nothing to gain from B, yes? Here's the beauty of free trade: even though A does everything better than B, they can still both benefit through trade.
Let's say that each country has ten people, so each year if they both split their population equally among the two resources (five generating wheat and five generating lumber in each country). Country A would end up with 5*5=25 units of lumber and 5*10=50 units of wheat. Country B would end up with 5*2=10 units of lumber and 5*2=10 units of wheat.
Country A
5*5=25 lumber
5*10=50 wheat
Country B
5*2=10 lumber
5*2=10 wheat
But what if country A did more of what they're good at, and country B did more of the opposite? Let's say country A has six people generate wheat and four people generate lumber, and country B has nine people generate lumber and one generate wheat. This gives us:
Country A
4*5=20 lumber
6*10=60 wheat
Country B
9*2=18 lumber
1*2=2 wheat
And suppose that they exchange 3 wheat for 2 lumber. At the end, you might have country A with 26 lumber and 51 wheat and country B with 12 lumber and 11 wheat.
[b]Notice how everyone stood to gain.[/b] This is the benefit of capitalism. Genuine free trade brings everyone up. We don't see that in the real world anymore, unfortunately.