Communism

[draighox]

No it doesn't. It promotes the production of cheap goods. Yes, you occassionally get a company that tries to promote it's goods as being 'expensive but good quality', but, more often than not, that company simply doesn't stay in business. Of the ones that do, you will find that even they, somewhere along the line, have compromised quality for decreased cost.

And if everybody is producing cheap poor quality goods, how do you stand out from the mass, how do you compete with them? By making expensive but good quality goods. There's always someone who will buy them.

 

But to get back to capitalism being the best thing we have; given free rein most capitalistic societies move towards domination by a small number of monopolistic corporations. These do not promote competition but stifle it, often deliberately and in ways that are all but illegal. Think of Sony, Microsoft, Smithklein Beecham etc. This trend is becoming global as we all know. Thus I dispute the reasoning behind any assertion that capitalism is a torch bearer for competition.

That's why raw, complete capitalism isn't good. We have to prevent this from happening by making certain laws. I believe, they are already made.

[Zmid]

White Wolf, I am not sure feeding the starving alone is enough to help.  It is a short term expedient but for the developed nations to help they need to address the underlying problems be they political or geographical.  Therefore it would not be a good move for the overproduction simply to be offloaded even were the producers to be subidised for their trouble.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is true - if you continue to think in terms of 'us and them'. If humanity matured enough for universal co-operation to be workable, everyone would be 'us' and there would be no 'them'. As such, it wouldn't be a case of 'us' helping out 'them', it would be a case of 'us' helping out ourselves.

 

Of course, the other point is that you would only need to subsidise the producers because otherwise they would lose out on profits - which would be irrelevant if capitalism did not hold sway.

 

And if everybody is producing cheap poor quality goods, how do you stand out from the mass, how do you compete with them? By making expensive but good quality goods. There's always someone who will buy them.

 

And how many companies would take the risk that enough people will buy them to make it worth their while to produce them? Not many. Of the ones that do, the majority generally find it wasn't worth the risk, and, of the ones that successfully make a profit, almost all find that they simply cannot put quality as the number one concern. Why? It's too expensive.

[KzinistZerg]

...Really now?

 

My dad is a part of a small business (co-creator, actually) that does ostomy kits. You may not know what they are- but it's a thing you have to use when you get a specific operation. Because most of them were very hard to use clean, and put together, my dad and grandfather (granddad being one who needed the kit) designed a better one that was cheaper, easier to use, lasted longer, and was easier to clean.

 

It’s not a huge business because it's specialized. But it's a better product and there are hospitals that pay us for the kits. It’s not an insubstantial sum of money. We even have a website for it.

 

This is just one example of how you can get a good product that was born out of inadequate products.

[Zmid]

...Really now?

 

My dad is a part of a small business (co-creator, actually) that does ostomy kits. You may not know what they are- but it's a thing you have to use when you get a specific operation. Because most of them were very hard to use clean, and put together, my dad and grandfather (granddad being one who needed the kit) designed a better one that was cheaper

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right there is where your entire point falls down. Of course, if a better quality product that's cheaper is available, they'll take those. Not really because it's a better quality product, but because it's cheaper. However, this happening is the exception, not the rule.

[ThetaOrionis01]

That's why raw, complete capitalism isn't good. We have to prevent this from happening by making certain laws. I believe, they are already made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or in other words, capitalism is inherently evil.

[draighox]

And how many companies would take the risk that enough people will buy them to make it worth their while to produce them?

Oh, I don't know... Ferrari maybe? Intel? Sony? But no, nobody buys from them, because nobody's interested in quality, price is the most important thing.

 

Or in other words, capitalism is inherently evil.

Maybe it's just me, but I still don't get it.

[Morgoth]

Or in other words, capitalism is inherently evil.

Maybe it's just me, but I still don't get it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You simply have to trace back the course of this discussion to see that Theta's statement is the only available logical consequence of the remarks in this thread. To illustrate this, let's have the relevant rmarks quoted in a direct sequence. The first one is Malchik's statement:

 

But to get back to capitalism being the best thing we have; given free rein most capitalistic societies move towards domination by a small number of monopolistic corporations. These do not promote competition but stifle it, often deliberately and in ways that are all but illegal. Think of Sony, Microsoft, Smithklein Beecham etc. This trend is becoming global as we all know. Thus I dispute the reasoning behind any assertion that capitalism is a torch bearer for competition.

 

This was followed by your point

 

That's why raw, complete capitalism isn't good. We have to prevent this from happening by making certain laws. I believe, they are already made.

 

Taking into account what Peregrine said on two earlier occasions

 

An idea that fails to account for basic human nature is fundamentally flawed. And when that failure means that it will inevitably cause massive harm if tried in the real world, that idea is evil.

 

It's evil because attempting to put it into place will inevitably cause massive harm. Now that we know the consequences, it can safely be judged evil.

 

there is only s single clear deduction: Capitalism is purely evil.

[draighox]

Well, could you tell me what harm capitalism will cause "if tried in the real world"? I believe, it's in the real world already, and I don't see any massive harm.

[Malchik]

The generic drugs used to combat most diseases in the west cost almost nothing to manufacture. They are sold at very high prices because of the capitalist monopolistic tendency prevalent in the pharmaceutical industry. The money is needed, so the companies tell you, to fund research. (This conveniently forgets the amounts paid to shareholders, senior management and lobbyists but let us forget that). The research is by and large carried out in third world countries because it would be illegal, or very much more expensive, to do it in the developed world. The 'guinea pigs' who suffer adverse reactions are paid a pittance for any suffering they may have and are then left. The drug when manufactured is not priced at an amount anyone without a reasonable income can afford. Thus the third world cannot treat the diseases and export them into the developed world.

 

Where no viable national health service (and a health service is a socialist and not a capitalist phenomenon) exists the diseases spread among the poorer groups and further into society in general.

 

More particularly the generic drugs are hidden behind expensive product hype so that people will buy product x for say £5 as opposed to the generic drug of which it is made for £0.50 and the pharmaceutical companies are trying to make it illegal for the generic drug to be sold for no other reason than it undercuts their profit margins.

 

This is an example of where a short-term profit motivation is actually causing a 'time-bomb' effect (pardon the cliche but I've been at work all day and I'm getting tired). Other examples are easy to come by. How many do you need to be convinced?

[draighox]

You listed the drawbacks of capitalism. None of them are completely evil. Hey, they aren't even drawbacks of the regime, they're faults of the people. We just have to make laws to prevent them. Capitalism is the best thing we have now.