Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Top 10 Disadvantages to Capitalism (from listverse.com)

rated by 0 users
This post has 22 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 232
Points 4,905
fegeldolfy Posted: Fri, Sep 14 2012 10:50 PM

Thought this was,um,interesting.

 

http://listverse.com/2012/01/16/top-10-disadvantages-to-capitalism/comment-page-4/

 

The comments were reassuring at least.

 

 

Thoughts?

  • | Post Points: 80
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Fri, Sep 14 2012 10:55 PM

I hope that no one on here actually needs for us to spend time dissecting this article. In fact, I consider this a parody, given the straw man that it is.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
John James replied on Fri, Sep 14 2012 11:12 PM

Top 10 disadvantages to being alive:

10. Atrophy.

9. Having to eat.

8. Being a slave to a sociological need to be social.

7. Danger.

6. Scarcity.

5. Being vulnurable to toxic substances...such as chlorine and Rosie O'Donnell.

4. Death.

3. Breathing.

2. Defecation.

1. Being exposed bullshit top 10 lists on the Internet.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Fri, Sep 14 2012 11:21 PM
I dont mean to be hypercritical, but is 1. a necessary condition of being alive? cf Freedom4Me, for instance.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Fri, Sep 14 2012 11:22 PM

 

4. Death.

3. Breathing.

2. Defecation.

1. Being exposed bullshit top 10 lists on the Internet.

Idk how you defecate, but for me it's not worse than death XD

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
John James replied on Fri, Sep 14 2012 11:33 PM

It's more of a disadvantage to being alive.  Death only happens once.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Fri, Sep 14 2012 11:43 PM

i think they meant communism or mixed market but wrote capitalism on accident.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sat, Sep 15 2012 2:56 AM

*sigh - OP wouldn't happen to be the same person as kylio and alsdjasfkj?? You could at least try to be more imaginative in choosing "different" screen names.

The article conflates capitalism with cronyism. Cronyism is a centerpiece of critical attack by any true friend of capitalism. The whole meaning of "free" in "free market" is precisely that - a market unhampered by thugs in suit-jackets picking winners and losers, regardless of whether their letterhead says "Wall Street" "K Street" or "Pennsylvania Avenue." While net worth and income are not in themselves indicators of foul play, the fact is that the entire corporate system is entangled with the system of lobbies, regulatory agencies and so on. Today, the entire US market is hampered by government intrusion, so that there is hardly anywhere you can point and say, "see, here is an example of real capitalism."

The canard that the US is "free market" by contrast to the rest of the world's socialism can no longer even be stated with a straight face. With a debt-to-GDP ratio rivaling Greece, stratospheric peacetime military expenditures, unfunded social programs, nationalized health care, and so on, we're worse today than the most socialistic European countries. When you factor in our outrageous tax code and iron-boot enforcement regime, the US today is hardly freer than Soviet Russia in its heyday.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 232
Points 4,905

What? No, I'm not a troll.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sat, Sep 15 2012 7:42 PM

Would you actually like us to analyze this?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 232
Points 4,905
If you want, I just thought it was interesting because it seemed to be the cliche anti capitalist rant.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sat, Sep 15 2012 8:58 PM

Oh, yes. Thanks. It's actually an amazing example to dissect for the general reader, but for this forum it's just peanuts. I have bookmarked it to do a thorough critique of this and post on my website.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

Inequality
Capitalism is about the only mechanism that people have to become rich. To say that capitalism is the cause of income disparity just does not make any sense. If it was not for capitalism everyone would be poor. Capitalism is what people use to engage in what is called social mobility. Why is equality something we want anyway? It is just not pragmatic to discuss total economic equality.

Waste
Waste is a result of consumption and production process and not a result of capitalism. Any economic system will have waste. Capitalism has done a lot to alleviate waste but government still has monopoly in some areas of waste. Look at the result of that, we have massive swamp of waste in the pacific ocean. Waste is just a fact of life and not specific to capitalism.

Starvation
Capitalism is the mechanism that everyone uses to feed themselves, unless they grow their own food and eat it directly. Without capitalism you will struggle to survive. It is not capitalism fault that it is not pragmatic to feed the world in a controlled manner. Each individual has to set out to for fill his own ends. Survival of the fittest is the way of the world. Capitalism is probably the signal factor that is going to alleviate poverty and starvation in the world.

Anti-Social
The profit motive has little to do with charity, it is not a one or the other sort of scenario. Profit motive is a function of business. Charity is charity. The primary factor in our current society that might contribute to an individual being less charitable, is taxation. I am less charitable because the state already takes 35% of my income. If I had that 35% I think I would be more charitable.

Danger
This is has nothing to do with capitalism but a reality of life. In some ways there is always a risk trade off, even if you are walking to the shop, just most of the time the risk is non existent. But to blame capitalism for the possibility of injury is ridiculous.

Undemocratic
I am not sure how corporations manipulating the state for unfair advantages equates to capitalism being undemocratic. Surely that would mean that the government is corrupt? Which would be an actual problem of the state which just so happens to use a failed democratic system to elect its clearly corrupt representatives. Who said that democracy was helpful or effective in archiving objectives. In my opinion and many other people opinion democracy is not a very good concept. In my opinion democracy is best kept on the personal and local level. Where matters are insignificant. Like voting with your friends on what movie to watch or what pizza to buy.

Pollution
Even if there was no capitalism and everything was magically controlled by as single entity with the clear objective to diminish pollution. They would still not be able to avoid polluting. Pollution is a problem but government makes it worse.

War
This is a problem of the state not private industry. Without the state mechanism they would have little chance of getting away with wars. Without the tax base there would be no way the private industry would attempt to use private military to take over a country. Sure there is a underlying profit motive in it all but I don't think you could say that wars are a problem of capitalism.

Dictatorship
That is just a basic misunderstanding of how a business works. Rooted in the marxist view or property rights and labour. Where labour is exploitative and slavery etc. Which is twisted and ridiculous in my opinion. Without the ceo and all the elements that make up a business structure the business would not be able to function effectively. If there was no business owner then there would be no business and no jobs for the workers.
 
Propaganda
This is a problem of the state, calling advertising propaganda is a bit of a misuse of the term propaganda as it was specifically originated to mean political information not product information.
 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 239
Points 5,820

 

Jack Roberts:
Each individual has to set out to for fill his own ends. Survival of the fittest is the way of the world.

In the future, you'd probably want to refrain from using capitalism and the term "survival of the fittest" anywhere near each other. Many people do not want to live in a society where survival of the fittest is the name of the game; they see it as brutish, uncompassionate, and archaic. The notion that capitalism is a survival of the fittest is a bit of a fallacy, and one that is widely help by the very people you are arguing against in your post. Among competitors in business, one could say that, to some degree, capitalism is a survival of the fittest, but compare this with socialist Russia. This was a game of survival of the fittest among the masses of Russia's people.

The fact is that (1) calling capitalism a game of "survival of the fittest" is just bad PR, and (2) the dominance of the state resembles the wild animal kingdom much more than capitalism does, due to its sheer lack of goods to go around. Freedom creates prosperity, and subjugation creates poverty; a trait which often reverts man back to his more primitive inclinations of "my well-fare" over yours, at all times.   

 

"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?" 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

The Texas Trigger:
In the future, you'd probably want to refrain from using capitalism and the term "survival of the fittest" anywhere near each other.

See here.

 

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sun, Sep 16 2012 2:31 PM

That list had to have been compiled by someone who just became a frequent Crimethinc reader at the ripe age of 15 while listening to some Dead Kennedy's.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 239
Points 5,820

 

John James:
See here.

Better proof of my point could not have been forged on the smithing stone of thor, delivered to Earth on flaming chariots of fire, and uploaded by God himself. Holy shit that bitch is stupid. If you think she, or any one like her, could have survived pre-industrial revolution, I think you need to re-evaluate your premises.

 

"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?" 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Sun, Sep 16 2012 2:48 PM

Inequality there is no equality in life and capitalism is the only system that can work to support peoples needs without the use of initiation of violence. people take care of each others needs through mutual benefiting relationships


Waste capitalism would be the least wasteful system as eager enterprenours develup new ways to use energy and make the most out of material/ maximise profits by maximises energy and use of resources.


Starvation capitalism would create a system of free trade and surplus, thus allowing food to feed people. competition allows multiple parties to grow food and compete to create best practices and if one business fails, other business will succede and food will be created


Anti-Social capitalism requires pro social partnerships and mutual benefiting relationships. people profit by meeting needs and voluntary trade. human nature is to work together and capitalism creates a free and voluntary way to do so without violence.


Danger capitalism creates ways to create safer environments through enterprenourship. the relationship of contracts and voluntary trade will also increase safty as people will not do work they think of as unneccicarily unsafe
.

Undemocratic people vote with consent, democracy  is not a good system at all


Pollution capitalsim encourages people to use the most of resources and find ways to reduce polution


War there is no war of agression in capitalism thus capitalism cannot produce a war


Dictatorship people get to choose by consent how they live, people can leave a situation if they don't like what is going on

 
Propaganda this is a state thing, companies can advertise and false ads will be weeded out
 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

The Texas Trigger:

In the future, you'd probably want to refrain from using capitalism and the term "survival of the fittest" anywhere near each other. Many people do not want to live in a society where survival of the fittest is the name of the game; they see it as brutish, uncompassionate, and archaic. The notion that capitalism is a survival of the fittest is a bit of a fallacy, and one that is widely help by the very people you are arguing against in your post. Among competitors in business, one could say that, to some degree, capitalism is a survival of the fittest, but compare this with socialist Russia. This was a game of survival of the fittest among the masses of Russia's people.

The fact is that (1) calling capitalism a game of "survival of the fittest" is just bad PR, and (2) the dominance of the state resembles the wild animal kingdom much more than capitalism does, due to its sheer lack of goods to go around. Freedom creates prosperity, and subjugation creates poverty; a trait which often reverts man back to his more primitive inclinations of "my well-fare" over yours, at all times. 

I was referring to the way life is and the way nature is. Although I used the phrase in the context of discussing capitalism, I did not say that capitalism is survival of the fittest. What they are trying to say is that capitalism is at fault for people starving. I was trying to say that it is the way of the world that all animals are starving. What I was trying to say is that it is a fact of life not a result of capitalism. But I agree that some people might not like the fact that life has those sorts of risks. But I don't mind that they do not like it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

John James:

This is a pointless post.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, Sep 16 2012 4:06 PM

@Jack Roberts: Not at all. The point is that it is prosperity that tempers the natural selection principle. Socialism leads to privation, not prosperity. It is in privation where the natural selection principle asserts itself most insistently. Human compassion is never lacking. It is not lack of compassion but lack of resources with which to express that compassion that is the problem to be solved. The CW is completely upside-down and backwards on this point.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Jack Roberts:
John James:
This is a pointless post.

Funny, the person whom it was directed to didn't seem to think so.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 11:09 PM

 

Nike Air Max Force 1 Lux 07, the selection of 100% natural alligator as a raw material, carefully crafted handmade by Italian craftsmen, the most surprising signage and shoe buckles are 18K gold material. Of course, as the highlight of the 25th anniversary of the pricing reached the unprecedented 16,000 yuan, also issued the highest price paid for a pair of shoes sold in China.

http://www.nikeairmax90hotsale.com/                  Nike Air Max

http://www.nikeairmax90hotsale.com/                  Nike Air Max 90

http://www.nikeairmax90hotsale.com/                  Air Max 2012

Page 1 of 1 (23 items) | RSS