Topic: Capitalism, why does it ignore the farmer? - page 4. (Read 3077 times)
There is almost no capitalism. A small group of people has captured all spheres of influence, capital does not play a significant role today. Many powerful companies with large capital can not exist today, because they are simply being expelled from the market by the "secret rulers of the world."
People should promote local products and be proud, it would a good way to have economic progress for any country. Stopping capitalism will help to balance the socio-economic hierarchy.
You are not talking about capitalism you are talking about globalization, buying and selling locally is still capitalism, by buying locally you will support the local economy but that does not mean you will be safe from globalization since a store could open shop and if it has better prices people will buy there. People should promote local products and be proud, it would a good way to have economic progress for any country. Stopping capitalism will help to balance the socio-economic hierarchy.
Capitalism has demonstrated that it is the only successful economic theory, with its competitors collapsing by the roadside over the last 100 years. Even China, which at one point was incorruptibly communist, has moved on. I think it is a bit too late to be talking about 'stopping capitalism'.
I agree with you, Capitalism is not perfect but has proven to be the best among all the economic theory, competition brings out the best in people just look at the rate of growth in tech companies in the past 15years, you can't get that if it is government controlled communism
The word is dead. It has no meaning that people agree on.
Instead why not use more words to actually describe policy and behavior?
You could talk about trade practices, motivational factors of organizations, currency issuance, taxation, societal norms, distribution of surplus and management of scarcity; there are many real issues.
"Capitalism" isn't one of them. In theory you could make a definition and use it, but in practice It's too polemic a term to save.
Oh and look at the rate of growth of tech companies, you'll see that intervention by money issuers and folks hiding behind the name of government agencies have played a huge role. Mostly in a negative sense if you ask me but that's a separate issue.
That's one way to look at it. However plenty of folks argue convincingly that we have never seen capitalism, seeing as nations exist (well, sorta) and markets are all manipulated, especially if fiat currency is involved. Some people associate capitalism with "free markets" and "efficient markets".. one doesn't have to look far to see goods and services which have different values at different places which wouldn't be possible if we did have free and efficient markets. My point is really just that we should speak specifically about what market conditions, political conditions, or whatever it is - directly and with plenty of words to convey our meanings. Throwing out a polemic like "capitalism" or "socialism" only puts a damper on effective communication.
People should promote local products and be proud, it would a good way to have economic progress for any country. Stopping capitalism will help to balance the socio-economic hierarchy.
Capitalism has demonstrated that it is the only successful economic theory, with its competitors collapsing by the roadside over the last 100 years. Even China, which at one point was incorruptibly communist, has moved on. I think it is a bit too late to be talking about 'stopping capitalism'.
I agree with you, Capitalism is not perfect but has proven to be the best among all the economic theory, competition brings out the best in people just look at the rate of growth in tech companies in the past 15years, you can't get that if it is government controlled communism
The word is dead. It has no meaning that people agree on.
Instead why not use more words to actually describe policy and behavior?
You could talk about trade practices, motivational factors of organizations, currency issuance, taxation, societal norms, distribution of surplus and management of scarcity; there are many real issues.
"Capitalism" isn't one of them. In theory you could make a definition and use it, but in practice It's too polemic a term to save.
Oh and look at the rate of growth of tech companies, you'll see that intervention by money issuers and folks hiding behind the name of government agencies have played a huge role. Mostly in a negative sense if you ask me but that's a separate issue.
That's one way to look at it. However plenty of folks argue convincingly that we have never seen capitalism, seeing as nations exist (well, sorta) and markets are all manipulated, especially if fiat currency is involved. Some people associate capitalism with "free markets" and "efficient markets".. one doesn't have to look far to see goods and services which have different values at different places which wouldn't be possible if we did have free and efficient markets. My point is really just that we should speak specifically about what market conditions, political conditions, or whatever it is - directly and with plenty of words to convey our meanings. Throwing out a polemic like "capitalism" or "socialism" only puts a damper on effective communication.
People should promote local products and be proud, it would a good way to have economic progress for any country. Stopping capitalism will help to balance the socio-economic hierarchy.
Capitalism has demonstrated that it is the only successful economic theory, with its competitors collapsing by the roadside over the last 100 years. Even China, which at one point was incorruptibly communist, has moved on. I think it is a bit too late to be talking about 'stopping capitalism'.
I agree with you, Capitalism is not perfect but has proven to be the best among all the economic theory, competition brings out the best in people just look at the rate of growth in tech companies in the past 15years, you can't get that if it is government controlled communism
The word is dead. It has no meaning that people agree on.
Instead why not use more words to actually describe policy and behavior?
You could talk about trade practices, motivational factors of organizations, currency issuance, taxation, societal norms, distribution of surplus and management of scarcity; there are many real issues.
"Capitalism" isn't one of them. In theory you could make a definition and use it, but in practice It's too polemic a term to save.
Oh and look at the rate of growth of tech companies, you'll see that intervention by money issuers and folks hiding behind the name of government agencies have played a huge role. Mostly in a negative sense if you ask me but that's a separate issue.
The progress already existed in the world, not everwhere at same time, but it always existed. And when this progress became more intense was after the industrial revolution, when the capitalism became strong. That is a good thing, not perfect, ok, but it gave the boost the world needed to advance and discover many new things.
capitalisme is not good in poor country
because product price is control company , goverment can't intervention, so product price can high price
because product price is control company , goverment can't intervention, so product price can high price
For me, capitalism is not that bad especially in poor countries. Because with this way, the economy of that poor country will be in good hands if they will support their very own products but the thing is that, if they are actually poor they really need some help from foreign investors. And with the price control, it's the government power whether it is with local or foreign products and services.
People should promote local products and be proud, it would a good way to have economic progress for any country. Stopping capitalism will help to balance the socio-economic hierarchy.
Capitalism has demonstrated that it is the only successful economic theory, with its competitors collapsing by the roadside over the last 100 years. Even China, which at one point was incorruptibly communist, has moved on. I think it is a bit too late to be talking about 'stopping capitalism'.
I agree with you, Capitalism is not perfect but has proven to be the best among all the economic theory, competition brings out the best in people just look at the rate of growth in tech companies in the past 15years, you can't get that if it is government controlled communism
The word is dead. It has no meaning that people agree on.
Instead why not use more words to actually describe policy and behavior?
You could talk about trade practices, motivational factors of organizations, currency issuance, taxation, societal norms, distribution of surplus and management of scarcity; there are many real issues.
"Capitalism" isn't one of them. In theory you could make a definition and use it, but in practice It's too polemic a term to save.
Oh and look at the rate of growth of tech companies, you'll see that intervention by money issuers and folks hiding behind the name of government agencies have played a huge role. Mostly in a negative sense if you ask me but that's a separate issue.
People should promote local products and be proud, it would a good way to have economic progress for any country. Stopping capitalism will help to balance the socio-economic hierarchy.
Capitalism has demonstrated that it is the only successful economic theory, with its competitors collapsing by the roadside over the last 100 years. Even China, which at one point was incorruptibly communist, has moved on. I think it is a bit too late to be talking about 'stopping capitalism'.
I agree with you, Capitalism is not perfect but has proven to be the best among all the economic theory, competition brings out the best in people just look at the rate of growth in tech companies in the past 15years, you can't get that if it is government controlled communism
The word is dead. It has no meaning that people agree on.
Instead why not use more words to actually describe policy and behavior?
You could talk about trade practices, motivational factors of organizations, currency issuance, taxation, societal norms, distribution of surplus and management of scarcity; there are many real issues.
"Capitalism" isn't one of them. In theory you could make a definition and use it, but in practice It's too polemic a term to save.
Oh and look at the rate of growth of tech companies, you'll see that intervention by money issuers and folks hiding behind the name of government agencies have played a huge role. Mostly in a negative sense if you ask me but that's a separate issue.
capitalisme is not good in poor country
because product price is control company , goverment can't intervention, so product price can high price
capitalism is bad not only for poor countries, to be honest it is bad for most of the countries, just look at china for example, it's a communist country and its economy is just booming and it is growing at a very rapid pace, ussr was also a communist country and a lot of people were really happy living in it, but then capitalism came in and changed everything completely, there appeared tons of rich people and the poor people are becoming even poorer. because product price is control company , goverment can't intervention, so product price can high price
Capitalism in its basic incarnation (profits above everything) is inhuman economic system. Fortunately there is no country on Earth which embraced laissez-faire idea completely.
Pure capitalism is a myth, the amount of economic and social regulations we have now, effectively dimmed principles of true capitalism.
But it is not capitalism's fault that people destroyed their local industry and factories and everything you buy is "Made in China".
I am afraid that Op has on mind modern consumerism rather than capitalism.
Pure capitalism is a myth, the amount of economic and social regulations we have now, effectively dimmed principles of true capitalism.
But it is not capitalism's fault that people destroyed their local industry and factories and everything you buy is "Made in China".
I am afraid that Op has on mind modern consumerism rather than capitalism.
capitalisme is not good in poor country
because product price is control company , goverment can't intervention, so product price can high price
because product price is control company , goverment can't intervention, so product price can high price
People should promote local products and be proud, it would a good way to have economic progress for any country. Stopping capitalism will help to balance the socio-economic hierarchy.
Yeah right. If all people promote and use their own local product is a good way to of economic progress for any country. But many people in my country want to buy products that is from other country like phones, gadgets and many more to look them so rich even if they don't have enough money. So How to persuade that kind of mindset?
People should promote local products and be proud, it would a good way to have economic progress for any country. Stopping capitalism will help to balance the socio-economic hierarchy.
Yeah right. If all people promote and use their own local product is a good way to of economic progress for any country. But many people in my country want to buy products that is from other country like phones, gadgets and many more to look them so rich even if they don't have enough money. So How to persuade that kind of mindset?
Capitalism - one of the most successful bussiness and economy theorys. Capitalism are based on private ownership that means of production and their operation for profit. A lot of countries like UAE , US, China, Japan have free market for people who are intrested to earn. And people who are private owners or having ther own bussiness they would never change they idea of "capitalism" to any other "communism" ideology, because of opportunities
No doubt that those countries seems to have a very good economic stability especially with Japan, I admire this country for being capitalist.
If we are going to compare countries that are implementing capitalism to non-capitalist, capitalists countries are very successful.
And those that aren't, seems to be dependent on other countries product, shipment, import-export economy.
I did some research and there are countries that did this before but changed it recently and it was a regret for them for changing capitalism.
People will support their very own government and the government will support their people with products and other things.
It's a win-win situation for a country that has this type of economy though most of the countries are implementing free-economy.
One idea behind capitalism is, in a country with 10,000 people.
Every one of those 10,000 people have the right and freedom to start their own business, innovate an industry and own(copyright/patent) the ideas or inventions they create.
Under capitalism anyone could start a business that eventually goes on to become the next apple or google if they're smart and willing to put in the work.
Socialism is the opposite to this.
In a socialist country with 10,000 people, only a fraction of those 10,000 have the freedom to start their own business or own their ideas/inventions.
One might say capitalism is more effective at harnessing the collective intelligence, innovation and resources of a population which makes it s a better system.
While socialism hinders innovation and advancement.
This could be why capitalist south korea has a good economy and modern conveniences.
While socialist north korea lacks electricity and many basic modern amenities.
At the time, capitalism was considered in my country as a crime against the people. But then we did not know much and did not understand. Developing countries have always affects the well-being of people. But under capitalism it is a lot easier to do. Every one of those 10,000 people have the right and freedom to start their own business, innovate an industry and own(copyright/patent) the ideas or inventions they create.
Under capitalism anyone could start a business that eventually goes on to become the next apple or google if they're smart and willing to put in the work.
Socialism is the opposite to this.
In a socialist country with 10,000 people, only a fraction of those 10,000 have the freedom to start their own business or own their ideas/inventions.
One might say capitalism is more effective at harnessing the collective intelligence, innovation and resources of a population which makes it s a better system.
While socialism hinders innovation and advancement.
This could be why capitalist south korea has a good economy and modern conveniences.
While socialist north korea lacks electricity and many basic modern amenities.
One idea behind capitalism is, in a country with 10,000 people.
Every one of those 10,000 people have the right and freedom to start their own business, innovate an industry and own(copyright/patent) the ideas or inventions they create.
Under capitalism anyone could start a business that eventually goes on to become the next apple or google if they're smart and willing to put in the work.
Socialism is the opposite to this.
In a socialist country with 10,000 people, only a fraction of those 10,000 have the freedom to start their own business or own their ideas/inventions.
One might say capitalism is more effective at harnessing the collective intelligence, innovation and resources of a population which makes it s a better system.
While socialism hinders innovation and advancement.
This could be why capitalist south korea has a good economy and modern conveniences.
While socialist north korea lacks electricity and many basic modern amenities.
Every one of those 10,000 people have the right and freedom to start their own business, innovate an industry and own(copyright/patent) the ideas or inventions they create.
Under capitalism anyone could start a business that eventually goes on to become the next apple or google if they're smart and willing to put in the work.
Socialism is the opposite to this.
In a socialist country with 10,000 people, only a fraction of those 10,000 have the freedom to start their own business or own their ideas/inventions.
One might say capitalism is more effective at harnessing the collective intelligence, innovation and resources of a population which makes it s a better system.
While socialism hinders innovation and advancement.
This could be why capitalist south korea has a good economy and modern conveniences.
While socialist north korea lacks electricity and many basic modern amenities.
One good point posted by Docnaster is that people should promote local products and more important buy local. It doesn't make sense to import products from the opposite of the world. Why buy milk from 10 hours driving when there are farmers in you area. Farmers who struggle to sell their milk for a decent price (as for exemple in Europe the price is controlled by europe, farmers don't decide the price they want to sell, crazy isn't?) There are farmers who for exemple, producing 1L of milk cost them 0.50$ and they are forced to sell it at $0.35. Where are the profits ?
If the big firms were acting like this they would go bankrupt in no time... There are farmers working 60 hours per week and earning less than someone lazy ass and feed by the gov. money each month. Now since some years there are companies that finally realized buying local not only help the local economy but it cost them cheaper at the end. Less import cost, less this, less that.
If the big firms were acting like this they would go bankrupt in no time... There are farmers working 60 hours per week and earning less than someone lazy ass and feed by the gov. money each month. Now since some years there are companies that finally realized buying local not only help the local economy but it cost them cheaper at the end. Less import cost, less this, less that.
It is not the fault of big milk companies but we cannot blame the farmers either or the government. But the moment we saw this problems at hand we must in our power to do something about it. The thing we should do is to organize the farmers and create an association and tap the government for assistance. That way those farmers will upgrade their technology while increasing production and capturing a large market.
Capitalism is also about extremely good marketing, which to me works to reverse the traditional supply and demand rule. I lived for most of my life in Asia, where food products from Europe are marketed as "better" than local produce. Marketing makes a product like muesli suddenly desirable when local fresh produce is a fraction of the cost but people suddenly demand European products because they now believe they need them.
Capitalist marketing creates demand, and then gets the supply to meet it. Local produce is driven down in price to attract more sales but it never works.
One good point posted by Docnaster is that people should promote local products and more important buy local. It doesn't make sense to import products from the opposite of the world. Why buy milk from 10 hours driving when there are farmers in you area. Farmers who struggle to sell their milk for a decent price (as for exemple in Europe the price is controlled by europe, farmers don't decide the price they want to sell, crazy isn't?) There are farmers who for exemple, producing 1L of milk cost them 0.50$ and they are forced to sell it at $0.35. Where are the profits ?
If the big firms were acting like this they would go bankrupt in no time... There are farmers working 60 hours per week and earning less than someone lazy ass and feed by the gov. money each month. Now since some years there are companies that finally realized buying local not only help the local economy but it cost them cheaper at the end. Less import cost, less this, less that.
If the big firms were acting like this they would go bankrupt in no time... There are farmers working 60 hours per week and earning less than someone lazy ass and feed by the gov. money each month. Now since some years there are companies that finally realized buying local not only help the local economy but it cost them cheaper at the end. Less import cost, less this, less that.
It is not the fault of big milk companies but we cannot blame the farmers either or the government. But the moment we saw this problems at hand we must in our power to do something about it. The thing we should do is to organize the farmers and create an association and tap the government for assistance. That way those farmers will upgrade their technology while increasing production and capturing a large market.
Capitalism - one of the most successful bussiness and economy theorys. Capitalism are based on private ownership that means of production and their operation for profit. A lot of countries like UAE , US, China, Japan have free market for people who are intrested to earn. And people who are private owners or having ther own bussiness they would never change they idea of "capitalism" to any other "communism" ideology, because of opportunities
No doubt that those countries seems to have a very good economic stability especially with Japan, I admire this country for being capitalist.
If we are going to compare countries that are implementing capitalism to non-capitalist, capitalists countries are very successful.
And those that aren't, seems to be dependent on other countries product, shipment, import-export economy.
One good point posted by Docnaster is that people should promote local products and more important buy local. It doesn't make sense to import products from the opposite of the world. Why buy milk from 10 hours driving when there are farmers in you area. Farmers who struggle to sell their milk for a decent price (as for exemple in Europe the price is controlled by europe, farmers don't decide the price they want to sell, crazy isn't?) There are farmers who for exemple, producing 1L of milk cost them 0.50$ and they are forced to sell it at $0.35. Where are the profits ?
If the big firms were acting like this they would go bankrupt in no time... There are farmers working 60 hours per week and earning less than someone lazy ass and feed by the gov. money each month. Now since some years there are companies that finally realized buying local not only help the local economy but it cost them cheaper at the end. Less import cost, less this, less that.
If the big firms were acting like this they would go bankrupt in no time... There are farmers working 60 hours per week and earning less than someone lazy ass and feed by the gov. money each month. Now since some years there are companies that finally realized buying local not only help the local economy but it cost them cheaper at the end. Less import cost, less this, less that.
It is not the fault of big milk companies but we cannot blame the farmers either or the government. But the moment we saw this problems at hand we must in our power to do something about it. The thing we should do is to organize the farmers and create an association and tap the government for assistance. That way those farmers will upgrade their technology while increasing production and capturing a large market.
Jump to: