Pablo22510 wrote:
*changes tactics*GreatbigHippo wrote:
Economics has nothing to do with civil liberties. I agree that capitalism was designed with good intentions, but you cannot underestimate the power of greed. It's like the atom, it can be harnessed for good, but it needs to be contained or else it will destroy you. Capitalism does not have sufficient containment.
Look, I'm not going to argue for capitalism because you obviously hate its guts, and nothing can convince that it's good. But let me argue against Communism. Communism, in essence, is a very good idea, but an idea that cannot and won't even work. Communism is like an abstract painting: when you want it to have a meaning, and therefore 'work', it loses its abstractness, or in this case its Communism. You cannot take from the rich and give to the poor, because they'll just leave. And even if you prevent them from leaving, their wealth cannot lasst forever. Another flaw is the lack of incentives. Even Nikita Khruschev once said "Call it what you will, incentives are what get people to work harder." A functioning society needs incentives. If not, efficiency is massively reduced, and the country won't do anything.
Payment should be determined by a combination of how dangerous or difficult the job is and how important it is. Industries can be owned by the government. What I described here isn't Marxism, but it is still a form of communism. The basic idea has potential, it just needs to be given a chance.
Forum Gang Premier
you are a balls
you are a balls